Rhetorical legerdemain
Back in November 2005, Reps. Barton and Upton floated a telecom bill that appeared to have nice language in it about network neutrality.
But it also would have allowed providers of high-speed (fiber optic) broadband video services to offer “enhanced quality of service to subscribers through the [network provider’s] utilization of network and routing management or customized hardware.”
“Broadband video services,” were in turn defined as those services “delivered directly to subscribers over facilities the service provider owns and controls.”
Now, this may sound perfectly rational: we built the high-speed network, we can use it to provide enhanced services for subscribers. And, indeed, the draft legislation goes on to provide that broadband video services “may not block or unreasonably impair or interfere with . . the use of any lawful content, application, or service provided over the Internet.”
But it has finally become clear to me that the telephone companies are planning to ensure that subscribers never see “the Internet” at all over these high-speed connections. Instead, subscribers will see the “broadband video” offerings of the network owner, to which particular paying web sites and paying VoIP services have been added. They’ll be able to access “information derived from the Internet,” in the words of the bill, but not the internet itself. Only those willing to pay for slower access speeds (and perhaps willing to pay more for these slower speeds than for the high-speed access) will be seeing “the Internet.”
“We built it, and so we own it, and we won’t block access to the internet,” the telcos say. But this is rhetorical legerdemain. “We built it,” means “We built high-speed access.” “We own it,” means “We own our high-speed access fiber networks.” “We won’t block access to the internet,” means “This high-speed network will let you see information derived from the Internet from partners who have paid us. It isn’t purporting to carry ‘the internet,’ and so we aren’t blocking access to ‘the internet.’ If you want ‘the internet,’ go buy another, slower service, from us or someone else.”
In a nutshell, in the Bells' minds refusing to provide access to the public internet via their high-speed networks is completely compatible with network neutrality. Sure, they'll be neutral — when it comes to slower, 2001-era speeds that (eventually) no one will want.
Phooey.
Comments
3 Responses to “Rhetorical legerdemain”
Got something to say?
Doesn't “network neutrality” beg for the same political favours game as the telcos are already playing and winning? Either the end-user has to come to own or control the first hop via some alternative means of ownership, or you unbundle and allow real competition.
Also, if Verizon et al are going to reap such usurious profits from their natural monopolies on FIOS etc, why isn't anyone else rushing in to pre-empt them and lay their glass first? Given a potential multiplicity of EVDO and WiMax like networks, most of the user needs for basic connectivity (Web, IM, email etc) are covered by multiple technologies and bags of competition. IPTV will continue to have to compete against free-to-air TV and satellite with fixed scaling for a subset of the content delivery.
Is the monster in the dark closet really as horrible as our imagination makes us believe?
Well, Martin, I haven't been a big exponent of network neutrality. Although it's an unpopular point of view here, I have been worried that asking for “neutrality” just gets into game-playing that won't end up with the result most people want.
So, yes, you're right, I'm pushing for end-user control of the first hop via some alternative means of ownership. But that will require some government intervention, and it will be a steep uphill battle.
Yes, I do think there's a monster in the closet. Basic connectivity is what we have now; it would be foolish to think that should be the end of what we want or need.
This got me thinking. Yes, another off the wall idea. If telcos are dead set on strong-arming content providers and begin privileging some packets over others, how might the major content providers respond? Imagine, what BellSouth customers would think if all of a sudden Google, Yahoo and MSN disappeared!? Instead, perhaps, they got a page saying something like:
I mean, I don't see why the telcos should be allowed to leverage their position through packet inspection and content providers shouldn't be allowed to do the same. It just emphasizes what a bad bad bad idea this is and how it undermines some of the basic tenets of the internet architecture as envisioned by Cerf et al.