What principles should drive our policies regarding technology in this country and how do those principles support our technological position in the world?

Read the Congressional Research Service report "Net Neutrality: Background and Issues." What additional facts do you need to know or questions do you have for our guest bloggers?

If the rules are changed to favor the dualopoly, they will certainly restrict free access (except for a fee which most won't be able to pay). It is in the best interests of the powers that be to stifle free interchange of ideas via the internet - just look at China. As to the argument about First Ammendment rights, putting aside whether coporations should considered persons, the rights of real, breathing persons must always take precedence over artificial persons and our "representatives" need to get that message crystal clear.

The advocates of network neutrality have become distressingly, stridently apocalyptic, rallying all good liberals against “those with the deepest pockets…corporations, special-interest groups, and major advertisers, who decide what you get to see and how much it costs,” and especially “the billion-dollar telephone and cable companies that now dominate the business of providing broadband connections to the public—who want to control what you read, see or hear online….Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.” That’s a fair composite quote.

Now wait just a minute.

I consider myself a good liberal Democrat. I played a leading role in the deregulation of the airlines (as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board) and trucking (as Advisor to President Carter on Inflation), against the almost unanimous opposition of the major airlines and trucking companies. Our strongest sponsors and supporters at that time were President Carter, Senator Ted Kennedy, Stephen (now Supreme Court Justice) Breyer, and such organizations as Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America…and Southwest Airlines.

This is not the place to argue about the consequences of those deregulations. What is unarguable is that airline deregulation has saved travelers billions of dollars annually and made air travel affordable for people with modest means, just as we intended.

I have played an active role also—as Chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission and consistently, both before and after—opposing the efforts of AT&T to induce the FCC and Congress to protect its historical monopoly. I have also been a consistent public advocate of strong antitrust policy over the last half century.

Our premise—in opposition to reactionaries and to the indifference or scorn of radicals—was that wherever it is feasible, competition is a far better protector of the interest of both consumers and content providers (think radio, television, motion pictures and the Internet) than government ownership or regulation. In telecommunications, cable and telephone companies compete increasingly with one another, and while the two largest wireless companies—Cingular and Verizon—are affiliated with AT&T and Verizon, respectively, some 97 percent of the population has at least a third one competing for their business as well; and Sprint and Intel have recently announced their plan to spend 3 billion dollars on mobile Wi-Max facilities nationwide. Scores of municipalities—led by Philadelphia and San Francisco—are building their own Wi-Fi networks. And on the horizon are the electric companies, already beginning to use their ubiquitous power lines to offer broadband—to content providers on the one side and consumers, on the other.

By far the most promising intensification of that competition is the tens of billions of dollars that the phone companies themselves are spending converting copper to fiber, which will enable them to offer video programming pervasively in direct competition with the cable companies. Can anyone seriously believe that competition would be forthcoming if those incumbents were still subject to public utility-type regulation? Or prevented from surcharging the heaviest content suppliers—the ones demanding the speediest possible access to subscribers that those telco investments will make possible?

In describing the danger that the telephone and/or cable companies will, as the preponderant suppliers of broadband access, discriminate against competitive providers of service or programming, every single network neutrality advocate, to my knowledge, cites the case of the Madison River Communications (telephone) Company’s refusal to carry the messages of Vonage, the leading independent provider of telephone service via the Internet. Not one of them mentions the fact that the FCC promptly stepped in to prohibit that obvious violation of antitrust principles—as did the Canadian Radio-television Regulatory Commission in exactly the same situation. It is unthinkable that the regulatory or antitrust agencies would not strike down any other such discrimination by the telephone or cable companies against competing providers of content in favor of their own.

As for the fear that those companies will, as one net-net advocate predicted, “create different tiers of online service…sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of the winding dirt road”—it is difficult to understand why if, as a New Republic editorial supporting a Congressional mandate of network neutrality points out, without apparent disapproval, “content providers from Google and Amazon to Daily Kos…currently pay web-hosting companies to put their content on the Internet [and] still make money,” its editors should consider it objectionable that the providers of broadband Internet access “will be able to charge content providers a fee to deliver their content to consumers and, in particular, an additional surcharge to deliver their content…more quickly….” Newspapers charge advertisers for access to their readers—more for big ads than small ones— television and cable companies charge similarly for access to their audiences; and the charges vary widely depending upon the anticipated size of the audience. Why is that any different from the proposed additional fees for guarantees of the unusually rapid rates of transmission required for some content with its greater claim on the broadband facilities?

Some 25 years ago, I thought it was logical to try to prevent cable television companies, as beneficiaries of exclusive territorial franchises, from discriminating against unaffiliated suppliers of programming in favor of their own by prohibiting broadcasters holding a financial interest in the programs they carried. I eventually recognized, however, the public benefits from the especial incentives of the several broadcasters to produce programming of their own, as well as to bid for independent programming, in competition with one another; and that that competition sufficiently protects independent providers from discrimination or exploitation. If Google and eBay depend upon the telephone and cable companies for reaching their audiences, that dependence is mutual: what would happen to the willingness of subscribers to sign up for DSL or cable modem service if one or the other of those suppliers decided not to carry Google or eBay?

Demonstrably, those broadband facilities have to be created by investments—especially huge ones by the telephone companies— and applications requiring priority transmission can entail lower priority transmission of others. Except as broadband service is subsidized by governments—a possibility I do not exclude—those costs must be collected from users—subscribers to broadband services, on the one side, providers of programming or content on the other, or some combination of the two—just as in the case of newspapers or television stations.

Why all the hysteria? There is nothing “liberal” about the government rushing in to regulate these wonderfully promising turbulent developments.

