Bad editorial: The irony of 'network neutrality'

[calm_blue_ocean]

by Democratic Congressperson Diana DeGette

http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5093991.html

Editorial argues that Broadband Internet providers should be allowed to provide preferred Internet accessibility for websites of companies that the Broadband companies partner with. In other words, if your company pays the Broadband provider a lot of money, the Broadband provider can fix it so Internet users have an easier time getting to your preferred website than to non-preferred websites (like, say, DU).

Congressperson DeGette argues for this discriminatory access largely on the basis that Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo are against it. She argues that these companies do similar things over the traditional dial-up Internet. IMO, this is weak. Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo are not the telephone company.

If the telephone comapny started were offering preferential access to websites who paid them off, then we would have a comparable situation. Telephone companies are content-neutral and broadband internet should be content-neutral for the same reasons.

Without content-neutrality, the Internet just becomes another form of television, with the broadband providers as the television networks allowing access only by advertisers with lots of money. That may be a good model for TV, but it really compromises what is special about the Internet. Of course, as a DUer, I probably don't need to explain why the Internet beats TV for many people!

Final note: Congressperson DeGette did not disclose in her article whether her Democratic party of her personally received significant contributions from broadband providers anxious to start up auctions for Internet access. Since there is no disclosure, we can only speculate on this possibility.

[zonmoy]

1. How much harder

would it be to simply only allow access to the prefered websites thus depriving people of much of the web.

[AndyTiedye]

2. That is the plan, obviously

They can't have just anybody being allowed to deliver content, can they.

[calm_blue_ocean]

3. The fact that they are fighting over the issue . . .

shows that they think broadband companies can discriminate unless prohibited from doing so. It is true that this battle may relate more to the Internet of the future than that of the present -- I don't know whether / what the current technology hurdles might be with the current TCP/IP internet protocols we now use.

I think so far there has been an abortive attempt by at least one broadband provider to discriminate against online gaming sites. I may be wrong, but I think the discrimination effort failed for political reasons, rather than due to technology problems.

[calm_blue_ocean]

4. Professor Lessig responds to the degette article:

http://lessig.org/blog/


<snip>
DeGette doesn’t

So people need to write Congresswoman DeGette. They need to tell her that she’s wrong on the facts. Here’s her Orwell-wanna-be description of the history of the internet, penned for news.com as an attack on “Network Neutrality.” As Ernie Miller writes, her cable-lobbyist screed even attacks the end-to-end principle.

Is there no shame?

You can send comments here.

posted by < Lessig > on < Oct 21 03 at 9:02 AM > to < NetNeutrality > < 19 comments >
<snip>