NJ House Delegation Sells Out the Internet

The Telcos Paid... (0.00 / 0)

The Pols Played.

It's all about THE MONEY!!!

Ostensibly, they need it to "run their campaigns".  I'm sure they polled and determined that no one would likely be put out of office for this vote since most people aren't as aware of the benefits of net neutrality as they are of, say, flag burning.

It's OUR job to be activists and to educate the public...and to make alternative media (like BlueJersey) an interesting, exicting, fun place to be.

The pols who "sell out" are banking on the history/track record of being able to get away with this kind of legalized bribery since most ordinary folk are too busy trying to live to be able to "connect the dots".

Let's prove them wrong!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:21:27 AM CDT

Pallone? (0.00 / 0)

Pallone doesn't need money to run his campaign.  The Republicans can barely find a punching bag to run against him, much less a credible challenger.

I am shocked he voted this way given his alleged connection with digital democracy and the Democracy for America movement.

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:42:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Direct and Indirect Influences (0.00 / 0)

It's inconceiveable to me that Pallone or someone on his staff doesn't understand this issue as well as an internet entrepreneur like Juan Melli.

Let's assume that Pallone gets no money directly from telcos, and that he doesn't need any money to keep a safe seat in the next election. 

There are all manner of ways money talks.  Who knows what "chits" were traded, and/or promises/threats made to get Pallone's vote on this one?  I'de love to know the inside scoop on PRECISELY how and why a fairly progressive pol like Pallone sold out consumers on this one...I don't think it was incompetence or ignorance.  Something's fishy.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:25:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scrapping net neutrality? (0.00 / 0)

I would disagree that the votes of the Congressmen will  indeed "scrap net neutrality". That would infer that this bill somehow weakens current law on this issue. It does not.

As long as the internet has existed, our lawmakers have taken a hands-off approach to it and have, for the most part, resisted the urge to pass laws regualting it.

However, the FCC has established rules to, and has the power to ensure that the internet is operated in a 'neutral manner'.

Under this bill that was passed yesterday, companies that violate the FCC's policies on broadband will be fined up to $500,000. That's a pretty good incentive to stay 'neutral'!

It seems to me, that throughout this debate many have been looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

---

by: stevelenox @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:44:10 AM CDT

Huh (0.00 / 0)

Today, if the internet providers wanted to charge more money for websites to be delivered faster, they could not.  You pay to connect to the Internet, not to travel on it. 

All traffic, once it arrives on the Internet, is treated neutrally on a first arrives first delivered basis.  If my packet gets there before Amazon's, my packet goes through the pipe first.

If the bill was made law, they could charge different amounts for different speeds.  Amazon could pay extra and have their packets bypass my packets and be delivered first.

I'm unclear how that is not a change.

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:02:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

telecom industry talking points (0.00 / 0)

You've just repeated every telecom industry talking point practically verbatim.

Between 2002 and 2005, the FCC ELIMINATED these rules that you're talking about. There is a temporary moratorium in place, but once that expires in a few months, unless net neutrality legislation is passed, the internet as we know it is over.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:03:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Everything that I have read (0.00 / 0)

has said that there have never been any legislated "rules" governing Net Neutrality. However, the FCC has issued "positions" on regarding Net Neutrality that it can enforce on a case-by-case basis.

If this is correct, I would agree w/ stevelenox's post. If this is incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

This whole Net Neutrality issue seems to have been mired in yellow journalism on both sides, and a clear, consise, accurate and truthful assessment of the situation has not been put forth by either side.

The netroots side keeps saying that the COPE act will end the internet as we know it, though as far as I can tell, this is not the abolishment of rules, but rather refraining from creating any NEW rules.

The telecom side keeps saying that a vote against the COPE act is a vote against consumer choice, and that the Markey amendment would be unnecessary legislation, though it seems to me that if the cable companies are promising to be good, what is the downside to holding them to it via law?

