How have we in the US got to the point where we let the evil run our country?

Imagine a world with “tiered internet” (the opposite of net neutrality). Say you download via iTunes (like most people) – if Apple refuses to pay their backbone provider for priority, then anything coming from it is relegated to the “slow lane.” Then, podcasts would come in slower. If they DO pay for access to the fast lane, there are two outcomes from your perspective: podcasts download faster, but Apple would probably pass along the extra cost to you.

As I said above, the backbone providers who are asking for more money from content providers are being greedy. They have been paid three times already to transfer data to us via their networks.

For those who argue that people should pay more for a fast lane, that argument is a non-starter as well. Websites already pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. If they pay for more, they get more. You already pay for bandwidth. If you pay more (for Cable instead of dail-up) you get more.

In essence: backbone companies who want a tiered internet are simply being greedy and selfish. If they really want people to pay more for access to their pipes, they should charge more on both ends.

http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality

The US is already way behind other countries in the race for universal broadband access. If we had the infrastructure for affordable universal wireless broadband access we could participate in the brave new world of network accessed application development.

Without the broadband infrastructure to homes and phones we will pass the innovation baton to other countries.

Ebooks haven’t taken off yet, but if Stephen King could distribute his novels electronically with an advertising model, rather than conventional book sales, generating revenue, then he could earn far more revenue in the year of a book’s introduction than a run-of-the-mill, video-on-demand porn site, even though the porn site might require far more bandwidth to earn its annual revenue.

If bandwidth were the point, services like Vonage and Skype would be focus of infrastructure provider attention, but when I hear infrastructure providers discuss the issue, they talk about Yahoo and Google, not Vonage and Skype. Infrastructure providers want more of the ad revenue from content providers. That’s all. It’s about the ad revenue, not about the traffic. Content providers/receivers pay for network access roughly in proportion to the volume of bytes they provide/receive. If they don’t, infrastructure providers have a much more legitimate grievance, but I assume they do.

Cleland’s rebuttal of the “telecom mafia” rhetoric was reasonable. It’s not like all the fat-cat bad guys own the pipes and all the angels provide the content. On the other hand, Cleland’s rants about “keeping the government out of the market” are equally disingenuous, as was his plea on behalf of consumers. Consumers always pay, whether or not ad revenue flows to the telecom mafia rather than the content mafia. I’m not any happier with Ed Whitaker’s mansion, assuming that he has one, than with Michael Jackson’s. We need a progressive consumption tax, but that’s an entirely different program.

That said, even if discriminatory pricing is about channeling ad revenue to infrastructure development (and telecom baron castles), it’s fair to ask, “Why not?” Most of us who use the net a lot want the fatter pipes. We want video on demand and similar services. I do [i]not[/i] want content policemen reading every word crossing the net, regardless of why they’re doing it, and that’s the legitimate issue. I also don’t want a network structured to limit content providers to entities with explicit contracts to provide particular content and a few bandwidth owners essentially licensing content. I don’t want content filtered through exhaustive negotiations between lawyers representing the bandwidth providers and lawyers representing content providers. This path leads to an expansion of the corporative state.

The first guy was just plain ignorant; the second guy reminded me of Dick Cheney–father knows best, even if he’s wrong.

The Internet is so new that it’s inventors are still alive, functioning, and more than willing to contribute to public understanding. They agree unanimously that net neutrality is integral to the design and purposes of the Internet, and not merely an optional feature.

Why not have the designers of the Internet on the show? Why not have the academics and public-policy wonks who got it going on the show? Why not have the entrepreneurs and the value-added business people who have made it such a success on the show?

I mean: jeez ‘um crow!! What earthly purpose was served by giving high-paid ad-men an excuse to super-size their client billing? What exactly did they contribute to our understanding?

If you really, truly feel there are two sides to the issue of net neutrality, invite the CEOs of Verizon and Comcast and ATT to make their case. But, please, spare us the low-level flak catchers–ignorant beyond words, unfamiliar with the history or the purposes or the design of the Internet.

They may be right in saying that the the net is not yet broken But these guys don’t understand it, and whether deliberately or fecklessly, they will break the net with the self-serving and uninformed proposals their clients are selling throough them.

If the Internet is turned over to the private purposes of the media monopolies–using public facilities, public funds, public investment and public enforcement powers to do so–it will take decades for us to undo their mischief.