Neutrality on the Internet matters because, in our highly connected and information-based global economy, communications matters. Community and personal communications capacity and capability may be more critical to human endeavors and to competitiveness than at any time in human history. Everything - information, education, health, entertainment, financial capacity, security, relationships, opportunity – is either advantaged or constrained by disparities in access to reasonably priced communications. For most of the 20th century what we experienced in communications capability was the result of careful, negotiated deployments of modest technological enhancements managed to sustain and not disrupt the established industry and business model. This business model was organized around two applications – the telephone and the television. The emergence of the Internet and the extraordinary revolution in computational capacity has exploded that model. We need a new model for communications infrastructure, one that enables and leverages the latest technological advances; one in which experimentation with potentially disruptive technologies and experimentation is possible; one which matches the pace of change in, instead of constraining, computing and information technology. From my perspective, this is what net neutrality is about.

The question everyone needs to ask themself is “whom do you trust?” Those favoring some degree of government definition and regulation ensuring “net neutrality” tend to see the market for last mile telecommunications services as non-competitive, or at best, as a “highly integrated and vertical duopoly.” Those opposed to net neutrality tend to accept at face value claims by the provider industry that the market, unfettered by government regulation, will ensure the appropriate level of investment in innovative infrastructure and services. In my work with communities and regions throughout the United States that are struggling to achieve competitive advantages in access to the networked world, we rarely witness such innovation in the offerings of the incumbent cable tv or the telephone system provider.

The Internet has always been neutral in terms of the way that content is distributed and made available to end users. Michael Bookey uses the analogy of the power companies to illustrate what is meant by the term “neutral”. Power companies distribute commodity electrons just like the telephone companies deliver commodity data packets. Power companies do not base the price of an electron on its value to the end user, nor on the type of use it is intended to serve. Similarly, the power company does not expect to control or dictate the appliances in your home that use the electricity. For example, the power company does not charge more for electrons to heat water compared to electrons to run an alarm clock. Nor does the power company require you to purchase water heaters and clocks from them instead of from their competitors. Value is added at the ends of the electrical wire. Everyone is free to develop new and innovative devices and services that use electricity without being charged higher prices by the power company. Likewise with telecommunications, network neutrality promotes competition at the end-points of the network with innovation in services flourishing because of the ability to have unconstrained access.

Our experience working with advanced networks has shown that value and efficiency is optimized when users, not network owners and operators, decide what content they receive over the network and at what bandwidth. Users should be the ones to choose how much bandwidth they wish to pay for on a wide-ranging and unencumbered continuum, ranging from rates of kilobits per second up to multiple megabits per second and beyond. Once the user has paid for the bandwidth of their choice, they should be able to fully utilize that bandwidth to access any web page, use any lawful application, equipment or service, and send any lawful content without risk of being discriminated against on the part of the network operator or Internet Service Provider.

The internet was a wonderful world as it was then AOL and MSN and others started hoarding content then Google and Yahoo began by tying searches to revenue limiting first placements. Push technology has innundated the web and SPAM is totally unchecked. The internet is no longer getting better it's just getting worse. Like water that used to be free the net will end up in someone's revenue stream if we cannot get it clear in our minds that everyone should have access who wants it and information should not be restricted.

A New Republic quote taken from Mr. Kahn's comment:

“content providers from Google and Amazon to Daily Kos…currently pay web-hosting companies to put their content on the Internet [and] still make money,”

False. Content providers pay web hosting companies for storage space. The web hosting company in turn pays the ISP/broadband provider for address space and internet access.

Again I quote Mr. Kahn:

"If Google and eBay depend upon the telephone and cable companies for reaching their audiences, that dependence is mutual: what would happen to the willingness of subscribers to sign up for DSL or cable modem service if one or the other of those suppliers decided not to carry Google or eBay?"

It's not about willingness. It's about choice. I have one choice of ISP, Time Warner. One. If Google decides they don't want to pay Time Warner's costs, I don't have access to Google. Period. I'd venture a guess that Time Warner would be ecstatic if Google and every other search engine took their business elsewhere. In fact, I suspect Time Warner would intentionally price them out. The result is a search engine which only brings results from content providers that have paid to be indexed in the Time Warner search engine.

Consider what this means in terms of access to news and educational material.

Yet another quote from Mr. Kahn:

"Newspapers charge advertisers for access to their readers—more for big ads than small ones— television and cable companies charge similarly for access to their audiences; and the charges vary widely depending upon the anticipated size of the audience. Why is that any different from the proposed additional fees for guarantees of the unusually rapid rates of transmission required for some content with its greater claim on the broadband facilities?"

Newspapers charge advertisers, not content providers. (As an aside, as a small business start-up i was unable to afford any form of print advertising.)

There is a significant difference between an advertiser paying for access and an information provider paying for access. What if newspapers charged reporters to have their stories published? Would that be fine and dandy? No need for all the hysteria?

Only those conent providers that can afford to pay the rates will have the ability to disseminate news, information, and educational material. If we continue down this path, the same information may someday only be available to those who can afford to pay for access to the higher speed network.

This is one of the biggest threats to Democracy I can envision!

Hence the reason for "all the hysteria."

Paul Viel writes above: "The internet was a wonderful world as it was then AOL and MSN and others started hoarding content then Google and Yahoo began by tying searches to revenue limiting first placements. Push technology has innundated the web and SPAM is totally unchecked."

And how is AOL or MSN doing now? (And how do you hoard content that you create?) And how troubled can we really be by Google's paid placements -- their normal search is unaffected. These kinds of overinflated fears have characterized the net neutrality debate so far. I work with the Hands Off the Internet team at http://handsoff.org, and I've seen these straw men thrown out there time and time again. The optimism vs. pessimism is striking, and Alfred Kahn is in touch reality when he points out there is "nothing 'liberal' about the government rushing in to regulate these wonderfully promising turbulent developments."

But the discussion question is a good one: "What principles should drive our policies regarding technology in this country and how do those principles support our technological position in the world?"