Someone please clear this up, if we're going to have a frank and honest discussion about what many consider to be a very important issue.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:56:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what more do you need? (0.00 / 0)

Don't take my word for it. This is Edward Whiteacre, the CEO of SBC Telecommunications, admitting that they will do it:

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

Which of course is bullshit since we already pay for internet access.

And if you don't think there are real consequences to this or that it can't possibly actually happen, well: IT (1) ALREADY (2) HAS (3).

All the NJ Democrats voted for net neutrality initially. They obviously thought the legislation needed to be in place. Then, most of them voted for the bill that didn't include the provision.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:26:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

That quote implys that Mr. Whiteacre would LIKE to do it. My question is whether or not the FCC would allow it.

Additionally, I find it very unfair to chastise our Democratic Congressmen for doing the right thing for net neutrality. They voted for it. ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT.

And all the screaming and yelling on the internet couldn't win this battle. It was voted down.

(ASIDE: The idea that internet petitions and blogging is going to stop anyone from shutting you up on the internet is akin to organizing a "Keep Telegraphs Alive" movement via TELEGRAPH. Where is the real-world movement? Who is marching on the capitol over this? The medium is the message only works as long as the medium still exists.)

BUT, the COPE act was still there. An act that supports the telecommunications industry, New Jersey's 3rd largest industry (read: thousands of NJ jobs) by allowing them to get into the broadband market on the same level as the cable companies, and opens up the market for cable choice, and you want them to vote AGAINST it?

That just doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like it's about bringing more jobs to New Jersey, and protecting the jobs that are currently in New Jersey, rather than large campaign donations controlling our representatives.

That's not "weaselly crap" as Jill puts it and it's unfair to say they "Sold Out the Internet"; it's voting in the best interest of your constituency, by voting for net neutrality, but not being so short sighted as to vote against the COPE act, effectively cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why can't some Congressman/woman introduce a separate net neutrality bill? Pardon if that is an ignorant question, I'm no pro when it comes to House procedures.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 13:23:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

Yes, the FCC WILL allow them to do this. They're not spending tens of millions of dollars to fight this just for shits and giggles. You do not spend that kind of money to fight a rule which they claim is unnecessary and wouldn't make any difference anyway. They stand to make a lot of money from this.

And since when are marches taken seriously or reported by the media? Give me a break. Marches stopped being effective decades ago.

We use letters, phone calls and now the internet to contact our representatives and organize. That's the evolution of technology. There is nothing less "real" about communicating via electrons as opposed to through bleached, dead, folded tree parts.

Last time I looked, the Telecom companies don't elect representatives to Congress. The state's residents do. They're supposed to look out for our collective interest, not that of major companies in the state. And yeah, I know that's a quaint, silly idea for some.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 13:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ehhhhhh (0.00 / 0)

And since when are marches taken seriously or reported by the media? Give me a break. Marches stopped being effective decades ago.

What about the Million Man March? World Bank Protests? Million Mom March? Tiananmen Square? I think I read something about them in the media... I also think a congressman would be more inclined to sit up and take notice if there were several thousand people outside of his office, instead of several hundred thousand blog postings on the internet.

Marches stopped being effective when the marchers stopped caring enough about their causes. Find me someone who's going to stand in front of a tank or take pepper spray in the eyes for network neutrality. Sure as hell not me.

Online Activism is ineffective. Online Organizing for Real World Activism is quite effective.

We use letters, phone calls and now the internet to contact our representatives and organize. That's the evolution of technology. There is nothing less "real" about communicating via electrons as opposed to through bleached, dead, folded tree parts.

My point was not that an online protest is less real, but rather, that the protest is taking place via the very medium you are concerned about being silenced. If they win, and you are silenced, what recourse do you have to keep the movement united? I happen to like dead tree parts, anyway. Have you ever tried to read an e-book? Just doesn't have the same feel.