And just for the record:
++”video bits” are not bigger than “text bits.”
++ the Internet was not built to be inefficient; the defense department built it to be redundant, so that it could survive nuclear war;
++the original network policy prohibited commercial use during its earlierstages of development so that high priority uses could take advantage ofits limited bandwidth ; it was opened to commercial use (“.com”) when it had become capacious enough and robust enough to survive commercial pressures like the ones your show exposed;
++the private companies are trying to make the government into a bogeyman for their private benefit; they are covering up the facts: we taxpayers paid for all of the initial development costs, all of the infrastructure costs, oversaw the standards-setting process, paid for the basic web browser technologies. Companies like the ones who hired your guests–companies that contributed precious little money, and even less vision–want to steal the technology we paid for and turn it to their private ends;
++TCP-IP does not “throw away” bits – if a transmission is interrupted, information is sent again; it was designed to do this so it could survive a nuclear war or get around censorship; it may not be able to survive the rapaciousness of the media companies;
++”common carrier” status is the way rule-of-law societies ensure equal access to economic infrastructure; it is the way we controlled robber barons who attempted to monopolize our transportation and communications systems. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard these guys acting like “common carrier” was a dirty phrase–I know they are hired guns and technically incompetent–but couldn’t they at least know a little history?

If they knew more, we might call them arrogant, but they don’t. I suppose one good thing about the show was that it illuminated the risks of giving control of what used to be called “natural monopolies” to men who lack the technical skills and vison to steward them on the public’s behalf.

Regards,
Gene

My own financial self-interest would be served in a big way by having some of the things Siva is worried about come true. First off, we serve mostly business customers (the economics of providing service to consumers only works for the big guys). If I could buy a higher priority connection to someone using a Verizon DSL line, then I could offer voice quality fully equal to local analog dialtone, and could add features which would make it attractive for that user to buy their minutes from me.

As it is, we do offer voice over the non-assured connections available today, and we jump through a lot of technical hoops to extract passable quality service. It’s not ideal. In fact, we already buy T1 and DSL lines to reach our customers from Verizon and ATT configured to operate as our own private network, and pay a premium for same. Delivering voice with the unpredictable results one gets as a Vonage customer is not sufficient for our market niche, which is sensitive to other things besides cost alone.

In addition, if Verizon or Comcast were actually to degrade or block various services it would be a huge boost to independent ISPs like mine. That’s the disclosure on my conflict of interest with NN. We (and all other independent ISPs combined) don’t serve enough of the market to act as a competitive threat sufficient to prevent (or cure) such action by the big guys, so it still wouldn’t be good for the country as a whole. But we’d make out very well financially from serving those within our reach that would vote with their wallet on such things.

As you will see if you read on however, I don’t consider my personal financial interest to be a justifiable basis for making national policy decisions. (quick, what’s my party registration?).

Both of the main guests have it wrong, but in significantly different ways. And Chris, I’m afraid that your search for a useful metaphor ended counter-productively in this case as well.

The analogy to the package delivery market doesn’t work unless one posits that you have to use a particular delivery service to reach any given address. UPS and FedEx can’t deliver to PO Box addresses for instance. That’s the closest example to what actually applies in the ISP world. You must reach each user via the company they buy their connection from. If the user has no choice, or can only choose from a duopoly that wink at each other when they set their policies, then the NN camp’s worries are based on recognition of a real threat.

Siva’s pro-NN stance while very articulate on the ground it covered, has been overly simplified and was therefore completely vulnerable to the holes Scott punched in it. Any credible argument for NN must address the fact that there is a legitimate need for Classes Of Service (COS). To make his argument work within this context probably seems like a dilution and a needless delay in making his point, but as the inconclusive debate on the show demonstrates, it isn’t needless after all.

Even if he doesn’t accept the need for COS, Siva will have to come to grips with the fact that it is unstoppable. The carriers and cable companies can only provide their own real time (voice & data) services this way, otherwise they will be prevented from transitioning their services from traditional dedicated channels to convergence on an IP backbone. The economies of doing this underlie the whole reason all of these guys invested in overhauling their network infrastructures in the first place. It’s done, and it’s history. Don’t waste time pretending it’s avoidable and you wiull actually made a more compelling case.

Then there’s Scott’s case….talk about “Orwellian.” He made my blood boil. The argument presented on this show should be studied in detail as a microcosm of what’s broken about politics and civic debate in this country.

