Telecom Companies Flip Flop on Net Neutrality, Regulation of the Internet
May 16th, 2006 by MattThe net neutrality debate has set off a furor. But if you get beyond the heated rhetoric, you can see that the arguments from the telecom companies really don’t make any sense. Here’s a simple example.Today, Congressman Barton said that his bill preserves the Federal enforcement of net neutrality. His bill, the COPE Act, is what we’re fighting against, and he is closely aligned with the telecommunications industry. Now set aside whether you like or don’t like net neutrality. In fact, set aside whether you even understand net neutrality.
The Hands Off the Internet telecommunications coalition is encouraging people to send letters to Congressmen, and the very first line is “I am writing to ask you to oppose Net Neutrality.” And yet they are supporting Barton’s COPE Act? This doesn’t make any sense. If they are so opposed to government regulation of the internet in the form of enforceable net neutrality, what happened in the last few days to suddenly cause them to become fans of government regulation of the internet?
Apparently the telcos were for net neutrality and before they were against it. Or maybe it’s the other way around. I get so confused sometimes.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Yeah, it’s confusing. The problem is nobody knows exactly what “net neutrality” is supposed to mean because it’s a made-up term that doesn’t appear anywhere in the Internet RFC or in the law. Some of the yahoos in this debate define it to mean “no DiffServ on the telco nets” and others define it to mean “Google must forever reign supreme” and others define it to mean “I hate my daddy.” So depending on your definition, it’s either part of the unwritten law of the Internet, part of the written law of common carriage, or a total pile of crap invented by Google to maintain their search monopoly.
Life is complicated.
I’ve decided net neutrality is prank devised by somebody with a great sense humor to see how much hysteria he could create over a non-issue.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:01 am
As an employee of AT&T and who works daily with customers with DSL issues I find the Net neutrality issue silly. AT&T makes their money from the customer surfing the internet, if we attempt in any way to slow down a connection to a site we jeopardize our continued revenue and in this competitive era we are in there is no way we can take that risk. We only make money when customers are happy, every customer we lose requires almost 3 times the effort to win back. You could compare internet access to Cell phones…dropped calls equals dropped customers. If anything, the telephone companies are seeking to gain extra revenue from the content providers, they are the ones getting all the best of the internet world, they ride our lines into your home and you pay for the privilege.
Imagine the internet is like a major interstate, we want those who want faster services to be allowed to speed without fear of a “speeding ticket” and those who are not willing or needing to pay for “the fastest speeds” to be kept to the right lanes so they don’t cause traffic jams, but we will provide the fastest quality connection our investment dollars can buy to every customer. I doubt net neutrality is a prank, those idiots in Washington only know one “prank” and that’s how to get our money for doing nothing we really need( DO NOT CALL LIST RING A BELL??? EVER HEAR OF CALL NOTES OR AN ANSWERING MACHINE OR CALLER ID? Is there a law that says you have to answer a ringing phone? Good phones have a ringer volume control) Let customer demand and service provider quality dictate the market, keep our so called “Elected Officials” away (Remember UNE-P and Imaginary Telecommunications Competition subsidized by the incumbent phone companies??? Most of the so called “resellers” are bankrupt and the lost revenue to the local phone companies only helped to keep America near last place in the HIGH SPEED internet access ranking. And the customers who were duped into giving profits to the “Resellers” marketing scams came running back to the local companies when they realized their “New Phone Company“ had to call the “Old Phone Company“ to get repairs. And the lost revenue stopped investment income which the local phone companies needed to maintain and improve the existing network, so every one suffered: I have been waiting since July 2003 for my DSL remote Terminal (RT) to be upgraded so I can get service from my employer instead of the local cable company) For the record, I pay for every thing that comes into my home except air, Direct TV ,dial up-so I can keep my email id, cable internet, telephone- land line and cellular, water, electric, gas, and for some things that go out- sewer, heat, air-conditioning.
We should be spending more time opposing the local cable companies lobbyists attempts to keep the phone companies from providing video services. States that have opposed “Re-Franchise fees” to the local phone companies are getting increased investment for “Fiber to the curb”(FTTC) which results in more jobs and “realistic competition” to the cable providers( you can actually see their cable rates drop).
All you have to do is follow the money trail and you can clearly see who stands to gain when “Washington” starts seeking ways to help the consumer. Don’t worry about the “Providers” worry about the “legislators”.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Displaced Slicer:
The free-market competition argument doesn’t work in this case. It assumes that there are other broadband choices in a given market; that if a given provider like AT&T blocks or slows content, or in any way degrades access to a Website, that the end-user can simply switch from one broadband provider to another.
According to two reports by Free Press analyst Derek Turner, more than 50 percent of the country has only one or no choice of broadband provider.
In most of the remaining markets there is only two choices: one dominant telephone company (DSL) and one dominant cable provider.
But the nation’s largest cable and phone companies have all plainly stated that they see no need for network neutrality. They have even announced plans to give special advantages to Websites and Internet companies that can afford their broadband tolls.
