FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
February 20, 2006
Network Neutrality
Monday's New York Times features an editorial that takes a somewhat soft stance on whether ISPs and telcos should be able to offer tiered network access to commercial partners -- i.e., giving Wal-Mart a fast connection while giving Ma & Pa Mercantile a slow to no connection.
What do you think: Should everyone online get the same connection speed and bandwidth? Or should telcos and ISPs be able to determine how quickly people online get access to the information they're seeking?
Posted by Heath Row at February 20, 2006 4:50 PM | Category: internet + web |
5 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
"Tiered network service"--I guess someone's PR team picked that over "let WalMart bribe your ISP to slow down traffic to everyone else's website."
By comparison, "network neutrality" sounds so boring. But see this blogpost for a more colorful alternative: http://ookles.wordpress.com/2006/02/20/chargoggaggoggmanchaugagoggchaubunagungamaug-and-web-30/
I don't like it. It should be tiered network access FOR the consumers. By limiting the providers, they will be killing the market.
It is always very intriguing when an industry as protected from real market competition as are the regional telcos start making claims that they are being treated "unfairly" by the competitive marketplace. Here's my solution to Big Wire's whining: Completely deregulate the retail telecommunications/broadband industry and force the companies with both retail and wholesale operations to spin-off their retail operations into seperate companies. I would suggest complete deregulation at all levels but that would be even less likely to ever gain the required political support to make it happen. My idea may be nearly as unlikely although it has elements that could gain broad public support if marketed with the right populist message.
The reality is that the Big Wire companies have seen the near future and they don't like what they see. Nothing scares a protected monopoly like disruptive technology -- particularly technology that disrupts historical income streams. If anyone suffers from the delusion that Big Wire isn't one of the most cynical and anticonsumer industries in American business history, they need only examine the maze of obfuscation and intentional consumer deceit called your monthly phone bill!
Kurt Maddox
http://kurtmaddox.tblog.com
Soft? Reads like a fairly aggressive stance to me. Personally, I favor neutrality. But I see a 2nd option.
Allow telcos tiering only if they provide full access on their network (including reserved bandwidth) to any reseller at regulated wholesale rates. To be fair, the rate should provide a normal return on the telco's infrastructure investment. This would ensure competition for internet service if end customers did not find value in the mother network's tiering.
Telcos are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are no longer required to provide resellers access to their network if they are investing in FTTP, then regulators caved and allowed FTT-node and even FTT-neighborhood. Originally this would allow telcos to recoup their large investment, but now they are not making the invesment they committed to. And they want to be allowed to tier inside of an oligopoly with few if any alternatives? Bogus!
Although I agree with the comments so far, I don't feel qualified to add anything, but I know someone who IS: http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/01/its_time_to_wor_1.html .
Actually, if you read the post, you'll see why the RBOC interference can't last long.