Scott’s doesn’t like government. Okay, I get it. In general I’m no fan either. However, everything he’s argued to defend his ideology is exactly the Orwellian doublespeak he accuses Siva of. It’s a classic debating technique to call the other guy what you are guilt of youself and thereby undermine his ability to call you out first.

First, there is no “trend toward more competition.” Any policy that Verizon afflicts on it’s DSL users will surely be applied to Verizon wireless customers. Well there’s always Sprint, yes? Okay, except that their biggest partnership and probable future owner is a consortium of the largest cable companies. Cingular is now the new ATT. Soon Bellsouth will be as well. MCI is now Verizon. Nextel is now Sprint. This is all within the past 18 months.

WiMax is supposed to come and save us with another ubiquitous wireless path to all doors. We’ll see. WiMax equipment is being built for licensed-band use, and Sprint & MCI…uh Verizon, are the largest spectrum holders in those bands.

There’s unlicenced band wi-fi, and some small ISPs are doing well at that in a tiny fraction of the country. Not enough to save the internet innovators though if the big guys degrade basic service — and mark my words, if the wi-fi ISPs do become big enough to represent a real threat, they will be consolidated and bought out by the big players. The fate of the competitive LD and CLEC industry proves that. Let’s not forget that the new ATT is really Southwest Bell, which in turn used to be Pacific Bell, Ameritech, SNET plus all the smaller companies the old ATT bought out along the way…Teleport, ACC…many more. The Verizon-NYNEX-GTE-MCI-Worldcom-MFS-UUnet history is just as colorful. Look for Qwest to disappear within the next 24 months.

When it comes time for the Telcos to buy out the largest wi-fi network operators, ATT and Verizon will argue that they need these companies to compete with Cable in the places unreachable by DSL. So it’s actually pro-competitive…see?

The history of the cable industry is very similar, but in some senses even worse, because they own many content providers, so their motivation to degrade applications and content competition outside their pricing tier model is even greater.

Then there’s municipal wi-fi: Why to the big guys object to it to the point of getting government protection in the form of state laws preventing or limiting that movement? BECAUSE THE BUYOUT OPTION WILL NEVER EXIST. Municipal wi-fi is an actual public trust, and therefore the only truly dangerous form of competition not because it’s based on a separate infrastructure, but because IT EXISTS TO SERVE DIFFERENT MOTIVES. From the telco/cable perspective, that’s what’s actually “unfair” about the competition it represents. It’s not co-optable down the road.

With the possible exception of those cities which pushed ahead with muni-wifi, America will have a spotty duopoly for the foreseeable future, with a few local exceptions here and there which are too small to affect the overall marketplace.

Scott’s argument about it not being broken and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is also rooted in an Orwellian lie:

Telcos and cable companies are already big big players in the government protection game. That’s how they killed the CLEC industry, are stifling municipal wi-fi, and have overcome concentration of ownership protections to name just a few items. Their intent is clear and predictable. It’s based on money and the power to control markets that assure their continued control of money.

Scott’s arguement is really based on “look at what I say today,” not what I did yesterday. Yesterday, the rise of the open Internet was used to support the lifting of restrictions on concentration of ownership, common carrier regulations, network facility sharing, etc. Today, the open internet is being redefined as something which must “naturally” have varying classes of service, but which will remain fully open to competition based on it’s recent past. It’s an attempt to divert the audience’s attention from the place where the Telco’s real track record can be examined, and where they are in fact, already repeatedly guilty of what the NN camp expects from them in the future.

What pisses me off about Scott’s intellectually dishonest position is that it occupies an equal footing with Siva’s argument in forums like this show. Chris, without realizing it, you are pandering to the same sort of dishonest representation that the oil-company sponsored climate change skeptics amount to.

I said near the top that my company buys private DSL connections to reach our customers. Sounds fine, right? Well it is, but only because the value of what we provide to our customers is worth a premium to them. My “wholesale” cost from Verizon for an unimproved DSL line is only $1/month less then their retail rate for the same connection. On top of that I have to add my cost of a T3 line to access their DSL platform, additional backhaul charges for connections outside my local market and an additional $15/month fee for the “private PVC” needed to support reasonable quality voice. Then I have to buy actual bandwidth to the Internet from my network hub.

