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."
I'll give up on regulation banning network neutrality when the telcos and cablecos would give up on their regulations and contracts that ban other people from competing against their monopoly.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Read it 5 times to absorb the densest, most content-rich pronouncement that Wired will deliver
I'm pretty sure that if it's as dense as you say it is, it's going to clog the tubes on the way over here. Kind of like when I eat too much fiber, if you know what I mean.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You must be new to slashdot.
Even dupes of dead horses are beaten around here.
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?
Municipal networks are free from competition only if they are the only game in town, which virtually no one is proposing. Municipal networks will have to compete with telcos and cable companies.
Also, there are a lot of places where there is an effective broadband monopoly already; in those cases would you prefer a for-profit monopoly or a non-profit one?
It's like I always say: You know what the worst thing about Microsoft bashing is? IT'S ALL TRUE.
The problem with any sort of state run industry is that it tends to murder off private competition. State run monopolies always have two advantages over any private corporation. State run monopolies can easier push through legislation to make it harder to compete with them, and state run monopolies can always make up for inefficiency, poor planning, and higher operational costs with tax money.
Some times we accept this sort of inefficiency that state run industries bring for higher values. The cutting edge of technology really is not one of the places where we should accept such inefficiency. We need private corporations to literally murder each other to provide the best product and drive innovation forward. I am not against rules to help poke and prod competition forward, but setting up state run and tax subsidized networks is not the answer.
I think it's interesting that you are using power lines as you example, but I'll stick with it. To extend your analogy, without network neutrality the power company can charge your appliance manufacturer a surcharge for use, and if they decide not to pay it then your refrigerator and washer/dryer gets a tiny trickle of electricity and is reduced to near-worthlessness.
You clearly don't understand the situation, like most people who come out against network neutrality. The companies who are pushing this did not create the internet, did not create it's standards, and do not own the land that they are using to bring the internet to you. The internet is a "common area", not a market. There is no "free market" here unless you want to make it truly free, in which case I will charge Verizon $400 for the FIOS line they just ran under my property, payable immediately and monthly. Also Charter, you owe me another $400, pay up. Then these two companies can then negotiate with every single other homeowner in the city as well. But wait, we don't allow that (and rightly so) because it would ensure that no one ever gets broadband and stifle innovation. Instead, we grant Verizon a local monopoly and allow them to use our easements; in return they are supposed to stay away from doing exactly what they are proposing, which is using their power to bone us out of features because we have no choice (hey it's them or the cable company, that's hardly a free market).
Also, power lines are a bad example because they work just fine for their intended purpose and are regulated.
Who? Why? Or are you talking just about all the unsuspecting people who set up unsecured wireless networks in their homes?
I would rather see the government force the carriers towards network neutrality. They were awarded a monopoly by the government, and can't complain about regulation. I am usually a free market person, but in this case, I would like to see the government enforce the status quo. Once Wi-Max is mature enough to give people options, then maybe the carriers can have some freedom.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Standard Oil was the reason for the introduction of Antitrust laws in the USA, not AT&T (Bell, whatever). Yes they got hammered by them, but they were not the first, nor the ones that prompted their creation in the first place. What, you thought "Esso" was just a funny-sounding name? Ess-O. SO. Standard Oil.
Linux was able to succeed as a collaborative effort because of cheap, commodity PCs (whose performance increased constantly), the Internet, a common desire for a freely available operating system, and remarkably good project management. None of this required capital beyond what was readily available to any one player.
With broadband, the network neutrality issue comes back to the idea of common carrier status. This is important, because the companies delivering this traffic have been granted a monopoly on service explicitly. What the large ISPs are trying to do is to eliminate common carrier status while retaining the monopoly. Allowing that would be a disastrous mistake for the public.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Your argument might be true, except for one problem. At the moment, there isn't private competition.
