Net Neutrality is the Wrong Frame
With all due respect to Jeff Pulver and to the rest of the gang (including yours truly) that have been breathing life into the idea of Net Neutrality, we in the tech industry have done a lousy job framing the debate with the telcos. Martin Geddes is right when he says that "... network neutrality law is a tactical, practical, strategic and philosophical error."
But I would offer a simpler formula than Martin for what does need to be done. And as an aside, simpler is part of the lesson that the tech industry needs to learn if we are going to be successful in the political realm. Here it is:
The two most important issues facing our nation and the world economy are energy and telecommunications. These are the two economic drivers that will determine our prosperity and health in the coming decades. Do we need really need another OPEC in telecommunications? By ceding control of the Internet to a small number of powerful companies, we risk a set of unintended consequences -- limits on innovation, an impact on competitiveness in a world market, decisions about where investment capital will flow, and a negative impact on our individual quality of life.
Improved networks that are capable of prioritizing the flow of certain kinds of information are not in themselves the problem. The debate should be about two things:
(1) Who gets to decide which packets are prioritized?
(2) What obligations are inherent in the use of public rights of way ?
My answer to #1 is THE CUSTOMER. Look, if AT&T wants to offer me the ability to prioritize my VoIP traffic, that is fine. But they can't discriminate amongst providers. So I get to chose which VoIP product I prioritize. Or maybe I want to prioritize my online game. And a hospital wants to prioritize MRI data. But the CUSTOMER decides. Not some backroom deal between a telco and a vendor.
And on #2 my answer is that there needs to be ewqual access to the last mile. I have an electrical line running into my home. I have a water pipe as well. Power and water comes into my home from many places. Lots of independent companies can hook up to the grid or the water supply and sell power or water to my municipality. Great. Why can't the Internet be more like electricity or water?
At the end of the day the role of government that is being overlooked in this debate is to protect the interests of the people. Government is our voice at the table. To the extent that the government hands out licenses to airwaves or to rip up our city streets to install bandwidth to our homes, they should be doing so to improve our cities, our economies, and our lives. Creating a new OPEC, with an unreasonable amount of power over what we can and cannot do with the telecommunications infrasturcture is a direct threat to our pursuit of happiness.
6 Comments:
Thank goodness someone is finally providing some common sense points on this issue besides arguing whether they are for or against it! Thanks for the very salient points on net neutrality. Let's just hope those in Congress will start making some sense too!
Congress should pay attention to these type of posts. How can they vote to regulate the industry when we as consumers, along with top technology companies, have come out against net neut?
This is a very good post and it makes an excellent parallel between other home utility providers like water and electricity. The NN issue needs to be determined through the consumer choice, not in hallways of Congress. Until there's widespread abuse by providers or paying customers being denied access to the internet or whatever, what's the point of "regulation"?
GREAT post! Someone finally hit the nail on the head! .... internet service should be treated just as water, electricity....any other utility that comes to our home. Why is there a need to regulate internet service from a congressional level?
I hadn't really thought about this one in the way you've put it, but you're right. The question of the matter shouldn't be about neutrality as a whole. That's the wrong way of viewing. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the evenhanded post. My question is whether we think government is the proper vehicle for these sort of changes. If you want your provider to let you pick and choose which packets are prioritized, why can't you select that option, or select a provider who provides it? In the end, I think the free market can level the playing field far better than the government could ever hope to.
Post a Comment
<< Home