My two points in raising this are:

1. The notion that I’m really buying a “wholesale” product in any sense that would allow me to compete with them for basic retail data service is a myth. I’m not actually complaining about this because I have focused my offerings to a profitable market niche, but it’s important that the public understand that there’s nothing actually competitive about it. DSL sold to ISPs is called wholesale, but it’s actually another retail market segment for the Telcos. It’s wholesale is only the semantic sense in that it is bought to be repackaged and resold.

2. However dumb or inefficient you may think government to be, beware the fox guarding the henhouse. There’s no uncertainty about that outcome.

So, what’s the answer? What should the policy be? Here’s one idea:

First, specify no blocking of any legally permitted network service.

Second, set a minimum performance standard:

Today, if you buy business internet access – say, a T1 line – it comes with an SLA (Service Level Agreement), which specifies the promised uptime, maximum packet loss, jitter (next to packet loss, the most important spec for real-time voice & data services) and latency of the connections to be delivered. Some providers are even offering SLAs for connections for your packet’s delivery across other provider’s networks. The SLA spells out the financial consequences of failure to deliver at the specified levels.

Most SLAs from the larger network operators are pretty similar, though the specs are in a continuing arms race such that the standards are higher today than 3 or 5 years ago.

If the NN advocates feel that the internet of today is sufficiently good as a platform for supporting innovation, let’s set the performance floor at the level of a typical commercial SLA available now. I’m not talking about the SLA on retail cable or DSL service, which is lower, but what independent content providers are already buying.

As an independent applications provider, I welcome the opportunity to buy different grades of service to support applications which have different requirements and different value. Vonage service is less predictably good than a dedicated analog line. But it’s good enough to be compelling at the price they sell it for.

However, Siva’s insight that Verizon or Comcast will quietly degrade Vonage packets to the point where it is no longer good enough, and then offer them the option to buy an upgraded connection is not at all a chicken little worry as Scott dismissively calls it. It’s basic economics, and fully supported by the actual history of these very player’s behavior in other aspects of their business.

Let’s not fall for the narrow and literal basis of the argument delivered by the industry’s paid shill. There is no basis to consider this debate legitimately controversial. Only the ubiquity and volume of the industry’s well paid voices makes it seem so even for a moment.

Siva, please frame the argument better. Include room for COS. Protect the baseline service level and universal connectivity, even though the evolving technology would allow for some sort of improvement over time. That’s as much as an American can hope for, and it gives the innovators the predictability they need to craft their offerings.

In the end, the future corruption of the open internet and the influence it will impose on fate of our culture is overshadowed for me by the desolation I feel about the degree to which reason has already been bastardized at all levels of public discourse.

Chris, I’m going to close with one suggestion for you…

You asked Siva and Scott to outline the nighmare scenario their position is intended to avoid. Fair enough. I think you should have also asked them to defend each other’s positions. Whomever gave a disengenuous half-hearted effort, or was simply unable to use that assignment to add texture and moderation to their own position could then be confidently dismissed as either a liar or a fool.

I’ve heard this kind of mismatch before on radio current events shows (I don’t watch TV), and it’s very frustrating when I am familiar with the issue and can recognize the distortions and omissions the propagandist is making. Open Source should beware of such marketing/propagandist folk representing a side in a debate — they are fundamentally dishonest and manipulative.

GAAH! Now the second industry shill, David McClure, is spouting the same line of BS, introducing a comparison with Stalin, interrupting and dominating the conversation, misleading and steering the discussion away from the most serious issues. More moderation, Chris!

To say that this topic is theoretical is absurd. I’ll see if I can find the forums that I saw similar stories, but I know I’m not the only one.

I might go over to Verizon since fios and fios tv is now available in my county, but often the alternatives are just not as reliable as a particular carrier. The wireless arguments are nice, but a bit misguided. even EVDO doens’t gve you as much bang for your buck as a wired solution and often has significant dead spots where packet loss is common. Copper line DSL based solutions have a distance problem that makes real high speeds difficult at best.

However, both Verizon _and_ Comcast are discussing priortizing traffic, so where’s the choice when both are doing the same thing on the last mile?

Remember, You Tube is already paying $1million a month for bandwidth. http://www.forbes.com/home/intelligentinfrastructure/2006/04/27/video-youtube-myspace_cx_df_0428video.html

If carriers really wanted to offset the costs to the content providers, then why are wholesale prices continually going down?

Like Senator Schumer said about the oil companies on “This Week” last Sunday, we need to do some old-fashioned trust-busting. Break up Ma Bell (again) and, while we’re at it, the cable conglomerates. The smaller they are, the more willing they are to have an open and fair market, which is truly the key to democratic economy.