Last time I looked, the Telecom companies don't elect representatives to Congress. The state's residents do.They're supposed to look out for our collective interest, not that of major companies in the state. And yeah, I know that's a quaint, silly idea for some.

Many of whom are employed in the telecom industry. That's my point. It's the WORKERS, not the company, that I'm talking about representing. I appreciate the sarcasm though. :-P

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:20:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

marches (0.00 / 0)

What about the Million Man March? World Bank Protests? Million Mom March? Tiananmen Square?

Which ones did you attend? I'm curious to hear how the IMF/World Bank Protests worked out for you. Did you stop them? I'm sure they didn't make you look like total lunatics on tv...

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:28:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now you're just being nasty (0.00 / 0)

Lets compare the number of people who know that the World Bank exists to the number of people who know that the net neutrality debate is even going on.

And lets be honest, savetheinternet.com makes this whole thing look a little loony too.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:55:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait... (0.00 / 0)

Which part looks loony to you? The part where they have nearly 800,000 people signed on to their petition? Or where they list the incredibly diverse coalition they have which includes bloggers from both sides, a gun rights association, MoveOn, various unions, non profit groups, churches, small businesses, ISPs, .... ? Just curious.

Free Press -- Coalition Coordinator
Professor Lawrence Lessig -- Stanford
Professor Timothy Wu -- Columbia
Gun Owners of America
Craig Newmark -- Craigslist.com Founder
Professor Glenn Reynolds -- aka Blogger Instapundit
MoveOn.org Civic Action
Consumers Union
American Library Association
Parents Television Council
Consumer Federation of America
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc.
Public Knowledge
Common Cause
Christian Coalition of America
American Civil Liberties Union
National Association of State PIRGs (U.S. PIRG)
SEIU
Rethinking Schools
Parent-2-Parent
Center for Digital Democracy
Afro-Netizen
The Agonist
Alliance for Community Media
Amazing Kids
AcornActive Media Foundation
Association of Research Libraries
Association for Community Networking
Scott Bradner -- Harvard Technology Security Officer
Brave New Films
Californians Against Waste
CCTV Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Creative Voices in Media
Chicago Media Action
ColorofChange.org
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project
Community Technology Centers
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Consumer Action
Consumer Project on Technology
Professor Susan Crawford -- Online legal expert
CUWiN
Democracy in Action
Educause
Feminist Majority
FreeNetworks.org
Future of Music Coalition
Game Overdrive
Internet2
David Isenberg -- Harvard Berkman Center
Independent Press Association
Kansas City Anti-Violence Project
Media Access Project
Media Alliance
MediaChannel.org
Sascha Meinrath -- Community Internet Pioneer
Music for America
National Video Resources
New Organizing Institute
NYC Wireless
Ohio Community Computing Network
OpenPrivacy
Open Security Foundation
Personal Democracy Forum
Prometheus Radio Project
P2Pnet
Quicksilver Communications
Reclaim the Media
Scott Kurtz -- Cartoonist
The International Webcasting Association
The Service Roundtable -- Small Business Network
David Weinberger -- Harvard Berkman Center (Joho the Blog)
Working Assets

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 15:22:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly (0.00 / 0)

The graphic with the scissor and the network cable. I mean come on...

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 15:27:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm Not Buying The Con Job (0.00 / 0)

Look at who appointed the FCC comissioners.  Look at the history of how the FCC has been ruling and writing/interpreting rules under Bush (and even Clinton).  I see absolutely no reason what so ever to believe that this FCC has any interest at all in protecting the interests of consumers.

As I understand this issue, any law or rule or policy that allows internet providers the "freedom" to discriminate, in any self serving way, for or against any data packets that go through their pipelines is wrong. Period!

When you pay for dial up, dsl, cable, sattelite, fiber optic or whatever method you use to access the internet you agree to a flat rate for unlimited access.  Period!