It's no secret, and it is implied by the question, that U.S. broadband speeds lag well behind other developed countries. Therefore, the animating principle should be delivering the best access to as many people as possible. The reason we lag behind other countriesis simple: There are many more of us across vastly more space than Korea or Europe.

What's ironic is that net neutrality advocates may think this is what they are doing by supporting new regulations. (Many of them don't even realize they are supporting Internet regulation.) In fact, the revenues earned from access tiering will give telecom companies the capital to invest in bringing broadband to consumers living outside of major cities. New regulations would freeze the Internet in place, and consign Internet consumers to permanent second-class status.

We hope Mr. Moyers will include these points in his upcoming program.

hmm ATT thinks of them as "their" pipes. Well, what about the govt granted monopoly and taxes dollars granted to them.

WE HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR THOSE PIPES THEY "OWN."

http://www.muniwireless.com/community/1023

From the above:

"What's ironic is that net neutrality advocates may think this is what they are doing by supporting new regulations. (Many of them don't even realize they are supporting Internet regulation.) In fact, the revenues earned from access tiering will give telecom companies the capital to invest in bringing broadband to consumers living outside of major cities. New regulations would freeze the Internet in place, and consign Internet consumers to permanent second-class status."

The telecom industry was already "trusted" to bring said broadband to consumers and given bucketloads of cash and tax break incentives to achieve this... and what did the do? They used this fiscal advantage to squeeze out competition, run disinformation campaigns, and ship jobs overseas.

The ILEC fundamental thinking of NOT embracing competition has lead to our dire infrastructure problems. (and this thinking still is present in the current net neutrality debate) The Internet is already frozen in place... thus why we lost in the world wide lead in our infrastructure while countries that had significant choice and low barriers to entry for new information services companies took over our lead. Telecoms realize this and that is why they are forging ahead with the build out of bigger "pipes"... but they have already suffered a great deal in the court of public opinion.

This is an excellent discussion. I'm not a partisan (yet) in the net neutrality war, and it appears to me that both sides have good points to make. A few observations:
1) We are moving toward ubiquitous high speed networks, though a lot slower than if we actually had a real policy behind the goal of doing so. The network owners are not under any net neutrality constraints now, are they? Yet we're still way behind most of the industrialized world in deployment. Why is this?
2) At the core of the net neut debate is the question of how we will pay for the new networks -- through higher end-user charges, or through new charges to content providers? Wouldn't economists tell us that fixed costs should be recovered through fixed charges?
3) But isn't there a growing gap in the bandwidth needs of different content? If I want to download 10 movies a week in 10 seconds each, or do online gaming for hours, it seems reasonable that I should pay more for that than my neighbor who just wants to web surf and use email. And it makes sense that the content provider would charge me for the content and pay the network owner to deliver it.
4) But it seems clearly anti-competitive to allow discrimination by network owners in favor of their own content. With current technology, isn't there at least a whiff of natural monopoly in fiber networks? If so, net neut regulation may be about as light-handed as you can get.
5) So, doesn't it all come down to whether in fact we have effective competition in broadband? Until they come up with 1 gig wireless (and they will, won't they?)isn't the answer no?

Not a partisan?

read this and you will be

http://www.muniwireless.com/community/1023

If we start at today, I can understand the ILEC's argument... but I'm not willing to just let go of the 200 billion we already handed them.

Does anyone remember the travel industry deregulation. Your previouse blog seems to forget the computer and reservation bias that now causes considerable investment of time and effort. They rigged the system then and they are trying to rig it now.

Does anyone remember the travel industry deregulation. Your previouse blog seems to forget the computer and reservation bias that now causes considerable investment of time and effort. They rigged the system then and they are trying to rig it now.

Lost somewhere in this debate is the fundamental idea that public communications channels are public assets and not private. Traditionally, these assets have been managed to ensure the public's best interest, and not that of private entities already extracting monoply rents for their use. If a shift to privatization is to occur, then let it occur by encouraging innovations that serve the public. If telemedicine, distance learning, equal access to high-speed connectivity, community portals and e-government are best served by private sector management of these precious resources, then lets be on with it. If not, then lets stop this experiment now.

Regulation created this duopoly mess in the first place, with "common carrier" privileges. Do the Net Neutrality advocates not also remember how much the FCC is despised for censorship (e.g. "obscenity"), and regulatory capture of colors of light by the highest corporate bidder, not to mention the broadcast flag?!

Net Neutrality is just QoS by another means... by an even more bureaucratic committee than even the most blithe corporation.

Net Neutrality is almost as ridiculous as people who STILL complain about the spam "problem". Get a clue: install a naive Bayesian filter and you'll never see spam for the rest of your life.

Neither government regulation NOR tiered Internet are acceptable to the consumers. The solution is, and always has been, to OVERPROVISION THE NETWORK!

It's not consumers' fault if Verizon and Comcast made bad business plans and couldn't see the OBVIOUSNESS that customers will want ever more bandwidth unto infinity for flat-rate fees. It's only the complacency of privileged regulated businesses who could remain so obtuse to the market demands of customers.

If Verizon and Comcast can't afford to continue overprovisioning the network because of their own mis-management, we can all just buy GNUradio devices and use spread-spectrime WIRELESS to transfer P2P at speeds approaching gigabytes-per-second. Then we won't need upstream providers at all; we'll have wideband mesh networking.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/
http://www.comsec.com/wiki?UniversalSoftwareRadioPeripheral

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spectrum/

s/spread-spectrime/spread-spectrum

Additionally, that is we *could* all just buy GNUradio devices for wireless broadband mesh-networks, if the FCC didn't hand out MONOPOLIES on colors of light.

Leon:

You make a great point. (about overprovisioning of the network) That government regulation HAS to step in because businesses cannot be trusted to keep their contractual obligations is a symptom of a failed "free market" and our loss of integrity and ethics in the marketplace. I do not wish to cry over spilled milk, but we cannot just "sweep things under the rug" either.