The telcos which argue for tiered internet are arguing that sites/services (like Google or Skype) don’t pay for access to their backbone. That is a lie in two important ways.

1) Anything/anyone connected to the internet in any way is paying for access to the backbone. When Google pays for its huge bandwidth, it is paying a backbone company for access. The backbone companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) pay each other for access to each others’ backbones. When I sign up for an ISP, I pay a company that has purchased access to the backbone. So, when Google sends me information, the toll is already paid, twice.

2) The backbone is largely fiber-optic lines. Those fiber-optic lines were laid down in the 1990’s by the telecoms because they were anticipating an increased need in capacity. In order to pay for this, they asked the federal government for subsidies, and received BILLIONS of dollars to pay for this. Of course, that money came from taxes, which means we paid. Already.

Any “free market” argument is bunk because the internet was built and paid for with public money. In addition, everyone is already paying for access to the backbones. Maybe Google buying up all that unlit fiber was a good thing – if things go down as the telcos want them to, Google can open up their own backbone.

The fact still remains that the competion is not equal as not everyplace has access to many different service providers. Perhaps, as many consumers are also content providers the consumers should consider becoming service providers as well.

I need to think on this more.

because things have always worked out so terribly well for the average joe when we do that.

free markets do not give a hoot about people – free markets are only about the financial bottom line and in the end, the people get almost always get the short end of the stick.

POINT #1: A PARALLEL WITH THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS

Some are suggesting we compare the net to our mail system (USPS, UPS, FedEx). I’m thinking that a less obvious metaphor that may be more helpful is a comparison to the challenges facing our health care system.

The parallels are numerous. First, technological breakthroughs are causing an explosion in consumption and in costs. In health care, pharmaceutical other treatment advances are becoming ever-more expensive, and consumers really want access to this new stuff. On the internet, new content providers are developing new, exciting, but bandwidth intensive services, and consumers are flocking to their sites.

Second, the biggest challenge facing both industries is how to manage consumption and distribute costs. We talk about this a lot in health care. How to pay for these amazing new drugs and treatment technologies? How to make sure everybody has access? What role should the government play? Is equity important? I haven’t seen the issues facing the internet framed in this way, but I think the parallel works. The questions are the same: How do we pay for faster, more bandwidth-intensive content? How do we make sure everybody gets access to the internet? What role should the government play (both in terms of regulation, and in terms of content delivery, as several municipalities have recently endeavored to do). Is equity a legitimate concern?

Using the comparison of the internet to health care, I equate content providers with the system of health care provision (doctors, technology developers, pharmaceutical companies). Consumers are consumers in each situation. I think ISP’s are most like the insurance companies. Both are responsible for facilitating delivery of the service (health care and content) and distributing the cost of that provision. It is this parallel that is most thought provoking to me.

In health care, we rely on the insurance system to moderate consumption and spread costs. Except for those who support the President’s proposal that we rely on individual health savings accounts, we generally do not expect people to pay in direct proportion to their health care consumption. We have decided, thankfully, to spread costs/risks. However, realizing that this creates an incentive structure that encourages over-consumption, we have accepted the fact that insurance companies have built in things like deductibles and co-pays that end up making individuals pay more for higher levels of consumption.

Unfortunately, the current methods aren’t doing a satisfactory job of dealing with rising health care costs, so other, less savory practices have entered the marketplace. For example, people with chronic conditions, whom we know will be consuming health care heavily over the long-term, are increasingly being included from insurance plans. Also, wealthy consumers are increasingly able to purchase a level of access and quality that is much better than that of the average consumer. Not only does this make things less equitable, it reduces the level of cost-spreading, which raises the level of cost that is passed down to the middle-class consumer.

Interestingly, as the insurance industry becomes more stratified, there is a growing push for government involvement, with many suggesting that there should be a government-sponsored, single-payer insurance system. Though such a system is arguably more efficient, those advocating most strongly for a government takeover seem to be most concerned with equity concerns: providing access to health care for those who currently cannot get insurance (either because they are poor or their health care needs are high), and making sure costs are spread across our whole society (so that the wealthy end up subsidizing the poor).

