The Man Who Invented the Web on Net Neutrality

[Aenlic]

The problem isn't at the level of customer to ISP access. It's higher up at the mid-level and backbone level. That's where the Level3 stunt becomes a case in point. They tried to use average internet customers, most of whom were not even customers of Cogent, as tools to force another company, Cogent, to play by their rules.

And government interference was exactly what led to the end of the stunt, Xiahou. The University of California was one of the affected Cogent customers. Do you know who has the contract to run Los Alamos, Xiahou? Care to guess why the Level3 stunt ended so quickly, with Level3 losing the argument?

There is no free market at the backbone level. There are no free market forces. There is little to no competition even at the mid-level. But way down at the end-user connection level, there is very little in the way of a free market. Many people don't even have the choice of broadband, being limited to dial-up through a variety of small, barely profitable providers who all use the same limited backbone. For broadband, many people don't even have a choice between cable or DSL, limiting them to one and only one broadband provider. Those that do have a choice, usually have only two from which to choose - and they're mortal enemies - the telecoms and the cable companies. A very lucky few have a few more choices. What free market?

[Xiahou]

The problem isn't at the level of customer to ISP access. It's higher up at the mid-level and backbone level. That's where the Level3 stunt becomes a case in point. They tried to use average internet customers, most of whom were not even customers of Cogent, as tools to force another company, Cogent, to play by their rules.

And government interference was exactly what led to the end of the stunt, Xiahou. The University of California was one of the affected Cogent customers. Do you know who has the contract to run Los Alamos, Xiahou? Care to guess why the Level3 stunt ended so quickly, with Level3 losing the argument?

There is no free market at the backbone level. There are no free market forces. There is little to no competition even at the mid-level. But way down at the end-user connection level, there is very little in the way of a free market. Many people don't even have the choice of broadband, being limited to dial-up through a variety of small, barely profitable providers who all use the same limited backbone. For broadband, many people don't even have a choice between cable or DSL, limiting them to one and only one broadband provider. Those that do have a choice, usually have only two from which to choose - and they're mortal enemies - the telecoms and the cable companies. A very lucky few have a few more choices. What free market?

Pffft, a little less conspiracy theory please. Cogent has been depeered several times previously by different networks and been required to renegotiate. Level 3 gave Cogent 75 days notice to renegotiate their contracts and Cogent did nothing- it didnt even warn its own customers of the looming outage. Eventually Level3 gave them a 30-day extension in the interests of both of their users, during which time the two companies hammered out a new peering agreement. Basically, Cogent played brinkmanship and most likely got a better deal than they would've otherwise by the publicity firestorm that their actions created.

Anyhow, more on topic.....
Net Neutrality is dead (at least for now) after being defeated in both the House and Senate. Good riddance.

[Aenlic]

That paragon of protection for citizens against corporate greed, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (who was bought and paid for and divied up among the special interests years ago), got his way. He managed to defeat that poster child for liberal causes and left-wing propaganda - Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. A clear victory for the U.S. telecoms who have been pushing Senator Steven's bill giving them carte blanche to do as they please in TV ads for the last several months.

"Snowe predicted that without a Net neutrality law, large broadband carriers will block or degrade Web content from competitors, creating a slow lane for everyone but themselves and their business partners. Officials with AT&T and BellSouth have advocated a business plan that would allow them to charge extra fees for preferential delivery of some companies' Web content. The broadband providers argue that they need new business plans to pay for the roll-out of next-generation broadband networks."

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou. Work for a telecom or cable provider perhaps? Or maybe lots of stock in one? You could write copy for the telecom trade association. (golf clap)

[Xiahou]

"Snowe predicted that without a Net neutrality law, large broadband carriers will block or degrade Web content from competitors, creating a slow lane for everyone but themselves and their business partners. Officials with AT&T and BellSouth have advocated a business plan that would allow them to charge extra fees for preferential delivery of some companies' Web content. The broadband providers argue that they need new business plans to pay for the roll-out of next-generation broadband networks."

Tell ya what. As soon as Snowe's absurd predictions come true, I'll write my legislators and demand that they support net neutrality. I'm confident I'll never need to do that.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou. Work for a telecom or cable provider perhaps? Or maybe lots of stock in one? You could write copy for the telecom trade association. (golf clap)

You're out on the wrong limb I guess. I'm just a small government conservative who gets suspicious whenever people start pushing pre-emptive government controls for problems that have yet to show themselves.