What the telcos want to do is to be able to charge more or less for certain content flowing through "their pipes".  From a purely greedy self serving perspective (i.e. putting myself in their shoes) they are 100% right!  I don't blame them for trying to maximize their profit.  They are corporations and the way the law is written they have an obligation to their stockholders to grow profits in any way possible.

The problem with this is that it is fundamentally unfair to consumers who are already paying for internet service at competitive rates that are already profitable for the telcos etc.

As I understand the issue it goes something like this: (A gross oversimplification from a non techie.)...Imagine the outcry if Staples charged different rates for a commodity like paper contingent on how much profit they thought you were making by using that paper.....or Exxon charging you more for gasoline if they thought you were making lots of money using their gas to get around. The way profit is made when selling a commodity is that a price is set, contingent on supply and demand.  It is utterly outrageous for a supplier of the commodity to begrudge the profits of folks using the commodity and to try to get away with selectively charging more on that basis.

If the costs of providing pipeline is low because we've overbuilt the global fiberoptic networks; then that is a good thing for the competitive free marketplace and, obviously, the consumer.  A lot of small people lost their shirts when the bubble burst...for the telcos to now try to unfairly "monetize" the pipeline they now control that many of them bought at bargain basement prices is beyond outrageous.

The telcos are paying truly clever/brilliant commercial Karl Rove PR types to put the best face on this rip off...but Juan is indeed right to say, in plain English, the case the telcos are making is total bullshit.

(I don't mean to denigrate the power of well executed bullshit; hell look at how we wound up in Iraq!) 

The fact that most Americans at this point, don't know/understand much about this issue doesn't mean that the issue isn't real.  Or that "nobody cares".

It'll be alot easier to stop this before it becomes an entrenched practice.

There are also all manner of political implications...but 'nuff said for now.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:16:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PS Physical Protests AND Virtual Protests are Synergistically Reinforcing n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:32:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

YES! (0.00 / 0)

but where is the physical protest?

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:57:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good Question (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, it'll probably take the actual passage of this kind of rip of/scam legislation to get people out in the streets and better yet in the lobbies of Congress.  Every time we "win" they'll try to sneak it through in some other way...these people are relentless and have virtually bottomless pockets.

The issues really aren't legitimately in question.  It's like global warming, the more you actually learn about it the more clear it is that the "industry" position is just so much PR bullshit.  Again, the best disinfectant is sunshine.

This issue is part of a whole fabric of interwoven screwings that consumers/taxpayers and working/middle class people are subjected to in practically every aspect of our lives. 

From insurance regulations to banking laws to military procurement to you name it; just about everything government does (or does not do) is afflicted by the corrupting impact of big bucks contributing to campaigns and lobbyists and junkets and seetheart deals and cronyism and revolving door carreer paths.

Only the grossest and most outrageous abominations like Enron get caught out and even then, just a few miscreants are ever jailed.  Think about it.  It took a scam that cost investors and emplyees BILLIONS of bucks to get a few guys put in jail! 

Imagine what would happen is you stole a thousand bucks from a bank!  Hell, there were hundreds of people/"traders" at Enron who knew it was a scam.

Most of the corruption is actually quite legal. 

I'm sure the point will come when people start connecting all these dots and that a truly massive movement for simple honesty and fairness in the law will manifest. 

Isn't contributing to the formation of a progressively activist citizenry part of the role of Blue Jersey?

In the case of the internet, it's not just a matter of money...clearly (if they get away with this kind of abusive legislation) the lines will eventually be drawn to stifle any speech that is a perceived threat to the status quo.

Sorry for the rambling/disjointed prose...no time to do a better job at the moment.  You get the picture, I'm sure.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 16:47:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Question for ridethedonkey (0.00 / 0)

RTD, there are aspects of your post that sound like you're perhaps an elephant riding the donkey and beating it senseless.  This idea of "We have to give corporations everything they want because they provide jobs" is garbage.  Verizon isn't going to go out of business if they can't extort money from both sides of the pipe -- the server of the content as well as the receiver of the content -- nor are they going to pull jobs out of New Jersey.  This is a money grab by Big Telco, plain and simple.

