Young, wealthy Internet companies like Google shouldn’t expect to get “special favors” from network operators that have sunk billions of dollars into fiber investments, the head of a smaller cable company said Monday.
Rocco Commisso, CEO of New York-based Mediacom Communications, delivered the latest commentary in the ongoing Net neutrality fray at an annual Washington, D.C., summit organized by the American Cable Association, a lobbying group for small and medium-size independent cable companies. Mediacom, which bills itself as the nation’s eighth-largest cable television provider, counts 1.5 million basic-cable subscribers across 23 states, according to its Web site.
Net neutrality advocates–which include Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com and a medley of mostly left-leaning consumer groups–argue that such a business model would lead to increased costs for Web surfers and would assault the Internet’s historically open architecture.
Why you should care about net neutrality.
Thank’s for posting that Slate article. To be honest, I’ve read a lot about net neutrality, and up until reading that slate article, it was all a bunch of “The sky is falling!” hype. But the slate author really laid things out well, and I finally feel like I understand the issue. I’m not sure I agree that the sky is falling, but at least I finally know what the politicians are trying to do (and not do, depending on who you listen to).
Let Google etc charge the network providers for using their (Google’s) content.
Bandwidth is getting cheaper all the time it should be practically free eventually. That’s what is getting the CEOs agitated.
Right. We should hand over control of the internet to the FCC, which can use force to tell us what we can do, rather than business which can charge us for what we want to do, but can’t lock us up if we decide to go elsewhere. I’m all for that!
Another point of view
I read the article, and I’m not convinced. First off the author compares the net to I-95 (highway). This comparison fails in so many ways (public vs. private funding, amount of competition, relative ease of duplication) that it is laughable.
And many private “common carriers” have been discriminating for years, so I don’t see the precident. (cable companies, put the channels that pay them on, data/telco’s prioritize their “voice” and other point-to-point channels over general data, even though it runs over the SAME physical structure).
And lastly, as said before, governmental regulation over private enterprises in a competitive environment virtually never benefits the consumer.
“governmental regulation over private enterprises in a competitive environment virtually never benefits the consumer”
The government puts restrictions on people all the time. You’re not allowed to build on your land without permission. You’re not allowed to burn on your land without permission. You’re only allowed to drive your car unless if you follow certain conditions and procedures. You’re not allowed to start a business on your land without permission.
There are laws restricting every aspect of our lives, but these laws rarely apply to big business. Why? Because they have the influence in Congress to get what they want.
Until this country becomes a libertarian utopia, the government is full within its rights to create laws that protect citizens.
What right does an ISP have to sell a 3.5 megabit service to citizens but then intentionally slow down that service for sites that won’t pay up? Are you saying corporations have the right to lie about their services?
The answer to this problem is easy: If ISPs are not making enough money to pay for their precious infrastructure, they should RAISE THEIR RATES! God, how friggin’ easy was that?! Absolutely no one in the net neutrality debate is telling ISPs what they can charge. They’re merely saying that if you charge consumers for a service, you should deliver that service and NOT intentionally slow it down to extort more money out of a third party.
I agree with SN’s points. There is a wrinkle to this competitive market though. In too many jurisdictions there is no competition for cable, telephone (excepting cell), electrical service, or natural gas.
Where I live, no one competes for my cable, I either take what is offered at the price offered or do without. Sure, there is satellite. Which can be finicky and is generally more expensive. If I don’t like the natural gas supplier, I could go with propane. Again, a more expensive application with its own hassles. If the telephone won’t allow me a T1 line, I won’t be able to get one period. If the electric utility won’t allow me a 550 V 3Ph service, I don’t get one.
A word of disclosure here. I get my TV and Cable Broadband from MediaCom. I like them and have only praise for the service and tech support. What started out as 1.5 Mg D/L in 2002, is now above 4.25 Mg. I think the price went up about $5 in that time and is about $90 combined.
Continuing from #6 in regards to #5…
I figured out a free market solution to this entire problem. In other words, I found a way for ISPs to gouge both the consumer AND large sites like Google.
Let’s assume I run an ISP. I could advertise it as a two tiered system. 1.5 megabits for internet services and 3 megabits for “advanced” services. The 1.5 would obviously be the throttled internet. While the 3 would be reserved for sites willing to pay for the extra bandwidth.
As long as the consumer gets what he pays I have no problem with ISPs gouging everyone.
Still, I don’t know what’s stopping Google, Amazon, etc from gouging ISPs?! “If you want your users to access our sites, you’re going to have to cough up some dough!”
It seems to me that the results of packet discrimination have the potential to be unpredictable and sometimes magnified when packets travel through a path controlled by multiple “discriminators.” There are ISPs who may provide just the last mile of the connection, plus there are a number of backbone providers like Sprint and Level 3, and all seem to claim the right to prioritize traffic according to their own plans. I see a real can of worms here.
And lastly, as said before, governmental regulation over private enterprises in a competitive environment virtually never benefits the consumer.
But what about barriers to entry of a market?
There are existing search sites besides Google [ Who knew?! ], and there may be new “Google-killers” developed [Microsoft seems to think so].
If Google pays, so it’s customers can have higher-bandwidth, Google’s competitors will be perceived as being slower – unless they also pay for “premium” consideration.
If Google pays, any new competitor trying to establish itself will also have to pay – or never get off the ground.
What about competitive pressures on ISPs?
If Google/Amazon/Yahoo/MSN decides to only pay Comcast, but not Verizon, [figuring Cable’s higher speeds would allow an obvious differential with “premium” speeds] how will Verizon compete for my business?
How about the reverse, if they decide that with DSL-speeds already being lower than Cable, that DSL customers would be more adversely effected by throttling?
Retaliation from the big sites?
If Verizon wants money from Google/Amazon/Yahoo/MSN, but Earthlink doesn’t, wouldn’t the sites consider subsidizing/buying Earthlink – and then undercut Verizon on pricing? Or would they just encourage people to switch to providers who don’t charge the tariff?
As an incentive to switch, could Goggle only provide its “beta” services to non-Tariff ISPs?
I can now see where the rumors about Google having all those trailers, and buying “dark fiber”, have been coming from. It makes sense to leap-frog the existing infrastructure, if that infrastructure is trying to extort money from you. 🙂
At the very least: If the ISPs are going to throttle the geese that lay the golden eggs – they should have to disclose it to me, preferrably before I sign-on with them.
They should have a notice on their webpage giving the current status of throttling on a per-site basis – for every site they are throttling -regardless of the “rated” speed of my connection, i.e.
Google: max = 500-kbps
Yahoo: max = 3-Mbps
Amazon: max = 1-Mbps
Dvorak Uncensored: max = 56-kbps
etc
That way, I would know that a site wasn’t dog-slow because of software problems, but because they refuse to pay blackmail. 🙂