Back to the internet… ISP’s who want to make Google pay more for its bandwidth usage are like insurance companies that introduce higher deductibles and co-pays. From an economic perspective, and in the healthcare context, I support limited introduction of these methods as a way of moderating consumption and keeping overall costs in check. So, maybe I need to rethink my position on net neutrality to allow some level of price stratification.

On the other hand, in the health care system I am deeply concerned about recent trend of over-stratification in the insurance system. Over-stratification leads to higher costs for the average consumer, and eliminates access for those with high consumption needs and low ability to pay. I’m sympathetic to all of these people, and support government intervention to make sure they get the health care that they need. Applying this thought process to net neutrality, I would support regulation, and even government provision of internet service, that is designed to increase access for the poor, reduce costs for the average consumer, and to make sure that innovative, high-bandwidth uses aren’t priced out of the information superhighway.

POINT #2: MARKET TRANSPARENCY

I am very concerned about the lack of transparency in how ISP’s prioritize information flow. If ISP’s introduce information stratification, it is essential for both content providers and consumers to know what ISP’s are doing.

That said, I think a company like Google could easily confront this issue. It would not be hard for Google to track how its data is being treated by different ISP’s and to release that information to consumers. With that information, both Google and consumers could apply pressure to ISP’s to treat this data fairly. To broaden this effort, Google could sell its service to other content providers, or enter into some sort of consortium with less powerful content providers, as a way of building additional power of content providers vis-à-vis ISP’s. If ISP’s are being squeezed from both sides (providers and consumers), it would be much harder for them to introduce a level of stratification that is really harmful to the ongoing development of the internet.

Perhaps if Google went ahead and developed such technology now, ISP’s would be discouraged from undermining net-neutrality because they would fear a backlash from informed consumers.

POINT #3: MARKET COMPETITION

My thoughts in Point #2 will only work if there is competition in the ISP market. Information about ISP practices is not helpful to consumers who don’t have a choice. And the ISP market appears to be heading in the direction of consolidation in a way that severely constricts competition in the market. I think it is essential for us to support efforts, including government regulation, that maintain and/or encourage robust competition in the ISP marketplace.

POINT #4: NOT ALL HIGH-BANDWIDTH CONTENT PROVIDERS ARE CASH RICH.

There is another significant problem with the idea of ISP’s charging high-bandwidth content providers in order to prioritize their data traffic. While some high-bandwidth content providers are flush with cash (e.g. Google), some of the most important bandwidth providers are not about making money (e.g. Wikipedia). I don’t want their data to get pushed aside by greedy ISP’s taking advantage of their monopolistic status.

With a company like Google, charging for bandwidth probably wouldn’t cause any problems. Google is making tons of money, and this would just be a way of shaking Google down for some of that extra cash. But not every site that gets lots of traffic is also making tons of money. This is one of the most beautiful things about the internet. Take MySpace. Now it is owned by Murdoch, of course, but it ballooned in usage long before it was seen as a huge moneymaker. And I’m sure, given the nature of Radio Open Source, that we all have sites we love to visit that are focused on something other than making a lot of money. Wikipedia is an example I’m particularly fond of. I’m just not comfortable making such sites pay ISP’s so that their data can get to the consumer. Added costs like that could stifle some of the developments on the internet that I find most exciting.

Dave McClure commented that if we had not had an open market, we would not have realized that it is cheaper to provide additional bandwidth rather than introduce quality of service.

That is, of course, a bit disingenuous. I have been involved in these studies, and it can be done with design studies and/or with test facilities. In fact one would want to cofirm the hypothesis with a controlled test environment rather than an uncontrolled operating environment.

And of course, since it is cheaper to increase bandwidth than introduce quality of service, it does bring into question Dave McClure’s comments that the free market will ensure optimizing the network. If that is so, and it is indeed, as Dave McClure indicates, cheaper to add bandwidth than to add quality of service, why are the internet carriers suggesting that they should introduce quality of service?

The obvious conclusion would be because they can make more money by offerring an artifical quality of servce bandwidth scarcity rather than expanding capacity to meet the true demand.

It would seem that buried in Dave McClure’s comments is a strong argument for government regulation to ensure network neutrality!

Today I received an email from Congresswoman Heather Wilson regarding her stance on Net Neutrality.  Her votes in favor of Net Neutrality are a clear indication of her position, but her email spells it out in greater detail:  On April …

I could get DSL now, but I would still have to pay for cable TV. And there is NO way for the average consumer to know if something has been blocked on broadband.

Free market? There is no such thing. It is a myth.