15 Comments

1. Jock Gill wrote:

   If we want to insure our competitiveness in the international landscape, it is vital that there be a high capacity public backbone that will insure every citizen a minimum of 100 megabits of symmetrical internet access. This will serve very much the same function as offering every citizen the right to choose a government operated healthcare system. It will keep the game honest.

   Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
2. Brett Glass wrote:

   I agree with this comment in one respect: it (or at least some parts of it) are, in my opinion, stupid.

   Its biggest flaw: it contains a plea that the FCC prohibit network management by Internet providers. To wit, it asks the agency to “prohibit discriminatory or preferential treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents.”

   Sounds good on the surface — unless one understands its full implications.

   Since the information identifying (among other things) the protocol being used is part of the packet contents, this would make it impossible to prioritize time-sensitive traffic.

   Likewise, if providers could not route packets to a more direct connection or send them at a higher speed when they were bound to or from specific addresses, it would be impossible for a content or service provider which required enhanced performance (e.g. low latency or jitter) to pay a surcharge for higher quality of service. This restriction (which would be the equivalent of prohibiting UPS from offering “red,” “blue,” and “ground” service) would kill innovation by precluding cutting edge technologies from ever seeing the light of day. It would also effectively outlaw content delivery networks.

   The comment likewise pays homage to competition, but ignores the fact that the regulation it recommends would fall most heavily on competitive providers and likely would force them out of business, creating a duopoly.

   There seem to be quite a few people who, perhaps due to fearmongering by lobbyists for large corporations, seem bound and determined to straitjacket the Internet with regulations. Alas, they apparently forget that the Internet could not have existed were it not originally designed as a loose federation of networks, each of which was subject to DIFFERENT acceptable use policies and management strategies. (Were it not designed this way, educational institutions, government agencies, and private companies could not have signed on, because no one set of policies could have fit all of them.)

   They also appear to forget that the best way to discourage something is to regulate it. If the signatories on this statement truly wish to see universal broadband deployment, they must not “monkey wrench” this goal by hobbling the rollout of new technologies and prohibiting innovation.

   –Brett Glass, LARIAT

   Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
3. Bob Frankston wrote:

   It is indeed important to avoid confusing “Broadband” with Internet-style connectivity. We also need to remember that the Internet is something we create by our own actions — it’s not just something we access.

   Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 9:17 pm | Permalink
4. isen wrote:

   I would not like to see Brett Glass put out of business. I think small Internet connection providers like the one Brett runs perform a valuable service. Therefore I would favor a provision that would exempt small Internet connection providers like the one Brett operates from any rules, “prohibit[ing] discriminatory or preferential treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents.” I am not sure where “small” starts, but it’d be my hope that where small Internet connection providers have difficulty getting the “middle mile” connections to the Internet they need at reasonable prices so that they need to manage their network strictly to stay in business, that they would not be forbidden from doing that by network neutrality laws!

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 12:26 am | Permalink
5. Brett Glass wrote:

   David, while I appreciate your willingness to make a special exception for small providers, this is not the best solution. Start carving out specific exemptions, and the law begins to look like Swiss cheese and less and less like it is based on sound and fair principles. It is also unable to adapt to rapidly changing or unforeseen circumstances.

   The best solution is to encourage robust, fair competition among providers of ALL sizes, so that the market itself can deal with practices that consumers find undesirable (including ones not contemplated by your proposed regulation).

   The only government intervention that is needed at all is the prohibition of anticompetitive practices (which include — but are not limited to — price squeezing, price gouging in the “middle mile” by ILECs, and refusal to deal by backbone owners).

   By supporting so-called “network neutrality” regulation (which isn’t actually “neutral” at all — it favors large corporations such as Google), you’re playing right into the hands of those corporations. For an excellent analysis that explains why Google is supporting lobbyists who seek to undermine both copyright owners and ISPs, see Andrew Orlowski’s excellent analysis at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/google_wave/. Please do not blame me if, after reading it, you feel more like a corporate pawn than like an activist.

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 1:00 am | Permalink
6. JP wrote:

   “The Internet, in contrast, is a set of public protocols for inter-networking systems that specifies how data packets are structured and processed.” No. That’s Internet Protocol. “The Internet” also includes the undelying infrastructure and endpoints, like those found in “Broadband” networks.

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
7. CP wrote:

   Mr. Glass,
   While you do address a number of valid issues, your obvious bias is counterproductive to your arguments.
   http://www.lariat.net/
   Given your affiliation, the self-serving nature of your interest in this debate take much of the ‘wind from your sails’ so to speak. Might I suggest sticking to facts rather than supposition.

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
8. Brett Glass wrote:

   Mr. “CP” (It’s interesting, I think, that you are not using your full name):

   My mission, for more than 17 years, has been to make a fair wage while providing the best possible Internet service, at the best price, to as many rural users as possible.