As far as I can see, last-mile information providers want it both ways. They want the subsidies and safety of a power company, and they want the profits of a hi-tech. So far, they're getting it, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You're the one who's grasping at straws here (for an example of needless MS bashing), not him. Did you miss the fact that Lawrence Lessig was part of the group of regulators that decided what to do about Microsoft's monopoly abuse? This wasn't needless MS bashing, it was a comparison between that regulation situation and the current regulation issue with broadband telecoms.
State run monopolies always have two advantages over any private corporation. State run monopolies can easier push through legislation to make it harder to compete with them, and state run monopolies can always make up for inefficiency, poor planning, and higher operational costs with tax money.
And yet, there are in fact government or civic programs that die, or never grow large enough to persist. Markets have their mechanisms for obsolescence, but they're not the only mechanisms.
I am not against rules to help poke and prod competition forward, but setting up state run and tax subsidized networks is not the answer.
There's a developer's mantra -- "right tool for the right job" -- that really ought to see more use in discussion of politics and policy. "Privatization is always the right way to go" is about like saying "Java is always the right choice."
When a service that provides a huge amount of utility to society has trouble developing into a commodity, sometimes we do in fact set up state-run enterprises, and sometimes, it works rather well as a platform for further social and economic development. And the truth is, having left things in a private state of affairs for the last two decades doesn't seem to have produced any real competition when it comes to basic network services -- not to mention advancement of those services has been exceptionally limited. There was various legislation to encourage monopolies to open their networks to others who wanted to sell services. The privately owned networks reacted defensively and made it difficult. This is where the "open network" philosophy that's driving many of the municipal network initiatives comes from. The private approach hasn't worked. The private sector is far more interested in rent-seeking and clamping down access than innovation. The only apparent alternatives are public subsidization for companies building new infrastructure (which we also tried, giving millions to telcos to lay fiber and new networks) in hopes that having several different infrastructures might produce competition -- or public networks, on top of which private providers can truly compete.
It's not that different from the idea of having a public road system, over which many private operators can offer shipping or transportation services and compete absent of the kind of fear and complications that having a competitor own the roads would produce. Frankly, I'd like to see more of our utility networks move this way, but AFAIK, packet-switched natural gas isn't in the picture.
Tweet, tweet.
I might be misguided but frankly I don't trust the telcos. Verizon's CEO has said many times that the pipes belong to him and has indicated he's pissed off because everyone's making money off the Internet except him. I can see his point. Afer all, he's the one that owns the pipes.
I wouldn't be so opposed to a non-net-neut world if I could be convinced the telcos weren't running a gnarly scheme to make my ISP bill look like my cell phone bill.
The net has been so succesful perhaps because it was designed and developed in large part, not by private companies, but by scientists and engineers in an academic environment who were mostly employed by the government. Profit was not their goal.
But if my cell phone company had developed the net, my ISP bill would probably list every site I went to that month and I'd be charged extra for things like email, SMS, MMS, streaming audio, etc., These would all be separately billable services. Voice would be charged per minute, data would be per megabyte, and I'd be nickel and dimmed for everything.
DARPA was not a business. They were not out to make money. The designed a system for maximum efficiency and easy growth.
Look at how the telcos have handled communications. For example, phone systems don't even have, nor have they ever had any intention of having, something as simple as DNS. If the telcos had had control over how the Internet evolved you'd be typing in Internet IP addresses simply so they could sell you access to a white pages directory.
Maybe I have it all wrong but when I look at their history I really don't have much faith in telcos. What worries me the most is that we're giving these companies a large hand in determining, not how the Internet will look in a few years, but ultimately we're going to be giving them a lot of power in influencing how it's developed later on down the road. I say we tread carefully.
I agree, and I wouldn't want a municipal government acting as an ISP. On the other hand, in my opinion the best source for the "last-mile" communications infrastructure is the same entity responsible for providing the roads and other fixed infrastructure; in most cases that is the city government, although it could just as easily be a private organization. (In many regards city governments, unlike state and federal governments, tend to resembly co-ops or private companies with the citizens as shareholders. The major differences relate to the form of income (taxes instead of rents) and eminent domain.)
