Trent Lott Votes Against Net Neutrality
Jun 28, 2006 22:23 Filed in: Internet
No surprises here.
It appears that the Republicans do not have the votes to overcome a filibuster of the telecommunications bill, at least for now. The campaign for net neutrality has been highly effective in the face of intense propaganda and arm-twisting by the telecommunications industry.
It struck me today as I was walking down Capitol Street that monopolists, even the high-tech ones, are not really interested in technological innovation. They are interested in money, and they are extraordiarily profitable, since they can raise prices without being undercut by competition. Radically new technologies are a threat to well-established monopolies, so unless they see how it will enable them to continue their monopoly, they will try to kill it. When ARPA wanted to build the first packet-switching network in the world, they went to AT&T, which declined. With IP technology taking over voice communication, it's understandable why AT&T wasn't interested in a technology that would threaten its monopoly. ARPA contracted the job to another company which created ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet. Yes, the Internet was not a product of private enterprise or the free market. The U.S. military was responsible for getting it all started.
For readers who are under 30, AT&T owned virtually all the telephone infrastructure in the United States, including the telephones in people's homes. BellSouth was an operating subsidiary of AT&T named South Central Bell. Several Supreme Court cases over a period of twenty-five years ultimately led to a court-ordered breakup of the company. The portion of AT&T that retained the name took over long-distance.
There are plenty other examples of monopolies fighting innovation. Microsoft innovates when it has to, as it has with Internet Explorer, which it neglected for years, until the clamor over its security weaknesses and obsolete interface forced it to make some changes. The U.S. auto industry has been remarkably inflexible.
It appears that the Republicans do not have the votes to overcome a filibuster of the telecommunications bill, at least for now. The campaign for net neutrality has been highly effective in the face of intense propaganda and arm-twisting by the telecommunications industry.
It struck me today as I was walking down Capitol Street that monopolists, even the high-tech ones, are not really interested in technological innovation. They are interested in money, and they are extraordiarily profitable, since they can raise prices without being undercut by competition. Radically new technologies are a threat to well-established monopolies, so unless they see how it will enable them to continue their monopoly, they will try to kill it. When ARPA wanted to build the first packet-switching network in the world, they went to AT&T, which declined. With IP technology taking over voice communication, it's understandable why AT&T wasn't interested in a technology that would threaten its monopoly. ARPA contracted the job to another company which created ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet. Yes, the Internet was not a product of private enterprise or the free market. The U.S. military was responsible for getting it all started.
For readers who are under 30, AT&T owned virtually all the telephone infrastructure in the United States, including the telephones in people's homes. BellSouth was an operating subsidiary of AT&T named South Central Bell. Several Supreme Court cases over a period of twenty-five years ultimately led to a court-ordered breakup of the company. The portion of AT&T that retained the name took over long-distance.
There are plenty other examples of monopolies fighting innovation. Microsoft innovates when it has to, as it has with Internet Explorer, which it neglected for years, until the clamor over its security weaknesses and obsolete interface forced it to make some changes. The U.S. auto industry has been remarkably inflexible.
|