Businesses which fail to fulfill their contractual obligations are not a "market failure", it's just plain fraud and fraud is already illegal.

Both tiered Internet AND Net Neutrality fail to meet the end-to-end principle (aka P2P), because they both rely on a centralized service for enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle

The solution must be a technical/market one from END-USERS. For example, if everyone waving the banner of "Net Neutrality" today instead took the time to install an I2P proxy on their computer (or between their LAN and their upstream provider), the anonymization of packet pushing would render QoS (i.e. tiered Internet) unfeasible.

http://www.i2p.net/

The solution requires DIRECT ACTION.
Appeals to GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE IT WORSE.

I understand you wanting to push your idea of the i2p deal, but IMO that is just "swatting the flies instead of removing the crap"

Also, net neutrality does NOT fail to meet the P2P principle rather, it ensures that the points in between the end points are neutral and invisible. If net neutrality were not to exist... P2p would then become impossible (with the exception of "hiding" the data as you describe)

Re: Tom Baker
"net neutrality does NOT fail to meet the P2P principle rather, it ensures that the points in between the end points are neutral and invisible."

You are forgetting to include the FCC into this model of a network which includes "Net Neutrality". The FCC is a centralized locale of enforcement, as OPPOSED to a voluntary consensus among peers.

You're making the same fallacy as Maxwell's Daemon hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_daemon

This is also the same failure with MAPS RBL and the so-called spam "problem". Again, the solution there is for everyone (who doesn't like spam) to install naive Bayesian filters in their mail user agent (MUA); *not* to pass legislation such as the CAN-SPAM Act.

To quote Brad Templeton:
"This [End-to-End] principle says that internet applications should work directly, from user to user, without requiring special smart gateways in the center of the network. End-to-end systems scale and foster innovation."

Innovation such as I2P, rather than government bureaucracy.

See also:
http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt

zuzu:

Take a step back from the argument for a second and look at what you propose. (thanks for the links by the way although Maxwells daemon does not apply)

we are not introducing a trap door... we are monitoring the path to make sure the door is not put in place.

You do not want government regulation (which I understand), but ultimately businesses cannot be trusted (and are not responsible for) doing what is in the best interest of society. There has to be an arbiter to help sift fiction (marketing) and spin (expensive dis-information campaigns) from truth and the public interest.

Again, I point to swatting the flies instead of removing the dung. If you would put YOUR energy into activisim instead of pimping your own product people would listen (I can tell by your well thought out explainations)

Tom:

1.) Maxwell's Daemon applies precisely because the argument hinges on how the hypothetical "demon" can sort out heat to reverse entropy. It's a cornerstone of information theory and computing, vis-a-vis thermodynamics. The metaphor fits because you propose to use the FCC as just such a demon for network management -- somehow only a part of the system for the "positive" aspects yet outside the system for the "negative" ones.

The point is that if you are modeling the Internet with Net Neutrality regulations in place, then the regulating body is henceforth part of the Internet infrastructure (by definition) and thus violates the End-to-End Principle.

2.) I am not "pimping my product". Software lacks the qualities necessary to honestly be referred to as a "product". Software is knowledge. Moreover, I2P specifically is Free Software / open-source licensed software. It's free (as in gratuity) to download and install, and it's free (as in liberty) to examine and improve.

I mention I2P because in an argument, when criticizing a course of action, it is often helpful and necessary to provide a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, no matter how awful the original proposal.

Thus, I reference I2P as an alternative TECHNICAL solution to the QoS problem, which anyone can use RIGHT NOW, that DOESN'T violate the End-to-End Principle (as Net Neutrality does).

3.) Government cannot be trusted either. That's the Catch-22 of this situation. It's an argument of excluded middle to assert that the only options on the table are to accept censorship via QoS or begin regulating the Internet through the FCC. I have provided one example of a third option.

I have no formal affiliation with I2P, and I have no means to directly profit by it ala "follow the money". My investment in advocating for its use is to popularize a better solution than either censorship by megacorporations OR censorship by government will enact.

zuzu says:
The point is that if you are modeling the Internet with Net Neutrality regulations in place, then the regulating body is henceforth part of the Internet infrastructure (by definition) and thus violates the End-to-End Principle.

zuzu, the entire point is that THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE IS ALREADY UNDER ATTACK. If the broadband companies can assert ownership of their infrastructure and leverage that with quality-of-service tweaks, they will kill end-to-end as surely as if it had never existed. That is the present danger. The ONLY means of regulating corporate behavior is via legislation. The FCC can make rules but in court those rules will fall unless backed by legislation. So we MUST have legislation that declares the sanctity of net neutrality in order to prevent the telecoms from taking over the U.S. Internet and ordering it to suit themselves (and that means, squeezing maximum profits from it).

Your I2P solution is moot; the broadband companies can simply deny your anonymized packets access to their networks, if net neutrality is not enforced. The issue here is not technology, it is rights. Do the telecoms own the Internet, or is it a public service?

I am a Lebanese researcher in Agricultural Engineering, working in the US. I am also an activist (through peaceful means), focussed on many issues including Lebanon's revival as a fair and modern society and also developing a robust organic farming systems, to use the world's natural resources more responsibly. As a Lebanese citizen i woudl like to emphasize that the free internet have been a safehaven from opressors in the middle east. It's been a platform for a Lebanese Patriotic Movement that eventually led to the exit of Syrian occupation forces from Lebanon. It's nowadays also the media for those who campaign against the senseless death of civilians in any country in the middle east. The same applied for causes related to Organic Farming. Through US NGO's and their website one can get informed on the political manipulations behind GMO's, and some legislations on organic farming standards designed to allow industrial farms to cut corners. I think the internet must remain free because that's what allowed it to end oppressive situations so far, and to bring the world's attention to injustices that must end.

