Four very smart people weigh in today with a Washington Post op-ed piece that argues against imposing net neutrality requirements on broadband providers. David Farber, professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Michael Katz, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley (and former top economist at both the FCC and DOJ), Gerald Faulhaber, a professor at the Wharton School and the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, and Christopher Yoo, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, argue that net neutrality laws could stiflle innovation without providing any consumer benefits.
They make a valid case that some kinds of discrimination make intuitive (and probably social and economic) sense, such as ensuring that a patient’s heart monitor gets higher priority than a music download during periods of network congestion. To bar all forms of discrimination might mean harming, not helping, consumers. It’s just not clear “to determine in advance whether a particular practice promotes or harms competition,” they write.
But they raise an analogy that actually strikes at the heart of the network neutrality debate, likening the Internet to the postal service.
Blocking premium pricing in the name of neutrality might have the unintended effect of blocking the premium services from which customers would benefit. No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a “fast lane” mail service is “undemocratic.” Yet some current proposals would do exactly this for Internet services.
Here’s the thing: people might not accuse the Postal Service of being undemocratic for offering a speedier mail option, but they sure would accuse the Postal Service of lots of things if it unilaterally started to decide which kinds of mail got delivered at what speed solely on the basis of its own economic or political benefit.
That’s what network neutrality proponents fear will happen if broadband providers are given unfettered control over the content delivered via their pipes. They only worry about the Express Mail scenario to the extent that it’s used as a pretext to actually slow down competitors or adversaries.
Moreover, the Postal Service doesn’t have the ability to easily detect the content of the packets it delivers. An envelope containing a bill looks like an envelope containing a check — both get equally zapped through the sorting machine.
But broadband providers can easily tell the difference between a VoIP packet and a text packet. Network neutrality proponents argue that AT&T, for example, might treat, and has every incentive to treat, the VoIP packet differently than it does the text packet, all else being equal — in other words, even if Express Mail options don’t come into play.
Still, I’m on the record as saying that net neutrality legislation gives me the willies, and mostly because I don’t trust the government not to screw up what is a very vibrant, yet fragile, marketplace. I agree with Farber, Katz, et. all. that “we should wait until there is a problem before rushing to enact solutions.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:37 PM | Print | Comments (0)
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is in for a political fight to rescue his decision to give EarthLink, which has partnered with Google, a city-wide contract to construct a Wi-Fi network and offer Wi-Fi services. I know that the politics of the Wi-Fi contract have turned nasty not only because of the scattered press reports on the brewing fight between Newsom and SF’s Board of Supervisors, but also because someone sent me a copy of a report
prepared by Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst for the Board of Supervisors. Although several papers and trade publications wrote about Rose’s report, I couldn’t find a copy online.
Clearly the intent was for me to blog about the report, which raises many concerns about the city’s deal with Earthlink, if not to post the report (which I have because, actually, it’s a pretty thorough assessment of various Wi-Fi scenarios in San Francisco.) The report had been ordered by the Board of Supervisors, which asked Rose’s office to look at the feasibility of the city — and not a private company — constructing and operating a Wi-Fi network.
Rose’s report concludes that it might be financially feasible for the city to build and run its own Wi-Fi operation, but that muni-ownership would be risky. Although not an overtly slanted, obviously political document, Rose’s report also slams the EarthLink deal.
Aside from limiting competition due to EarthLink’s control of the unlicensed radio bands, not to mention Google’s role as sole ISP, the deal won’t even help the city’s low-income residents, who might have to shell out $80 to $200 for CPE plus pay $21.95/month for relatively low-speed broadband service, the Budget Analyst states.
Rose recommends the city put out another RFP to look at a variety of business models aside from the EarthLink-Google idea, particularly given that the report suggests that San Francisco didn’t conduct the right due diligence in the first place.
This is bad news for Newsom, but perhaps even worse news for EarthLink, which has staked much of its growth strategy on muni-Wi-Fi. Don Berryman, who heads EarthLink’s municipal efforts, has been working overtime to save the deal.
A majority of the Board of Supervisors has to approve the EarthLink contract, and indications are that Newsom and EarthLink could lose. The vote is slated for early next month. Meanwhile, Newsom has issued his own report, one that has been in the works for months, called the Digital Inclusion Strategy, which promotes increased digital literacy, education and computer ownership, among other ideas, as steps that can close the digital divide in San Francisco.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:01 AM | Print | Comments (0)For those of you who missed it, Stephen Colbert has this can’t-miss explanation about the whole AT&T/Cingular/BellSouth/SBC thing. It’s laugh-out-loud funny and surprisingly accurate — Colbert either has some telecom industry consultants on the payroll or a very competent research staff.
BTW, I stumbled across this video on Technorati, which now has a section on the home page devoted to the most popular videos that bloggers are linking to right now. A very cool useful feature.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:39 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