   Regulation of my industry — especially innovation-killing regulation such as is proposed in the comment above — would not only destroy thousands of worthy small businesses like my own, eliminating competition and jobs; it woul also leave many users without access altogether. And this is fact, not supposition.

   The false “supposition” which is made in the document above is that unless ISPs are regulated, they will somehow do something evil. This is tantamount to saying that because you have the ability to commit murder, you must be jailed immediately even if you have never contemplated such a thing.

   It is worth remembering that the Internet grew and flourished due to a lack of regulation. But now that large corporations such as Google see an advantage in it, they are lobbying to regulate it in a way that serves their interests. (You will note that many of the initial signatories above work for organizations which have received substantial amounts of money from Google.)

   Regulating the Internet to suit Google (which, lest we forget, IS spying on users; it is now the largest purveyor of spyware tracking “cookies” on the Internet and is growing its monopolistic 80% market share in Internet search) will kill competition and innovation. It must not happen. Again, read the article by Andrew Orlowski cited above, and also another article by the same author at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/neutrality_in_europe_analysis/print.html

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
9. Marianne Granoff wrote:

   Most ILECs do not make the distinction between “broadband” and customer Internet access. These two elements are usually combined and sold together as one product by ILECs.

   We do not need multiple sets of infrastructure, we need multiple service providers. If the infrastructure is strongly regulated by those who understand the need for regulation, and the services provided over that infrastructure are unregulated and available at the same cost to all, competition will flourish. Unfortunately, today we have neither situation. The infrastructure is poorly regulated and we keep trying to regulate the services provided over it. This results in monopolistic practices, expensive lobbying, and poor customer service.

   Monday, June 8, 2009 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
10. Jim Fleming wrote:

    I am currently writing a book: “The Big Lie Society – 52 People You Never Want to Allow Near Your Children’s Network(s)”

    As a protocol inventor, designer, developer, etc. I am fascinated by your
    apparent lack of knowledge of modern technology. Much of that technology
    has been designed to route around The Big Lie Society.

    I have a feeling that you equate
    The Big Lie Society and their
    groupies to be “The Internet”.
    I suppose you could also call them
    The Tribe, The Clique, etc. and point
    out their common bound, ancient
    out-dated protocols and technology.
    One could also observe their archaic,
    unfair, one-party governance structures.

    Could it be that the U.S. Government,
    in the form of the FCC and other
    agencies, has finally started to wake
    up to the burden that The Big Lie
    Society places on the American People ?
    Could it be that the FCC wants to try
    to help the America People break free
    from the shackles of The Big Lie
    Society ?

    Are you concerned that The Big Lie
    Society along with other groups like
    The Taliban, are best handled by
    ignoring them and routing around them?
    Could it be that modern technology
    will allow the American People to
    collectively decide to route around
    The Big Lie Society ? Could it be
    that the U.S. FCC wants to help
    empower the American People to make
    that choice vs. having all decisions
    dictated to them by The Big Lie
    Society ?

    Are you concerned that the American
    People will collectively choose to
    have BETTER network experiences
    without the meddling of The Big Lie
    Society ?

    “IT” Seeks Overall Control – America
    better wake up and route around “IT”

    Monday, June 8, 2009 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
11. Bob Frankston wrote:

    I don’t want to belabor the ISP discussion. The concept of an ISP is associated with the old style telecom funding. If we fund connectivity as infrastructure it becomes a nonissue – see http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=IPInternetStupid for more.

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 12:22 am | Permalink
12. Alex Goldman wrote:

    We need to continue to allow innovation and not allow the internet to be curtailed.

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
13. Amy D. Wohl wrote:

    The Internet has been the lifeblood of innovation for more than 15 years. To fail to allow it to grow, to curtail its open access to even the smallest entrepreneurs, at the earliest stages of their businesses, is to risk the loss of precious concepts like Google and Facebook as well as thousands of much smaller companies, no less valuable to their clients.

    Support for open access to a continuously evolving Internet is vital to our continuing health as a nation.

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
14. DAVID MILTON wrote:

    The Internet is by its birth and development, an instrument of communication and expression which is OF US, BY US and FOR US. It is essential that we actively promote the most capable and ubuquitous Internet we can, and locally to the U.S.A, continue to insist on government whose intents, purposes and action are again, Of Us, By Us and For Us.

    Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 7:35 am | Permalink
15. Bice C. Wilson, AIA wrote:

    Everything in the initial paper I agree with, I have an additional thought:

    Broadband Infrastructure CAN deliver the capability to utilize the Internet and make various information transactions / exchanges possible WHEN it exists in Places that want to interact.

    Where IT’s not, you can’t.

    How can the FCC upshot assure:
    - That access to internet resources is ubiquitos.
    - That providers design the integration of their networks into the fabric of our communities in ways that serve all citizens rather than merely those whose subscriptions will garner the most PPV & VOD transactions for the operator.
    - That a dialogue be mandated between ICT regulators and administrators and Urban & Economic Development Planners so that the ICT infrastructure develops in concert with the development planning of communities.

    Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment