Saturday, February 24, 2007

Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom

Save the Internet is a well meaning web organization intended to create a level playing field for all sites on the Internet.  Too bad that its efforts are misguided by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). They state that the access providers want to increase charges for access to Google, Yahoo! and other content providers and restrict free speech.  They want the government to regulate the Internet by forcing Internet access providers to treat all traffic equally.  In principle this effort sounds great, but in practice they will actually achieve the opposite amounting to a win for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other incumbent Internet access providers.

First of all, the government has not proven to be an effective regulator of anything.  Name one thing that they have efficiently managed.  Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches barely even know what the Internet is all about.  So how can we expect them to properly regulate what they don't understand?

Second, the Net Neutrality legislation currently proposed will actually set up the same walled garden that it is trying to prevent.  The legislation will force all packets for Internet access to be treated equally.  That means that AT&T's VoIP service receives the same priority as Vonage's VoIP service.  So far so good, but it also means that those packets are the same as a Bittorrent transfer.  Not so good for any provider of time sensitive traffic whether AT&T, Google, or Vonage.

AT&T can easily avoid having their time sensitive VoIP packets delayed by not running them over their high-speed Internet service.  They can use bandwidth outside the service just as they do their video traffic.  By not running their VoIP traffic over their Internet access, they can offer a better quality experience than Vonage or other VoBB providers.  Vonage and other competing content effectively are now in the slow lane while AT&T and the other access providers have a fast lane.  Isn't this what Net Neutrality was trying to prevent?

Why do you think that AT&T was so quick to agree to the provision in their merger with BellSouth?  They know that the rule will now legally allow them to give preference to their own services.  So goes the law of unintended consequences.  So well meaning organizations like the EFF and Save the Internet are actually hurting equal access instead of helping it.  The Internet needs a hands-off approach with more competition for access which will ensure Net Neutrality better than the FCC ever could.

Source: Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom

2 comments:

  1. What a load of disingenuous crap. Methinks I smell a telecom shill at work. To wit:

    "Save the Internet is a well meaning web organization intended to create a level playing field for all sites on the Internet. Too bad that its efforts are misguided by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). They state that the access providers want to increase charges for access to Google, Yahoo! and other content providers and restrict free speech. They want the government to regulate the Internet by forcing Internet access providers to treat all traffic equally [emphasis mine]"

    Bull. This is typical political doublespeak that would do Orwell proud. What Net Neutrality advocates truly want is the unfettered state of the internet prior to telecom interference that hijacked the open traffic paradigm. The new tiered approach is actually the regulated version, contrary to your inane quote above. Of course, telecoms and their shills, desperate to cling to some shred of an income stream in this brave new world of wifi and voip, have to spin reality in order to create their own Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt... as you have hypocritically done.

    "First of all, the government has not proven to be an effective regulator of anything. Name one thing that they have efficiently managed."

    A prime and sophomoric example of delving into logical fallacy in lieu of fact-based, objective discourse. Anyone who indulges logical fallacies to make or bolster an argument can't possibly be taken seriously.

    "Second, the Net Neutrality legislation currently proposed will actually set up the same walled garden that it is trying to prevent. The legislation will force all packets for Internet access to be treated equally. That means that AT&T's VoIP service receives the same priority as Vonage's VoIP service. So far so good, but it also means that those packets are the same as a Bittorrent transfer. Not so good for any provider of time sensitive traffic whether AT&T, Google, or Vonage."

    Your point? Well, it's obvious: just more telecom shilling, ie, support for the government-enforced tiered approach over a true open environment.

    If you were to be intellectually honest in your writing, you would not narrowly focus on pending legislation as if it is the only alternative. Again, the prior state of the internet, which functioned like water seeking its own level, was far more quitable overall than anything else proposed.

    "Why do you think that AT&T was so quick to agree to the provision in their merger with BellSouth? They know that the rule will now legally allow them to give preference to their own services. So goes the law of unintended consequences. So well meaning organizations like the EFF and Save the Internet are actually hurting equal access instead of helping it. The Internet needs a hands-off approach with more competition for access which will ensure Net Neutrality better than the FCC ever could [emphasis mine]"

    How ironic. You're now making MY argument and defeating your own. The tiered approach favored by telecoms is NOT "hands-off"-- the exact opposite in fact. The true "hands-off" mode is what we had before recent legislation (the passage of which employed arguments very similar to your own) started sectioning off the infrastructure.

    It would be nice to see this subject discussed and debated without the usual spin and garbage. Polarizing into shrill extremes of Us and Them doesn't serve the public, which always gets screwed by these "altruistic" efforts... especially, it appears, when the FCC is involved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A shill, eh? I have been called many things, but I never been called that before. Do you think that I can get the telcos and cablecos to pay me texrat? If you read many of my older posts you will see that I am critical of them a bit more than kind. They are far from perfect and frequently make mistakes. Ed Whitacre started this whole net neutrality mess by sticking his foot in his mouth.

    I will not delve into the emotions of your discussion/rant. If you read any of my previous posts, you will note that I am for a free and open Internet without the telecos/cablecos restricting the flow of traffic and access. I also realize that all packets are not created equal. My voice over broadband traffic (not telco or cable) is the most important service that runs over my pipe from Comcast. Unfortunatly the voice packets sometimes get bogged down by e-mail, web browsing, file transfers, etc. The reason being that I have no way of labeling one packet as more important as another one.

    Not everything is created equal no matter what the secular progressives say. Voice and video traffic are time sensitive and the need prioritization over web browsing. Net Neutrality will prevent that prioritization because voice and video from Google, Vonage, Yahoo, 8x8, NetFlix, Wal-Mart and everyone else will get treated no different from browsing on MySpace.

    I want choice of service providers, and I want it on the same playing field. Telcos/cablecos have the option of running their services outside the Internet access pipe to provide a superior service over Joost or Broadvoice. Allowing certain services to be prioritized will ensure that fledgling services can provide the same priority as the incumbents.

    The easiest way for the cable/telcos go implement this service is to go to the content providers. There are fewer of them . Implementation from the consumer side is more costly and difficult. I would gladly pay an extra few bucks a month for my VoIP service to have its packets prioritized as it rides through the Internet.

    Please read some of my other articles before we continue this discourse.

    ReplyDelete