Slashdot Mirror
Lessig On Net Neutrality
nanojath writes "Lessig delivers the final word on net neutrality. Read it 5 times to absorb the densest, most content-rich pronouncement that Wired will deliver in 2007." From the article: "Those who oppose network-neutrality regulation should also oppose... regulation of [municipal broadband,] last-mile broadband's most important competitor. Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows. Yet it could change the business model of last-mile broadband, just as Linux has changed the business model of Microsoft. If there's going to be a Linux-like miracle to counteract innovation-threatening broadband business models, then, at a minimum, miracles must not be a crime."
Municipal and government networks do not have the advantage of competition, and therefore disparage innovation, not vice versa. Businesses compete and in order to gain an advantage, one business must innovate. I don't know why this article is claiming the opposite. Yes, I see the advantage of having standards, disparaging monopoly, and the like, but net-neutrality will only lead to a network that never gets better (think power lines). Yes, it is difficult for a business to get enough clout to own a network and there are problems with certain networks working together (problems between different cell networks). However if true innovation is encouraged, we will see a system that uses very few wires and increasingly uses wireless broadband. The integration of the cell phone and cell networks with broadband has already happened. Putting further restraints on the system will only cause unforeseeable problems in the future. Fairness and neutrality is not necessarily the best thing for the country.
Lessig claims that municipal networks will be able to compete with the Telcos to prevent abuse of their control over the network. I'm no expert but don't these municipal networks still plug into backbones owned by the Telcos? What is there to stop the Telcos from exercising their control at that level rather than at the end user level? I understand his point about not being too hasty with regulation, but there seem to be some holes in his logic.
They owned the network, the equipment, all services, support, even the phone books.
And after the stupid breakup, they still did, except they were called baby bells and they only ruled particular states. Didn't like the service in Florida? Well, I hear New Mexico is a great place to retire.
Didn't help customers one bit. Hey, that sounds just like the MS antitrust trial. Oh wait, did I just bash MS?
This is the canonical link to the issue: http://isen.com/stupid.html
In short, your communication line is no more than infrastructure -- and no less. The argument that competition can somehow spring forth out of the last mile is based upon the fallacy that someone will string a whole new set of lines to homes. Verizon would argue that they alone own the telephone poles (they do not) and tie up the whole mess in the court system. Or that someone could blanket the nation with fixed wireless (Project Angel of AT&T); of course, the only entity that could it effectively is a local gov't and Verizon blocked that as well.
Someone mentioned corporations act in their best interests, and that is true. As citizens -- because after all corporations are considered entities somewhat like people -- corporations would be psychotic sociopaths who in all honesty would be sentenced to life in a mental institution.
Expecting these entities to act fairly is itself stupid. The only way to deal with them is harshly and unfairly, on the side of people and not the corporate interest. We know how that goes, too.
Net neutrality is something we absolutely must have, not just as Americans but as free people. No corporate interest should take precedence, ever, for any reason. If they cry poverty, so be it. Let them find another way to make money. Really, if we pushed them hard enough, what could they really do?
-BA
nor could they allow it b/c of some agreement with the cable company.
Yes, these are the contracts and regulations I spoke of. Listening to the telcos and cablecos whine about them is amusing, and reminds me of my childhood: When I was a wee lad, my father would take my icecream and start eating it, all the while making a great theatrical performance of "Eww! Disgusting! This stuff is terrible! You can't eat this, it's nasty! I guess I'm going to have to suffer through it since we can't throw out food."
I didn't buy it as a kid, and I'm no stupider now than then. Regardless of how much they publicly whine about how horribly onerous it is for them to take money from subscribers no matter where in the city they are, deep down inside, I'm sure they think that having unused lines to slums with $50/mo cable is far superior to having Slum-o-vision move in and undercut them with $20/mo cable.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Please mod parent up.
Not for being insightful but for merely opening up the debate.
On the one hand it's true that government regulation stifled innovation by compelling the telcos to perform to government regulated standards.
On the other hand, the FCC can be seen as being in the business of 'selling' licenses to cell phone providers irrespective of what they do with the spectrum. Perhaps licensing of the airways should be less about who can pay the most and more about who will do what with the bandwidth to benefit the community. It would be nice to see a company that couldn't 'afford' the usual $500 million to be awarded spectrum rights because they had a good idea about selling mobile IP addresses with the intention of encouraging third parties to compete in building devices for it rather than the usual one company takes all approach.
I'm no fan of big government. But the spectrum belongs to the people. Let the best ideas for the use of the spectrum be the ones that prevail. Not just the ones that have the biggest financial backing.
Companies such as Prodigy and CompuServ used to charge by the minute and by the kB. Where are they now? That model doesn't work if there's abundance and competition, only when there's scarcity -- and I think perhaps these anti-neutrality moves are designed to engineer some scarcity into the system ... so, prepare to be squeezed.
Bell Labs was a powerhouse of innovation back in the days when the phone company was such a heavily regulated monopoly that it was virtually a state run enterprise. Since the breakup and deregulation of AT&T (effectively the same as privatization, in this case), what sorts of epoch-making telecommunications innovations have there been? Please only cite examples that were not already in Bell Labs' development pipeline and near marketable maturity.
How about price? While long distance service has stabilized somewhere near the pre-deregulation prices or perhaps even slightly less, fees and 'local long distance' costs are FAR higher now.
You point out being able to to buy cheap cordless phones at Walmart like it is some sort of improvement. A years rent on one of the terminals that AT&T supplied was no more than the cost of one of those cheap pieces of crap that you get from Walmart, yet it was a reasonably high quality instrument. Furthermore, AT&T did allow customers to use their own terminals on the network and cordless phones were widely available prior to the breakup of AT&T. Bell Labs even developed much of the technology for making cordless phones.
What innovations have come to market that AT&T had been stifling?"all of the other things that AT&T had locked down opened up". What things? Some examples would be nice, as I can't think of any.