Again???
October 15, 2009
It’s popped its ugly head up again. The buzz: Network Neutrality.
It’s not about what you think or read. It’s about money. I will write more about this subject as it evolves.
At this point, here is what I can tell you for certain: Net Neutrality will create barriers of entry to competition. Lack of Net Neutrality will disallow barriers of entry to competition. Oh, I am not talking about Telecom competition – other competition.
Google is one of the big advocates (culprits) behind Net Neutrality and pretty much is in the Obama Administration’s back-pocket. Go check political financial contributions made by Google, Google employees, advisory Boards, and records of who visits whom at the White House…
Here is the bottom line: if a user of the network actually has to pay for what they use, the perception of certain web sites that sell things, search listings or advertisements being free to access diminishes. Users will now start using the Internet with efficiency in mind, since now they understand that they are paying the freight for something they always though was free to access.
For example, if you have a usage budget, you might think once or twice about clicking on that pop-up ad or that Google ranked listing … not good news to those not paying their weight today for usage.
Google et al consume a disproportionate amount of network capacity that all other users are paying for. In short, Google et al do not want to pay for what they actually use – they want the little people to subsidize their use. It is in their financial interest and business model to avoid usage based charging such that they can further distribute servers in the network which allows faster throughput while burgeoning new competitors to Google et al would face this barrier to compete. Pay for what you use actually provides capital to network providers to expand infrastructure. Network neutrality does not.
Google et al can resolve this problem simply by revenue sharing with carriers … something I don’t see them considering right away.
There will be a compromise in all of this … I’ll let you know what I think it is as the issue and money behind it evolves.
Written by Dave Rusin - Telecom Executive
Posted by wbrache | Filed Under Telecommunications industry
(1 votes, average: 1 out of 5)
Loading ...Comments
8 Responses to “Again???”
Got something to say?
Feeds
Oh, come on, Dave! I expect more from you than this. Your whole post is such a lousy strawman argument.
You can’t seriously think that Google doesn’t pay their transit bill. If you in turn think that Google is paying less than market rates for transit, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.
If you want to refute Net Neutrality, do so by using real and rational arguments.
You can keep your bridge from Brooklyn. Are you ready for some reality?
The FCC is all over “network neutrality” advocate Google for blocking
Google voice calls to rural areas because Google does not want to PAY
for the higher termination charges – like the rest of us do under law.
Can you imagine that … on the one hand, all should be neutral per
Google, on the other for Google: do as I say not as I do. Never believe
what you read in the trade press — look at what actions a company does
- in this case Google is guilty of screening, blocking and manipulating
traffic for their own financial benefit. If AT&T started doing what
Goggle is doing — the politically correct Beltway would be going insane
on AT&T. However, Google is so far up the current administrations
orifice — you are blind to what is really going on.
Solution to all of this: Bill and Keep.
America does not need network neutrality. Lighten-up on drinking that
Google-Aid.
Curious … Do you work at Google? Have a Google tattoo? I have this
bridge to no where in Alaska to sell you.
Dave, Dave, what shall we do with you? You missed the gist of the argument by a country mile.
Nowhere have I stated that I support Network Neutrality. I do, however, take exception with arguments that are clearly both false and misleading.
I get it that you do not like Network Neutrality. That’s fine, it’s a perfectly valid position. I’ll even do you one better, I’ll give an argument against Network Neutrality that is both rational and defensible: more regulation is rarely a solution to a business model problem.
Claiming that Google does not pay for their transit, due to some legislation that is lobbied about, is just bovine excrement.
And what’s with the Google hangup? Did they steal your cookies? If you truly believe that I’m affiliated with Google, then please just take a look at the IP address I’m posting from.
I also don’t get why you be all hatin’ on a free VoIP service. It’s not like it’s being forced on anybody. Now, if it was the only POTS service in town, then you’d maybe have a point. But that point has nothing to do with Network Neutrality, it’s all about intercarrier compensation. You’re welcome to that can of worms. Just look how timely the FCC has been dealing with that issue.
To sign off, here’s another pro tip: the Internet is already Bill and Keep. You just have to be a Tier 1 operator to get to play.
So, how about that bridge?
I’m for net neutrality, not necessarily to be inforced in law/rulings, but the general principle..
You’re saying the principle is lousy just because one company does something in telecom.. yeah, grand view there.
Bitch slap him Dave! He needs it bad …
Google loving SOB …
I am pretty busy but will get back to you. I don’t have a ghost writer. I do promise to take you out to the woodshed in a meaningful fashion.
Hi Dave,
Great blog, thanks for writing it. Thought you might want to know that we at the Washington Rural Broadband Cooperative
The WA-RBC is a not-for-profit developed and directed by two entities: Cascadeo and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. While the current governmental definition of broadband is 768 kbs, we are bringing an initial 10 Gb/s to each of 13 community access points (CAP)s. These CAPs are located at existing community anchor points such as schools, libraries, tribal centers, and chambers of commerce in the local communities throughout the area served. Each one of the CAPs is also both a last mile head end as well as a node for subsequent middle mile buildout.
Our operating model is to function as a completely neutral transport provider offering very low cost, high bandwidth transport to unserved and underserved areas. Since this new backbone will be connected to the Seattle internet Exchange (SIX
We have widespread community support for the project and are intending to operate in a fully transparent manner; financials, best practices, all the way down to configurations, which we hope will allow other interested parties to use as templates in bootstrapping their own fiber based cooperatives throughout the country.
We believe that the WA-RBC will provide a new model for very high bandwidth transport and are looking forward to seeing the ramifications to the communities served. I’m attaching a one page summary of our project and would be happy to provide more detail.
Welcome to the open source Internet.
Warm regards,
-Ophir
What seems so clear and commonsense for you and I is a great mental challenge inside the beltway. My opinion, get the fiber in first, and what ever gets hung off of it – wireline or wireless makes the most sensible approach. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
Yes, anyone taking a nickel from the Government for any aspect of NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP should be required to provide open and equal access to others on a non-discriminatory basis.
Those of us that already have open access networks available to anyone — dark fiber and capacity – should receive a higher weighting over those that have a closed network they want to expand with public funds. In the end, those with closed networks, even if the abide by open access of new builds, they are a natural toll booth if you will in interconnecting traffic from the NTIA/RUS extensions to their closed access networks.
Commonsense, yes — applied to inside the beltway – no!
Notice how in Round 1 the big carriers wanted nothing to do with open access and non-discriminatory requirements!
–Dave