For the majority of broadband users in America, then, what real choices are left when their provider decides to discriminate against content? Very few to none.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:20 am
tkarr ever hear of directway? cable and monopoly bell are in every city. wi-fi is coming on strong-yes virginia there is a customer and he will get his competition. I dont enjoy my current job at AT&T ( cubical warrior aint my cup o tea) but ive been installing phones since i was 12 and have a degree in communications electronics and am NABER and Nortel certified. i can repair anything to componet level. I worked for at&t in the late 80’s and now again since the littlest baby bell that could bought it. I have been a telephone support tech, splicer , repairman, and now a dsl tech. I prefer to be outside working not sitting on my butt talkin on the phone.
I see the businesses with a product to sell paying for “all hi speed access all the time” to “john Q credit card” i predict your connection to the world wide web will be free from the current providers and will be whatever the next version of wi-fi (we dont need no stinking wires) will be. when competition dies in USA the lady in the harbor will be looking down on roddy mcdowell on horseback in an ape suit. And even though i dont enjoy my job i wouldnt bet against ed whitaker scooping up all the “cookies” ask bellsouth if they thought they were for sale. At&t powered by SBC is the best at what we do and when the legal lobbyist nonsense ends and the customer is given a choice …well they always want a winner. and my point was and is WE DONT NEED WASHINGTON BABYSITTING ANYTHING AS AN EXCUSE TO WASTE OUR MONEY
May 18th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Displaced Slicer - Direcway? HAHAHAHA, yes I want to pay more for crappier service. I am using that service at this time, and it is very sporatic with its speeds.
So yes, for more than the price I pay for cable internet service at home (which much of the legislation in front of Congress would jepordize, or atleast cost me more money to play my bandwidth consuming MMORPGs) I get less service.
Where I live, there are only two choices for Broadband - Direcway or Cox Cable. Where I work, there is only Direcway…
Hrm… I don’t care for Direcway, I pay a good sum of money for my cable… I don’t see the big corporations issue here. The US Gov would most likely subsidize the expansion of our current network backbone, they did once, why not again?
I do not think Network Neutrality should be a way for the US Gov to control the internet, but merely be a check against businesses, much like the one you work for there bud, who only care about the bottom line. Don’t try to tell me any different, I have eyes and ears, and they work.
No one cares one whit about someone they don’t know well (unless they are a bleeding heart), big companies are the same, unless it affects them; they could care less. This does affect them, in the worst area, it threatens their pocket book! Oh noes - they might not be able to just pocket those billions they already have made, and may have to actually put them into the backbone of our internet… Imagine that, reinvesting your money back into your own company to secure your future… wow… who’da thunk it.
Oh, Down with Lobbying, lets take the MONEY out of our government…
May 20th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
shadrachvs i didnt say sattv internet was good i just said it was a choice
u have eyes and ears? ever hear about une-p?? thats why SBC didnt invest in the network…why should they when they had to sell it for 50% of cost to the imaginary competiton-so they could resell it and make all the profit.
my main point -keep washington out of the internet— competition and market forces will adjust . i have charter cable cause its the best deal for the money i can get. the main issue is we all are suffering from insufferable assholes in the fcc and washington creating assinine ways to take the consumers money and put it in their own pockets. and the providrs are working backdoor buttheads called lobbyists to attempt to manipulate the laws the washington legislators implement without any concern for the market which inturn keeps the consumer from enjoying better services.. ands we also to suffer cable and telco leaglal backbiting which adversely affects the consumer.— i dont care who provides my service as long as when its broke theyre the ones to fix it, when its out of date , theyre the ones to improve it and it works better and faster than any other service in any other country. based on your statements you really dont know much about AT&T and verizon or where their investments are=== ever hear of project lightspeed?? fttn?? project pronto from 5 years ago???
i doubt i will be working for ed much longer cause im tired of the “job security via job stupidity ” i have to contend with dealing with dsl. its no fun getting yelled at by customers for mistakes in scheduling, or incompetent techs arriving at the customers home and the dsl dieing 20 minutes after they leave, or the techs never even showing up, and to boot my appraisal is based on those same issues i have no control over. since i was surplussed i have done nothing but try to save money make the customer happy and resolve their issues and give them the correct knowledge so they know the difference between a pc issue and a dial tone issue but i work with a lot of people who see their job as temporary and dont do any more than they have to-theyre not trying to transfer back to a splicing position so they dont have to meet”appraisal expectations at a satisfactory level in order to transfer” and therefor they dont have the stress issues. i have numerous emails from customers i have aided, company comedations from customers who were contacted and said i was the only one who was able to resolve the issue. but all you do for ed is still not enough unless your boss and his boss and their boss all get their maximum bonus for the year and still its not enough cause theres another year coming and guess what —all the rules change.
there is an employee for ed who figuers out exactly how much money it will take for a person to work in a given job at the phone co. 1 penny less they wont stay, 1 penny more and they replace that guy. and hes pretty good at it cause i stayed 4 years longer than i wanted to in a cubicle farm.
so now you know while i work there im not a big fan. ive been waiting since july 2003 for my employeer to get my dsl to my home. and i just do what i have to while im there until i dont have to go there any more
i care about the customers i deal with if they act respectful and are willing to hear the truth about their issues(dsl pc or tel line) morons get a tech dispach set up and i move on.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 am
Dave…
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…