Pallone's vote was weaselly because there is no reason for him to vote for the COPE bill even if the Markey Amendment was defeated -- other than to pay back his corporate masters. 

By the way, those of you interested in this issue:  I called Lautenberg's office and he is 100% behind net neutrality.  Menendez is still on the fence, so start calling!!

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:37:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Answer for brilliantatbreakfast (0.00 / 0)

As offended as I am that you would compare me to a Republican, I'll answer your question anyway (wait, you didn't actually ask me a question!) :-D

(kudos for calling your Senators on the issue, btw, it's good to see that people are doing more than just writing on bluejersey!)

This idea of "We have to give corporations everything they want because they provide jobs" is garbage.  Verizon isn't going to go out of business if they can't extort money from both sides of the pipe -- the server of the content as well as the receiver of the content -- nor are they going to pull jobs out of New Jersey.

Please don't put things in quotes when no one here has actually said them. I didn't say OR imply anything of the sort. What I said, or perhaps meant to say, in case it was unclear, is that it's not about Verizon going out of business or pulling out jobs. It's about promoting the interests of New Jerseyans. Meaning, jobs for our people, and tax revenue for our state.

What I really asked in my original comment was for some clarification on the issue, which no one seems to be able to do or want to do. I'll pose a more specific question, in case anyone can help me here:

From commoncause.org:

Net neutrality is the principle that you should be able to access whatever web content or services you choose, without any interference from your Internet service provider.  Right now, no law or rule protects citizens facing obstacles to getting access to the information on the Internet.  The COPE bill would make it impossible for those protections to be written into law or rule, making all of us vulnerable to big companies who would like to "own" the Internet and mine it for profit.

How does the COPE act make it impossible for these protections to be written into law? I'm not being rhetorical, I truly do not understand. If someone can enlighten me, I would really appreciate it.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, language like "garbage", "weaselly", and "corporate masters" are negative terms that are sure to get people's backs up towards you. It makes it difficult to conduct a civilized conversation when I have to restrain myself from replying in kind.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 15:18:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gov. Corzine can still help (0.00 / 0)

If Governor Corzine would hold up the signing of the state wide cable franchise legislation due to concerns over Net Neutrality then he can send a message to Verizon that we want to keep the internet a level playing field.

The COPE Act will most likely pass and trump NJ's state legislation so why not make a statement and say NJ wants Net Neutrality?

The telcos have too much money to be defeated in Congress; the best ways to protect net neutrality is to send messages to them and their investors every chance possible.

See my letter to Governor Corzine for more info: http://www.bluejersey.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1676

---

by: RedBankTom @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:20:11 AM CDT

I'm confused (0.00 / 0)

Are we talking about this vote?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

Because if so, Holt and Pallone are on the same side. If we're talking about something else, then sorry.

---

by: tryaches @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:40:41 AM CDT

two different votes (0.00 / 0)

The one you link to is the Markey Amendment - the net neutrality provision. Every NJ Democrat voted for it. Every NJ Republican voted against it. The amendment failed. That was just an amendment to this bill, which passed and which 4 out of 6 NJ Democrats voted for (with the exception of Payne and Holt) and 6 out of 6 NJ Republicans voted for, despite not having the net neutrality provision in it.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:47:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, Mr. Aronsohn, wrap up my vote NOW (4.00 / 1)

Paul Aronsohn has a golden opportunity to wrap up my vote right now with a post indicating that he would NOT vote for any bill that allowed a telecommunications company to take bribes-for-speed in terms of internet content.

This is a HUGE issue, not just for free speech, but also for the many small business and IT systems that use the Web as a front-end for data entry access.