Net Neutrality is a hard problem to solve. Really hard. Really, really hard. Politicians have little hope of even understanding the solution, let alone coming up with it. So, if it is such a hard problem, who can find a solution?

Well, it depends on what kind of solution you are looking for. Any solution by a company is going to be a solution to making as much money on the internet as possible. Talk of "free market pressures" and the like are just ways of making capatalism sound democratic.

We need a solution to the problem of how to provide an important (if not the MOST important) medium of communication to both providers and consumers of all sizes and incomes in an efficient and economically sound fashion. The only organizations in a position to be able to do this are non-profit organiztions with significant expertise in Internet technology. Organizations like W3C and IETF should form the core of a working group. A select few representatives from the business side and from orgs like FreePress.net and EFF should also be included to advocate for their interests.

The document such a group produces should be accepted by congress and the president without alteration of any kind. Because, frankly, they think the Internet is made of pipes.

The long winded and convoluted hyperbole of David Rich is exactly the type of verbage that has muddied the waters of this debate. Put simply, Huge Telecom companies on the Right backing wealthy Republican politicians want to control the internet, not to mention try to clean it up, ie force everyone to follow their morals. While liberal and citizen rights conscious organizations want to keep the internet open and free for all. As a little guy that puts me on the side of Net Neutrality. Personally I think the internet works great the way it is and should be left as it is, and if it takes the government to ensure that then so be it!

Some comments on what Alfred Kahn posted:

"What is unarguable is that airline deregulation has saved travelers billions of dollars annually and made air travel affordable for people with modest means, just as we intended."

What you apparently do not understand is that there are such things as beneficial regulations. As a good liberal Democrat, you should acknowledge that government has a duty to promote the public interest. That's at the core of Liberalism. Deregulation of the airline and trucking industries may have resulted in lower direct costs to the consumer, but indirect costs such as depressed wages for truckers and airline employees, relaxed enviromental standards and reduced competition (though mergers and acquisitions) have offset at least some if not all of that benefit. Deregulation cannot be proven to be a cure for all that ails.

In this case, the regulation in question (if I understand it correctly) is to require the telecom industry to carry communications traffic through their infrastructure without bias. The telecom industry naturally opposes this regulation as it would prevent them from establishing new services from which to extract rents on infrastructure already in existence, as well as infrastructure they might or might not create in the future. Let's be clear on that point: there is nothing I am aware of that prevents the telecom companies from setting up their tiered service and quality of service schemes on their existing infrastructure. There is nothing other than market demand that would cause them to improve their service.

The telecom companies' contention is that without the ability to extract these rents, there is no incentive for them to build the additional infrastructure necessary to deliver enhanced services. In other words, they are holding consumers at gunpoint and demanding increased rents in exchange for these services. If you don't pay more, you don't get the services.

But that's not all. They are also asking for the right to squash their competition by extracting rents from their competitors in order for those competitors' services to travel unhindered through their infrastructure. This clearly hinders competition, and deserves regulation on that basis. In this case, we are not requiring them to engage in a behavior or provide a service, we are requiring them to REFRAIN from engaging in anticompetitive behavior. So this is not like the regulation of the airline or trucking industries, as I see it, at all.

"Our premise—in opposition to reactionaries and to the indifference or scorn of radicals—was that wherever it is feasible, competition is a far better protector of the interest of both consumers and content providers (think radio, television, motion pictures and the Internet) than government ownership or regulation."

That's a great premise, if in fact competition exists. Failing to ensure Net Neutrality practically mandates that competition for provision of Internet services be reduced. In the absence of regulation, laissez-faire principles dictate that content providers must maximize their profits by all means necessary; that means reducing competition as well as increasing their own sales. In the case of the Internet, we have a situation where some of the largest content owners are also owners of the delivery services; much like when Standard Oil owned railroads and pipelines in the early 1900's. Deregulation of the telecom industry has encouraged concentration of ownership into fewer and fewer hands; and in the meantime local monopolies in cable and telephone service provision have all but eliminated competition in the delivery of services, even though there are still several service delivery companies in existence. Consumers have little or no choice when it comes to cable service or telephone-line based broadband Internet access.

In this environment, the ONLY guarantor of the consumer interest is government regulation. I think your own premise implies that. As good liberal Democrats we MUST use the power of government to regulate these delivery monopolies; otherwise the content providers who largely own them cannot help but leverage their power of ownership to their own advantage.

"It is unthinkable that the regulatory or antitrust agencies would not strike down any other such discrimination by the telephone or cable companies against competing providers of content in favor of their own."

It is not unthinkable to me. And it is similarly not unthinkable that the telecom companies might get legislation passed that AUTHORIZES them to provide quality of service "enhancements" and tiered pricing schemes for content providers despite their anticompetitive nature. This needs to be stopped NOW. There is a clear public interest in unbiased service provision. If the telecom industry is incapable of providing it economically, then perhaps the public sector should do so. I would have no objection to my tax dollars going towards provision of fiber or wireless access to every home in America.

"If Google and eBay depend upon the telephone and cable companies for reaching their audiences, that dependence is mutual: what would happen to the willingness of subscribers to sign up for DSL or cable modem service if one or the other of those suppliers decided not to carry Google or eBay?"

This demonstrates your unfortunate misunderstanding of the competitive realities in Internet service provision. I will say it again: for most consumers, there is NO choice of cable or telephone company for broadband service. I live in Richardson, Texas, located in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation. Richardson prides itself on its "telecom corridor" of global telecommunications companies that are based here or have major offices here. In Richardson, there is ONE cable access provider and ONE telephone broadband provider. If both of those providers elect to restrict access, you have NO alternative but to accept their restriction or do without the service.

"Why all the hysteria? There is nothing “liberal” about the government rushing in to regulate these wonderfully promising turbulent developments."

