How the Telecomms Swamped Congress Over Net Neutrality
Jun 16, 2006 15:45 Filed in: Internet
The lopsided vote in the House of Representatives the
other day showed the difference between an industry
that has been lobbying Congress for a hundred years
and a group of very successful upstart companies that
simply don't know how to play the Washington, D.C.
game. Their ignorance and inexperience could
will cost them dearly.
Read a very savvy article on what happened. Maybe top executives at Google, eBay and Microsoft will be quick studies. Their future depends on it.
6/18/2006 Caviat: In this battle the dotcoms happen to be on the right side because their existence depends upon the Internet remaining an open commons, but this does not mean that their primary motivation is the public interest, or that they will advocate net neutrality next year if it is more profitable to do otherwise. The Internet, designed and built by taxpayer money, will remain open only if the ability of the major players to control and deny access is strictly regulated. Many users of the Internet are not old enough to remember that only 13 or 14 years ago the telephone companies wanted to block telephone subscribers from using modems without paying outrageously high fees for "data" access, but were prevented by the regulatory agencies from interfering. Had they been able to "de-neutralize" the net then it would have never become the information superhighway it is now, but instead, would have remained the equivalent of an overpriced gravel toll-road, with speed-traps at every intersection. Gopher (and it's big sister, Veronica) would have stayed the search engine of choice.
Keep in mind what broadcast, cable and satellite television have become under the free market system. Sure, you have a choice; you can choose between hundreds of channels carrying mostly junk or worse. On the Internet, you have a choice between millions of web sites, and if you can't find something you like (or don't like something you find) you can set up your own website for $10/month or even less. The cost of entry is for all practical purposes zero. The telecom companies would like to limit your choices to web sites that make a profit—for them. They would love to charge you dearly for the privilege of having a website and even more for the traffic that your site generates. Given a sufficient lock, they could even demand a percentage of your revenue if you happen to be selling something through your website.
Because of the way corporations and our economy are structured, a typical corporation cannot stand the idea of someone else making a buck if the corporation can make that buck instead. Typical examples of this corporate mentality are the efforts of successful franchisors to take over the businesses of their franchisees. Radio Shack once had a foolproof method of acquiring their franchises: it didn't reimburse the franchisee when people returned defective equipment, so the franchisee was at the mercy of Radio Shack's quality control. The more defective items, the less the franchisee made. But I digress.
Read a very savvy article on what happened. Maybe top executives at Google, eBay and Microsoft will be quick studies. Their future depends on it.
6/18/2006 Caviat: In this battle the dotcoms happen to be on the right side because their existence depends upon the Internet remaining an open commons, but this does not mean that their primary motivation is the public interest, or that they will advocate net neutrality next year if it is more profitable to do otherwise. The Internet, designed and built by taxpayer money, will remain open only if the ability of the major players to control and deny access is strictly regulated. Many users of the Internet are not old enough to remember that only 13 or 14 years ago the telephone companies wanted to block telephone subscribers from using modems without paying outrageously high fees for "data" access, but were prevented by the regulatory agencies from interfering. Had they been able to "de-neutralize" the net then it would have never become the information superhighway it is now, but instead, would have remained the equivalent of an overpriced gravel toll-road, with speed-traps at every intersection. Gopher (and it's big sister, Veronica) would have stayed the search engine of choice.
Keep in mind what broadcast, cable and satellite television have become under the free market system. Sure, you have a choice; you can choose between hundreds of channels carrying mostly junk or worse. On the Internet, you have a choice between millions of web sites, and if you can't find something you like (or don't like something you find) you can set up your own website for $10/month or even less. The cost of entry is for all practical purposes zero. The telecom companies would like to limit your choices to web sites that make a profit—for them. They would love to charge you dearly for the privilege of having a website and even more for the traffic that your site generates. Given a sufficient lock, they could even demand a percentage of your revenue if you happen to be selling something through your website.
Because of the way corporations and our economy are structured, a typical corporation cannot stand the idea of someone else making a buck if the corporation can make that buck instead. Typical examples of this corporate mentality are the efforts of successful franchisors to take over the businesses of their franchisees. Radio Shack once had a foolproof method of acquiring their franchises: it didn't reimburse the franchisee when people returned defective equipment, so the franchisee was at the mercy of Radio Shack's quality control. The more defective items, the less the franchisee made. But I digress.
|