If Paul Aronsohn will post here and pledge to vote NO on any similar legislation that would come across his path in the House, I'll guarantee him my vote in November. 

And this means a STAUNCH "no", not the weaselly crap that Pallone did, voting for the Markey amendment and then, after the amendment failed, voting to give control to the telcos.

I shall be waiting.....

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:07:09 PM CDT

Ditto! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 14:34:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not totally what you asked for (0.00 / 0)

but Aronsohn says he supports net neutrality.

http://www.bluejersey.net/showComment.do?commentId=3862

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 15:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, in general... (0.00 / 0)

...but here we have a specific case in which Pallone, someone who endorsed Paul, has voted in a way that folks like Juan Melli indirectly associate with the word "bullshit".

I would love to see Paul proactively come out against this particular iteration of the telco agenda to overturn or weaken net neutrality.  It would show some political courage/heart/independence.

And this site would be a great place to do it!

Even if this bill fails in the Senate...the issue will not go away....they'll only stop if/when the pols become more afraid of their constituents than they now are of the Telco Industry.....and even then, when people start forgetting about it, they'll try again.  This is the nature of the beast.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 16:59:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, in a one-sentence reply (0.00 / 0)

Now that the primary is over, Mr. Aronsohn can erase many of my reservations about him if he can convince me that he understands what the issues of net neutrality are and commits to sustain the internet as a free and open marketplace for ideas.  It would also show me that he isn't necessarily in the pockets of the people who raise money for him.

I'd be happy to enlighten him on the implications of the COPE bill as well, though I think Juan has done a bang-up job already on that.

As for you, RTD, I guess you have more faith in corporate America than I do.  I understand that your point is that "just because something isn't forbidden doesn't mean it's mandatory", and just because Big Telco CAN create two-tier access doesn't mean they will.  However, it is Big Telco who wants this so-called "unregulated internet" so that they can charge for use of "their pipes" both ways.

SBC (AT&T) CEO Edward Whitacre:

How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg:

"We talk to them [Google] all the time, and they understand the issue," said Seidenberg, in a question-and-answer period following his keynote speech Thursday at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). "We have to make sure that they [application providers] don't sit on our network and chew up bandwidth," Seidenberg said. "We need to pay for the pipe."

Keep in mind that YOU, the person who USES "his pipes" are already paying for them, the same way if you make a toll call to your mother, she doesn't have to pay for it.

Verizon and SBC are the biggest players in the game, and they have already stated their wish to have content providers pay in addition to the customers who receive content.

Is that enough to convince you that the telecom companies are not interested in free and unfettered internet access?

The internet is more like phone service, where the call goes through whether it's you calling your mother or the chairman of AT&T calling his #2 in command.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 18:06:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Metaphors and Thoughts (0.00 / 0)

What the telcos are doing is like Tony Soprano demanding to "get a cut of the action" in the neighborhood restaurant simply because he rents them the space.

ISP's make their money by providing access to the net.  If the cost of bandwidth rises because the demand gets so high that the "pipes" need expansion; then the rates would have to go up proportionaltely and competitively for all alike.

That's the business model that has got us to this point.

The telcos want to have the "freedom" to charge at both ends AND the freedom (if they could get away with it) to block or downgrade service to content providers that might compete with some aspect of their own product line.

It's a blatant power/money grab; and don't think there won't be political ramifications if these corporations got their way...sites like the one you're reading now that probably lose  money would not be likely to get well treated in a world where the net wasn't neutral.

These people want to spoil the internet the way they have spoiled broadcast media, and cable. 

As for google, ebay (paypal), amazon etc....I am hoping that newer better cheaper versions of all these behemoths come along to replace them as they get too greedy and become the opposite of what they started out to be.

The fact that the Christian Coalition and MoveOn are on the same side of this issue is quite telling.

http://www.itsournet.org/2006/05/christian_coalition_and_moveon_1.php
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 22:34:21 PM CDT