As I have explained, there is everything "liberal" about protecting competition and serving the public interest. The "hysteria" is in fact indignation of yet another handing over of resources that could serve the public interest to the vicissitudes of crass commercial concerns. Government regulation in the public interest is simply the only possible course of action with a realistic hope of retaining the vibrant, innovative character of the Internet and its role as the new public square.

What can I say? I'm an American citizen but I live abroad - in Europe. Considering that oligarchy is about to take over the US, and most people don't seem to mind the incursions on the US Constitution and what it originally stood for, well, perhaps that's the way the US is going. Turning the internet into a privately based privileged "highway" in the US isn't going to probably impact us much in Europe. Too bad for Americans who lose yet another freedom, but frankly, they don't seem to care all that much.

cheers,

ncm

Re: Rob Woodland
What you apparently do not understand is that there are such things as beneficial regulations.

What you apparently do not understand is that this is a lie. All regulations are ultimately subverted by corporations for their benefit. Here's how:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

It happened with the CAB (Pan-Am). It happened with the FDA (big pharma). It happened with the USDA (agribsuiness). And it happened with the FCC (mass-media).

The Internet is anarchy. It's the "wild west". If you don't understand this, please read:

* Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias edited by Peter Ludlow; ISBN 0262621517
* High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual issues in Cyberspace edited by Peter Ludlow; ISBN 0262621037

That's a great premise, if in fact competition exists.

I would not argue that perfect competition exists. But competition will necessarily exist as long as people have varied wants and Free Entry exists. Regulation of industry in all cases creates a barrier to entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

In Richardson, there is ONE cable access provider and ONE telephone broadband provider. If both of those providers elect to restrict access, you have NO alternative but to accept their restriction or do without the service.

But this rests on an assumption that this state of affiars always has been and always will be the case. Let us not forget that this duopoly was created in the first place because of government intervention through well-intended common carrier grants of monopoly. If private enterprise had to compete without government assistance "for the public good", the competitive market would be vastly more heterogeneous. Likewise, without government regulations of telecoms, we will see competitors offering "Net Neutral" alternatives to the "big boys" who instituted QoS.

For example, if QoS existed today and I didn't have the wherewithal to install I2P, I could pay one of the numerous Internet hosting companies to supply me with a shell account and 100GB/month of neutral bandwidth. You could then circumvent QoS between this hosted server and your residence as a proxy for neutral content access. Since you say you live in Texas, may I suggest EV1servers:

http://www.ev1servers.com/

Another possibility could be to use the eminent release of 802.11n wireless routers to create a mesh-network between you and geographically distant but competitive bandwidth providers. Again, for those lacking computer expertise, a competitive market will induce entrepreneurs to provide these for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

My point remains that there are more and better ways to use market feedback to signal to the telecoms that QoS is not acceptable to its customers, than to appeal to government coercion -- which will become even more corrupt anyway.

Correction:
s/Woodland/Woodard

Sorry Rob! :-)

Re: Rob Woodard:
zuzu, the entire point is that THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE IS ALREADY UNDER ATTACK.

So the solution is to kill it before they do? That doesn't solve the problem.

Your I2P solution is moot; the broadband companies can simply deny your anonymized packets access to their networks, if net neutrality is not enforced. The issue here is not technology, it is rights. Do the telecoms own the Internet, or is it a public service?

http://www.i2p.net/

Take a serious look at how it works. The packets appear as normal "browsing the web" packets. You couldn't filter these without filtering people's access to the WWW in general, and no one would pay for Internet access that doesn't include the Web.

The issue here is technology. The idea that the telecoms ever were or ever could be a collective public good is a dangerous myth!

It was that "common carrier" myth that created the duopoly. The End-to-End Principle explicitly states that the Internet consists of a private consensus network of peers.

Hmm, personaly, all I want is the ability to get whatever I want, on the net, Id be ticked if, I was trying to get to a certine page, and it was cencored due to some big company not makeing it accessable. Sure if it was a movie, or music, then one should have to pay. News access should be free, and direct communications. Like right now, I have dialup, and couldn't download a movie, Im mostly relegated to text, due connection speed. Point is Im already being left out, till they can get highspeed net connection out here, thats affordable as my dialup account. So companies are already pushing content that is basicly made for broadband only, forcing people like me to buy highspeed. Like I said, I want free raign on the net, if Im paying for the connection. If I need information to do something, no one has the right to block that. Its the 21st century, we don't need any more greed, or profiteering.

Correction:
It happened with the USDA (agribsuiness).

s/agribsuiness/agribusiness
(e.g. Monsanto, ConAgra, ADM, et. al.)

Re: Bushman:
Point is Im already being left out, till they can get highspeed net connection out here, thats affordable as my dialup account. So companies are already pushing content that is basicly made for broadband only, forcing people like me to buy highspeed.

But this is by your choice. According to opportunity cost and your personal hierarchy of values, you believe that spending your money on other things (including savings) is better for you than paying more for faster Internet access. If you didn't, you'd pay for faster access. In a world of scarcity, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately.

However, more than 50% of people in the USA have access to "broadband" speeds of Internet. I myself pay $50/month for 15Mbps (download) and 2Mbps (upload). However, I don't subscribe to pay television. (Why should I, when I can download content ala carte, such as from the iTunes Store? or I wait until television seasons are released on DVD.)

No one is "forcing" you to pay for high speed, anymore than you're "forced" to pay for cable if you like to watch Daily Show on Comedy Central. You can choose not to watch, if you'd rather spend your money on other things.

