5 Responses to “Great Bill Moyers on Net Neutrality”

1. 
   HOTI
   October 2nd, 2006 | 9:06 am

   That will be an interesting segment although obviously with a clear pro net neutrality agenda. I’m on the other side of the issue, working with the Hands Off the Internet (HOTI) coalition. As was raised in the clip, there aren’t any problems yet and if any should arise, the FCC, FTC and even DOJ can certainyl address those. Vint Cerf of Google has already said should net neutrality legislation not pass they will wait to see if any transgressions occur and if so file a complaint with DOJ. That is much more logical that preemptive legislation. And no offense to Senators Snowe and Dorgan, but I don’t trust them any more than Senator Stevens on internet and technology issues.

2. 
   Thomas Belknap
   October 2nd, 2006 | 12:15 pm

   An interesting take on the subject, and thanks for posting such a great response despite disagreeing with the post!

   The FCC does not govern the Internet, nor should it. The FTC might be able to make a claim to having some control over the Internet, but it is tennuous. The DOJ is probably the best bet failing the passage of Net Neutrality legislation, but even here, under what law is the DOJ supposed to prosecute the guilty party? Those are all perfectly legitimate next-step ideas in the absence of NN, but all of those would be strengthened by having the law clearly define what is and what is not acceptable use of the bandwidth of Internet.

   Much though the idea of the phrase “Hands Off the Internet” is a perfectly acceptable one - indeed, very few on either side of the argument would disagree with this sentiment - it is a bit of a smoke screen as a policy. The truth is, the Internet is not a forest, not a mountain, not made by nature but rather by man, and therefore the notion that *someone’s* hands are not on the Internet is niave. Someone always has their hands on the Internet, and the question is: would you rather trust elected leaders or corporations driven by profit margins to secure your right to free speech on the Internet.

   For my money, I’ll take the elected leaders, even if that does mean guys like George Bush.

3. 
   HOTI
   October 2nd, 2006 | 4:20 pm

   Thomas, thanks for your response. I should clarify that my organization does support the follwing broadband access principle adopted by the FCC last year;

   1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

   2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;

   3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;

   4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

   However, there are serious problems with the proposed net neutrality amendments and bills that would cause more harm than good. I certainly understand your fears and the those of other net neutrality supporters and I truly don’t believe this is a free speech issue. Sites aren’t going to be blocked and the claims being thrown around make it seem that smaller websites will take 20 minutes to load as opposed to sites of the big content providers are baseless. The ISPs know if they were to attempt any anti-competative activity that Congress and the regualtory agencies are waiting in the wings. So my perspective is why enact preemtive legislation that would limit the operation of the internet. I believe that voice and video content should be able to be prioritized over text. Under the proposed amendments, this wouldn’t be allowed.

   As for authority issue, FTC Chairwoman, Deborah Platt Majoras, has already formed an, “an Internet Access Task Force to examine whether Net neutrality advocates’ fears of large broadband providers blocking or slowing Web content from competitors are justified.”

   http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=security&articleId=9002649&taxonomyId=17

   Also, here is the link to my Vint Cerf reference where he mentions the anti-trust division at DOJ as an apporiate channel should any problems arise.

   http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/google_neutrality.html

   As for the FCC, I’m certainly not at liberty to provide a detailed analysis of the FCC’s jurisdiction , but Kevin martin has claimed that the FCC has the authroity to address net neutrality violations should they arise.

4. 
   Thomas Belknap
   October 2nd, 2006 | 8:52 pm

   Believe me, I’m usually the last guy who wants our government doing anything with Internet laws at all. Nevertheless, there are times when I just think that government must fulfil it’s role as arbitrator and provide a clear, unambiguous statement of what is and what is not acceptable use. That is the biggest thing.

   The ISPs know if they were to attempt any anti-competative activity that Congress and the regualtory agencies are waiting in the wings. So my perspective is why enact preemtive legislation that would limit the operation of the internet. I believe that voice and video content should be able to be prioritized over text. Under the proposed amendments, this wouldn’t be allowed.

   That depends a lot on what the meaning of “anti-competitive” is, and who is doing the interpretation, particularly in court.

   If the ISPs don’t want to create the two-tiered network, then why are they pushing for changes to the law? There is nothing - nothing whatsoever - that a corporation does which is not driven by the profit motive, and therefore by competition. They may not be specifically evil, but neither are sharks, and I don’t trust them either. Big Telco would not bother to spend as much time and as much money as they have to change these laws simply for no reason at all.

   As for voice and video being prioritized over text, well that doesn’t hold much water, actually.

   For one, how are they going to prioritize one over the other? What if I’m running my website through my home and stream video? How will they know I have special content that need to be broadcast over a different tier? What if I run a business that (like the company I work for) does medical transcription online and therefore distributes large audio files to employees in their homes? Or do I just stop doing that and let the big guys handle the neat stuff?

   Honestly, I can understand not wanting to introduce legislation to the Internet sphere, believe me. However, I really think that too much is at stake to just assume that the laws we have now will be sufficient to prevent adverse changes to the law, particularly when Big Telco is already in the process of buying votes and changing that law to suit it’s needs. Frankly, I’m one of those who is still pissed about Corporate Personhood, so I’m disinclined to wait too long to join battle.

   The Big Telco companies want what they have with commercial media: a passive media where the choice is limited to what the companies want to produce and that audiences simply watch without responding to. That some little-shit company can develop the next MySpace and blow the big guys out of the water is not something that they relish. An Internet filled to the brim with people, digital cameras and voices chattering away about things they’d rather not discuss is not in their interest.

5. 
   HOTI
   October 3rd, 2006 | 3:07 pm

   Well at least we both agree that Congress isn’t exactly an expert authroity on technology, particulalry internet policy. As I mentioned in my last reponse, the FCC, FTC and DOJ all claim to have jurisdiction, and while you’re right that the lawyers would battle over the definition of anti-competative action, I think there is a concensus as to what that is. Should an ISP block access to a competitor or any website for that matter, that is a violation.

   As for the money issue, money is exactly why the large content proviers; Google, ebay, etc. want net neutrality so they can avoid paying for premium service and shift that cost onto the consumers. Offering premium service doesn’t automatically mean everyone else has degraded service. You would have basic serice, and a top tier of serice.

   I belive that my prioritization argument does hold water and in fact there are already certain packets (emergency services) that are prioritized. With prioritization you improve QoS and avoid dropped calls, static and other traffic issues. Here is an interesting post from larry Dignan of Baseline magazine that explains some of my perspective (followed by an analyiss from my organization’s blog;

   “An e-mail doesn’t have the same service requirements as a VoIP call. An X-ray of a heart patient should have priority over a Britney Spears video. Corporate networks manage traffic that way, and at some point there has to be some intelligence added to public Internet infrastructure between the end-points. Intelligent networks could offer better security, route traffic more efficiently and generally make the Internet easier to operate. Net neutrality requirements mean all traffic is created equal. You can debate over who makes the call over what traffic gets priority, but to pretend all traffic is equal doesn’t hold up.”

   http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,2012719,00.asp

   http://handsoff.org/tiered-service/equality-is-not-equal/

Leave a reply