Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Worth Reading: Report Says Net Neutrality Key to Broadband Success

A recent Harvard report on broadband says net neutrality is key to success. Read this Fierce Wireless report.

From the Onion, to bring laughs with your morning coffee:
Cell Phone Stuck In 2-Year Contract With Local Man.

By Cecilia Kang  |  October 15, 2009; 11:02 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Consumer Groups: Tell the Truth on Cell Phone, Internet Bills
Next: T-Mobile Executive Calls for More Spectrum for Smaller Competitors

Comments

Ms. Kang, you need to do better research. Had you read the actual Berkman Center report, you would know that the report says that "network neutrality" "may be
sufficiently implemented through competition" and "requires justification
outside the target of high capacity
networks, whose focus is pre-cloud." In other words, the report admits that there is no need for regulation in the presence of competition.

I still do wonder if your blog's bias toward unnecessary and destructive regulation stems from the fact that Google's logo appears not once but twice on this page, or that the majority of the revenue of washingtonpost.com appears to come from Google/Doubleclick.

Posted by: squirma | October 15, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Brett, I read the writeups and I'm well into the 232 page report - you appear to be reading a different report than the rest of us. The pdf is online at http://www.fcc.gov/stage/pdf/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Study_13Oct09.pdf

The report notes that competition is inadequate in the US, and that open access increases competition. Quote "The emphasis other countries place on open access policies appears to be warranted by the evidence" page 13.

The report notes that countries with the best broadband deployment are net neutral.

The report IMHO strongly justifies net neutrality.

The report really points out that 40-50% of capacity is being used by video (whose usage is exploding) - IMHO strongly suggesting that we need to charge by usage, and not cripple specific applications.

See writeup at Network World http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101509-study-backs-open-access-to.html?hpg1=bn titled " Study backs open access to broadband networks" A global survey of broadband sought by the FCC suggests open access to wired networks has led to successes"

For those who don't normally read Network World, a brief quote from their summary - "Open-access policies played a major role in the success of many first-generation wired network transitions and is also aiding in second-generation wired rollouts, the report said. Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the Netherlands and the U.K. are among the countries that have used open-access rules to foster strong broadband markets, it said."

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 16, 2009 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Again, Ms. Kang, with all due respect, you appear not to understand the issues at hand. "Open access" is not "network neutrality."

Our country did in fact have a mandate for "open access" in the 1996 Telecomm Act. The courts and the FCC negated it.

Posted by: squirma | October 17, 2009 1:06 AM | Report abuse

And again, squirma, you are being disingenuous and offensive.

Ms Kang is in fact accurately reflecting the commonly accepted definition of net neutrality.

The positions you advocate (such as allowing ISPs to choose one favored partner in any technology, effectively eliminating competition and fattening their own pockets) are not pro-competition, open access, or net neutrality.

Such partnerships (which in most cases are likely to be with a subsidiary content provider) very effectively squeeze out innovation and competition. They hurt US, the consumer.

Yet you specifically advocate such actions in your blog posts here.

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 17, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

What's disingenuous and offensive are the slanders by certain commenters, above, against my industry. The fact is, again, that no ISP wants to play favorites among content providers or block any part of the Net. But the lobbyists for Google cannot win regulation unless they deny this.

Posted by: squirma | October 18, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

squirma, you need to familiarize yourself with the term slander. It ain't slander if it's true.

You, yourself, suggested in another thread that it would be a GOOD thing if your ISP partnered with Netflix to make Netflix downloads faster than any other content. See your post of Oct 15, 10:31 am, on the FCC Pushing Net neutrality thread. I'd be perfectly happy to post your own words here, if you'd like.

What's the problem with it? Three things.

First, it advantages the big established FOR PAY players - Netflix can get such an arragement, small players or for free players can't. It stifles competition - and kills the chance of a new Netflix coming along.

Second, most ISPs would rather you buy your "advantaged" content from them - not Netflix. How good do you really think the prices will be when there's no real competition for that service? Take a look at your broadband cable bill for the answer.

Third, streaming video is 40-50% of all Internet traffic now, and increasing rapidly. If their own content is already fast, what incentive do ISPs have to speed up all the free and competing content?

Remember, it isn't the content provider that will ultimately pay - that cost gets passed right on back to the consumer, and ALL of us pay it.

Instead of SETTING UP a situation where the consumer could get gouged with no recourse, it makes more sense to ask users to pay based on their use of bandwidth. 90% of us use just 20% of all bandwidth - we'd probably get a rate cut.

Then charge the 10% of users that use 80% of bandwidth a little more, to pay for the build-out that their heavy use is making necessary. If it costs more to use more, they can pay for it or they may choose to moderate their use.

Right now those 10% are using FORTY TIMES MORE than they're paying for. Having ISPs charge them a little more would allow everyone to get more bandwidth, protect free access to information, and encourage Internet innovation.

Most important of all, the payments would be spread out fairly, not hidden costs placed on people who are already getting less than they pay for.

The ones that use the bandwidth the most pay more, and the rest of us don't lose money and freedom subsidizing them.

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 18, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company