If you think only the telecoms are opposed to net neutrality, you'd be wrong. Many groups, including the staunch libertarian Cato Institute (see above), Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Individual Freedom, and even the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation all oppose net neutrality- that's just to name a few.

There's big business interests on both sides of this issue- if you think Google and Amazon have taken their positions for altruistic reasons, you're fooling yourself.

[Aenlic]

If you think only the telecoms are opposed to net neutrality, you'd be wrong. Many groups, including the staunch libertarian Cato Institute (see above), Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Individual Freedom, and even the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation all oppose net neutrality- that's just to name a few.

Ooh, let's examine all those, shall we?

The Cato Institute isn't a libertarian think tank it's a Libertarian shill for corporate interests think tank. The Cato Institute is funded in part by money from those very same telecoms. And let's not forget that Rupert Murdoch is a former board member of the Cato Institute. No conflict of interest there, eh?

Citizens Against Government Waste might as well just be called Cato Institute Take II. Most of the funding for CAGW comes from the same sources as those that fund Cato. CAGW's biggest claim to fame is a Microsoft-funded campaign against open source software. No conflict of interest there. Nope.

Center for Individual Freedom is just a joke. It was started by Thomas Humber, who runs the National Smoker's Alliance, a pro-cigarette front group funded entirely by Philip Morris. Interestingly, Philip Morris is also one of the leading corporate funders of the above two special interest groups as well.

National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. Ah, yes. William Bowles of The Black Commentator has some interesting things to say about that in this article. It turns out the NCBCP didn't even tell it's board of directors about the endorsement of the U.S. Telecom's lobbying. Some of the board members, like Howard Dean are just a tad upset.

Care to drag any more ultra-rightwing so-called think tanks out of the woodwork? Maybe you can find some this time that aren't funded by the special interests writing the policies these so-called think tanks then endorse - with a little palm greasing to help it along?

[Xiahou]

Care to drag any more ultra-rightwing so-called think tanks out of the woodwork? Maybe you can find some this time that aren't funded by the special interests writing the policies these so-called think tanks then endorse - with a little palm greasing to help it along?

That's a laugh- find me an organization that advocates anything and I'll find you people who will smear it. As I've said, if you think the organizations in favor of net neutrality are all doing it for altruistic purposes, you're fooling yourself.

As anyone at all familiar with them would know, both Cato and CAGW regularly trash Republicans- but if you want to call them ultra-conservative shills dont let me stop you. I think I can see where this is going- any group that agrees with you on this are saints, but anyone who disagrees is a souless pawn of big business...

[Lemur]

And anything bad is "liberal." Yes, we've been down this road more than once. And from more than one side.

[Aenlic]

That's a laugh- find me an organization that advocates anything and I'll find you people who will smear it. As I've said, if you think the organizations in favor of net neutrality are all doing it for altruistic purposes, you're fooling yourself.

As anyone at all familiar with them would know, both Cato and CAGW regularly trash Republicans- but if you want to call them ultra-conservative shills dont let me stop you. I think I can see where this is going- any group that agrees with you on this are saints, but anyone who disagrees is a souless pawn of big business...

I didn't say that they were shills for the Republicans. I said they were ultra-conservative shills for corporate interests. Not always the same thing. In fact, the paid mouth for the front organization started by the telecoms and cable companies is none other than Mike McCurry, former White House press secretary for Clinton. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. That should have been obvious by Republican Senator Snowe's opposition, shouldn't it? I'll give you points for a dedicated attempt at tossing out a red herring, though.

And just in case anyone reading this argument has the impression from some of your misstatements that this is all about not making regulatory laws and just leaving thing alone. That is not the case. Not even close. The Stevens bill, you remember him, he's the guy who shot all the amendments down, and is pro-Telecom, doesnt leave things the way they are. If that were the case, then why is the telecommunications industry funding all of those TV ads with happy little Americans, like firefighters and farmers (no obvious buzzword touting there, eh?) and small towns about how everyone should call or write Congress to support the Stevens bill.

The bill is 135 pages of giveaways to corporations, new regulations which help the telecommunications industry, and includes 24 new rules which must be enforced or implemented by the FCC.

Did you know, Xiahou, that one of the provisions in Steven's bill would require government subsidies to broadband providers in rural areas? I thought you were all about smaller government, not more government subsidies!