Ideally I would like to see something like the UTOPIA project in Utah, where the cities provide (and own) a fast fiber-based communications infrastructure and lease it out to individuals and companies on a non-discriminatory basis. (Important: this must be funded locally, preferably through the lease fees, and especially not with state or federal taxes.) The city itself does not provide Internet access; instead, individuals can subscribe to any ISP connected to the municipal network and access the Internet using that ISP as a gateway. The system eliminates the ISP's natural monopoly by separating the infrastructure from actual Internet connectivity, something that (IMHO) should have been done from the beginning. Besides reinstating competition among ISPs it also allows "non-Internet" data services, such as VoIP and IPTV, to be offered simultaneously over the same network; these can be offered over the Internet itself, of course, but are generally more efficient when routed over the faster municipal network. People can even offer their own services--community web sites, game servers, IPTV stations, etc.--over the local network at far better speeds than they would get through any ISP.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Lessig sounds like the typical poster here. When looking for an example, bash MS.
Reading comprehension, dammit. He said:
1) he was someone who was only "reluctantly" on the side of the regulators;
2) Apple and IBM would have done the same thing if they could;
3) OS's inherently drive toward monopolization for standardization; and
4) it's natural for any company in their spot to protect their monopoly.
He then uses this example to suggest that competition from atypical sources (ie, Linux or Muni broadband in his examples) works better than regulation.
If anything, he's a MS *apologist* and monopolist coddler.
When corporations provide essential services, the possiblity for great evil exists. If government doesn't step in to protect the public interest, those corporations will take every opportunity to collect an ever increasing fee from their captive customers.
This is why things like the Sherman Act exist - to provide a counter-balance against unrestrained corporate greed. Unfortunately, our government seems to be unable or unwilling to exercise these tools to promote the public interest.
In the meantime, if you simply assume that every corporation is out to make every possible dollar in any way they can - you'll be right.
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
Freedom of speech is great as long as nobody's listening.
/Steps off soap box.
--Luthor ruling the USA via holographic president in The Dark Knight Strikes Again.--
The point being made is people hear what is said but noone really does anything about it. The machine just rolls along while we here on slashdot and digg and various blogs talk about all this and do nothing about it. The awareness factor is limited only to the tech savvy crowd (many on here) who on allot of levels control information. I have seen very few instances where people are actually posting petitions or doing anything to show the dissatisfaction. Blogs go up but there really is no one united effort to focus the voice of the people toward the Govt to address our grievances. Just a bunch of divided voices and individuals voicing opinions who will often get outed as crazy. Larger numbers make a larger difference.
If we take our voice into one central place and focus it at the Government they WILL listen. We out number them. They want our vote. As long as the 2 of the 3 branches of Govt are reminded that they have the axe of constituency voters hanging over their head they will listen. At this point they are paying lip service and doing under the table deals. We just need show that they have more to fear from us in terms of our voice and the resulting action that just posting on social sites. I am working on a number of petitions that deal with Government issues and laws important to constituencies all over the nation. Once they are finalized and written I will post links up. But I am hoping we can all rally behind that and show the Government we are serious about changes in the things we are seeing now. Corporate influence on Govt in general is no different than what religion was in the dark ages to the Govts of the time. The only difference is the lack of brutality.
To offer tiered service is just an excuse for the corporations to limit what we can see on the premise that the content provider must pay for bandwidth. We just need to fight that tooth and nail with our voice. Make sure the public in general (non techies) are very aware of what that is and HOW it affects them. If they are aware of how bad it will be for them then more people will start to react. Preaching to the choir never gets it done. Preaching to the people who have no clue or don't see the danger has a much better chance of getting the message across and will spread. This is one method of creating a united front.
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.