Net neutrality is a false notion. The internet already has a slow and fast lane. The fastest portion of any network is that which is closest to you. There is no incentive for companies to invest in a faster public internet if they can't recoup their investment. If you think they have to use the public internet and therefore have to invest in it anyway you are wrong. There is enough money for them to simply build another completely private network where they own all the fast lanes and the slow ones.
I asked ebay who contacted me for support for net neutrality how much they have and plan to spend investing in a new faster internet that can support the new services that people want to use. They thanked me for my reply but of course didn't offer any answer because the amount is ZERO. They just like the large communications companies are simply trying to protect the bottom line. If we don't allow the big communications companies to recoup their investment in the public internet we will turn the public internet into the next US Post Service. OK for letters but call FedEx or UPS for your pacjages. The public internet will be ok for email but when you want something big like a movie or music you'll choose to use the private networks because they will perform much faster and more reliably. Consumers will choose them and so will businesses and then the public internet will die.

I've just watched the show.. Thanks for putting in all the time & research.. The WWweb is the one place where Americans can put their feelings forward any more, and that is way to important a thing to give to the big media companies & tell-cos.

Thanks again for the show. I hope most of America can view your program.

We must convince our legislators and all politicians that we will not tolerate the corruption of the internet, as they have allowed to occur to the public airwaves. This is the last chance for true open democracy that we have seen in this century or the last.

David L. Maron

Definately the network neutrality rules should stay in place and our government should REPRESENT the American people, not corporations and their interests. And what about the FCC? What are they doing? Folks, what will it take to regain a say in our government. I think we need to demand that our elected officials NOT TAKE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBIESTS. I am tired of the people that are supposed to be represent mine and my families interests being bought by corporations. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!!!!

I am a little disappointed with your feature on network neutrality. You have Mark Cooper on there, why not someone from the other side of the argument. You ask him a very important question. Do the telecos not have the right to earn a return on investment? and he does not really answer the question. You miss some very big pieces of the argument. (1) what about all the voice revenues that Internet companies like Vonage and potentially even companies like Google are taking from the telephone companies? These are the revenues that the telecos used to earn their return on investment. Should they not find new ways to earn more money off their networks to make up for losses and to pay for all the billions of new network investment required to pay for all the upgrades required to bring more bandwidth into the local loop? and (2) is it fair that Companies like YouTube are chewing up all the bandwidth and are paying relatively very little for it, while making the owners rich with multi billion dollar valutions? Should not the Companies that are using all the bandwidth pay significantly more, as they may create massive bottenecks in the local access networks? Just wait until high definition video begins to be downloaded in massive quantiies. Who is going to pay for upgrading the network when all the bottlenecks occur? Shouldn't those that benefit the most? Your $25-40 per monthly DSL or cable modem fee will not likely generate enough revenue to justify the investments by the telecos, particularly if their voice revenues are going away. The answer is that there has to be a new commercial aggrement between those that own the networks, those that use the network, and content providers. The answer is not necessarily network neutrality law based on some censorship problem that does not even exist. There has to be a real conversation that takes into account everyones interests. It can't be just about bashing big telecos or cable and fear mongreing about censorship. It is a much more complicated issue.

We must convince our legislators and all politicians that we will not tolerate the corruption of the internet, as they have allowed to occur to the public airwaves. This is the last chance for true open democracy that we have seen in this century or the last.

By which you mean not allowing the FCC to regulate the Internet in the same way that they regulate colors of light for radio and television?

Again, please read The Myth of Interference to understand why the concept of "public airwaves" is misleading in the extreme. There is no scarcity on colors of light! (We're not running out of FM or UHF frequencies any more than we're running out of the colors blue and red.) The FCC serves no beneficial function.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spectrum/

We already pay to access the Internet. People and companies who have web sites already pay hosting companies to make their web sites accessible on the Internet. There is no reason for the telcos and cable companies to collect a toll.

The telcos and cable companies want to be able to censor those who criticize them, and many other corporations want them to be able to choke out their critics and small competitors.

Bush & company want to be able to silence political opposition.

It's easy to silence individuals, small nonprofits, and grassroots political groups if you make their web sites so slow as to be almost inaccessible.

Welcome to the corporate state.

Re: Phillip
is it fair that Companies like YouTube are chewing up all the bandwidth and are paying relatively very little for it

This argument from the "Hands Off the Internet" crowd (who quite likely are astroturfing), also rings false, however.

YouTube has a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with their upstream provider, and almost certainly pay several times more per Mbps than residential users do, to which their provider has agreed to (or else they wouldn't provide access). In other words, the bandwidth provider for YouTube considers the arrangement as "both benefit" or else it would not happen. So stop spreading FUD that content providers aren't paying (enough) for bandwidth.

I do, however, certainly concur that this issue is far more complicated than shows such of this have communicated. (Though worthwhile that it has been discussed on-air at all!)

Thank you for your important show!! Tell me how I can help net netrality become the standard. We also need local radio. We must deconsolidate the air waves and all news media. I am often grateful to Moyers for his brave & ethical reporting. I was surprised and outraged that NPR was a participant in halving the local radio stations. Thank you for trying to restore democracy in our diseased country.

I did an analysis of Senate candidates' advertised positions regarding Net Neutrality. My discoveries are posted at
http://pagenotes.com/blogs/NetNeutrality.htm.

Then I went looking for a good way to donate to candidates in tight campaigns who actively support Net Neutrality. Since all but one of the candidates were Democrats, I settled for an Act Blue page:
http://www.actblue.com/page/savetheinternet

I encourage everyone to use these pages as tools for active support. I also invite constructive feedback in helping me maintain the accuracy and utililty of these pages.

A time-out error message of tomorrow: "This comment could not be posted because the user could not afford the bandwidth".

If you think by corruption I am speaking of bawdy language, you have taken too narrow a view - by corruption I mean the substitution of mind-numbing pap and endless commercials in lieu of thought and free speech.
Many thanks to Bill Moyers and PBS for this fine work
D.L. MARON

Is there a website that allows us to sign a petition that will be automatically faxed and emailed to our Congressmen? I've participated in these before, where I choose my State and sign the petition. This is a great way to get our viewpoints to them. Please post it here if you know of one.
Thanks,
JW in NC

Kathleen Gresham:
Bush & company want to be able to silence political opposition.

...because Bush & Co. couldn't merely subvert the FCC regulations vis-a-vis Net Neutrality for the same purpose?

Does no one else see the sad irony of "oh, the complicity between government and corporations is so thick, if only government could control everything even more!"???

Corporations are so powerful because government is so powerful. Government is the vehicle by which corporations dominate the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

The Bill of Rights guarentees all Americans the Freedom of Speech. The Internet is one of the last places where this ideal is truly excercised. By imposing a fee on sites to place their data in the "fast lane" and leaving those who do not or cannot pay the fee in traffic they limit this right and so go against the Constitution.

All the blogs, MySpaces, and Live Journals on the Internet will be forced to pay this fee. Considering that many of these are run by independents, lone American citizens, it is reasonable to think that many cannot pay this fee. The flow of information and expression through these sites would be virtually halted. That is why legislation must be passed allowing for the survival of net neutrality. The survival of Freedom of Expression depends on it.

I can't think of anything more important at this time than net neutrality. It's a chance to add balance in an incredibe imbalance to access of information. The net is NOT just YOU TUBE. It is THE forum for ideas and thought. Few opportunities of this magnitude have ever been at stake. I really hope people GET it!!

I am a small brick and mortar business with an Internet presence. And...if the internet gets regulated by who can pay then it leaves all of us "mom and pops" out of the ability to become big business.
The opportunity to broaden our horizon is so important to all small businesses. Anyway we can keep our doors open is a blessing.
Do NOT make the internet the gateway only to those who have money.
Arlene

Zuzu,

There is no way that YouTube pays anywhere close to what is proportionally required to pay for all the bandwidth that that site is eating up. I think the argument is precisely that, to get YouTube to pay more for its SLA. If you do not what it to take +8 hours in the future to download a high definition movie, then who is going to pay for the upgrade of your local loop? Will the telecos with the limited revenue that they get from YouTube today, while losing their legacy voice revenues?

When/Where is the discussion between Mike McCurry and Ben Scott? I can't seem to find it...

Thanks for someone's help in advance.

Nico

Who do I contact and by what means (the internet, the phone - or the old fashioned way by horse and buggy) to support Net Neutrality?

There is a reason opponents of the demise of net neutrality are apocalyptic. When America's media and informations systems are in danger of
becoming an entirely controlled information system the most important guarantee of being an American is about to bite the dust. That in case you are wondering is freedom of speech. The consequences of this are far reaching. The American people are now subject to a controlled flow of information and are being lied to. (Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq anyone?) Fox network for example has completely discarded any concept of journalism to become a government propaganda, opinion control machine.
Yes, when Government and Big Money are in control of the US information network Americans will be highway robbed of a free information network.
It will be something like cable television 64 channels and nothing to watch. Don't forget the Bush administration has waged war on the internet. Ask yourself, why? It is not simply a monetary profit/loss question. It is a question of who will profit from putting blindfolds on the American people and who will lose their lives as a result.

Without net neutrality there will be no internet.

what if we had a site where we sign up for an issue. This site would be a flood site. If a bill or amendment was being rushed through congress the site would flood congress with all the written opinion. Therefore we would not have to monitor or be somewhere else and not get the message this is happening, could represent you?

I worked in the Tel-com Industry for over a decade. And one thing I would expect everyone to know is that they have no interest in community Service, or The safeguard of Democracy. Like most Corporate
Giants they are only interested in sqashing competition, and making the highest profit possibly. The FCC is biased towards Big Money or Corporate Power, take your pick. These are the folks that are placed there to protect the citizens from the Monopoly's. That want to Control internet spead and content. Get active or loose what you take for granted.

SavetheInternet.com has links to information about the senators & congressmen in all the districts so that people can contact them urging them to support Net Neutrality.

In response to Zuzu's question, the telcos should be expected to pay for the broadband upgrades for which they were given the tax credits 10 years ago. Unlimited profits over the last decade have enabled AT&T (my ISP) to purchase Bell South for $17 billion - that's a substantial amount of money that should have been spent on giving me my improved service, not reinstating its former status as Ma Bell.

This is a class issue as well. Worldwide the haves and have nots will be further tiered by the continueed monopolization of media.

And if you think that control, both commercial and political isn't an issue consider this:In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. How did I know that? Yes, free access to information and organizations on the Internet.
Moyers and company did it again, letting us know the danger that lurks.
Now it's in our court. Get out there and call your rep, email friends, have them watch repeats of the show, attend a FCC hearing in your area if possible. And watch out for that lame duck session.

The FCC (and the FDA for that matter) and questionable government tactics..... So many lobbyists and so many lawyers getting rich from the many "big bullys". There needs to be a change to get things moving. Just wish I had the answer.

what if we had a site where we sign up for an issue. This site would be a flood site. If a bill or amendment was being rushed through congress the site would flood congress with all the written opinion. Therefore we would not have to monitor or be somewhere else and not get the message this is happening, could represent you?

THERE IS ITS CALLED SAVETHEINTERNET.ORG

Net Neutralily should be the only way the system continues. The principle guiding it should be freedom from the restricitons of big business. The Internet founder saw it as a system where each person would have complete access and no one bigger would deterimine what and when you see it. To allow this to change now is unethical.

No, no this is my response. It was put under someone else's name:

This is a class issue as well. Worldwide the haves and have nots will be further tiered by the continueed monopolization of media.

And if you think that control, both commercial and political isn't an issue consider this:In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. How did I know that? Yes, free access to information and organizations on the Internet.
Moyers and company did it again, letting us know the danger that lurks.
Now it's in our court. Get out there and call your rep, email friends, have them watch repeats of the show, attend a FCC hearing in your area if possible. And watch out for that lame duck session.