The Jeff Pulver Blog: What Should the Government Role be in Ensuring an Open Internet (more questions than answers)?

« Ben Teitelbaum: How the Telcos' Assault on Net Neutrality Amounts to a Protection Racket: | Main | Back in Palo Alto... »

January 12, 2006

What Should the Government Role be in Ensuring an Open Internet (more questions than answers)?

For the past few years, many of us have been prophesizing the emerging battle between Internet Application Providers and Internet Access Providers. My blog posting on Monday - "My reaction to WSJ's "Phone Companies Set Off A Battle Over Internet Fees" - apparently hit a nerve, setting off a flurry of debate on my blog and throughout the blogosphere. Frankly, I was a little taken aback, because I don't think I was saying anything that I and others haven't already been saying for the past couple of years. In any event, I found a few new allies and seemed to have rankled some feathers. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that we are witnessing the emergence of the new battle for control over the Internet and communications.

It seems that every policy-oriented panel at CES last week focused on whether Internet Access Providers may discriminate or charge Internet Application Providers an additional fee to allow users to reach unaffiliated Internet applications. Much of the public policy discussion at Spring 2006 VON will center on this issue.

Virtually all of the recent press accounts on the evolving nature of the Internet and communications have centered on the issue. I just saw an editorial in the Financial Times flagging the issue for a more global community. According to FT,

"Telephone companies in the US that provide broadband Internet connections
are starting to tread on dangerous ground. They are mooting charging
companies that provide Internet services such as telephony and
video-downloading fees to ensure a speedy and high-quality connection. The
phone companies such as BellSouth and Verizon communications say it is
expensive to build networks, such as Verizon's new fibre-optic connection to
homes and offices, and they need to recoup their investment. They also say
that some services - notably online gaming and video - take up a lot of
bandwidth and capacity. There are a couple of obvious flaws in the phone
companies' case. One is that they are already being paid by customers to
provide the network connection. The second flaw is the idea that network
capacity is hugely limited. The speed of Internet connections, not only in
the US but in other countries, has been rising and advances in technology
will ensure that this continues. Phone companies have already been stopped
by the Federal Communications Commission from crudely blocking services that
do not suit them. The phone companies are now taking a second run, in a
subtler manner, by proposing to provide a fast-lane for those who pay. That
approach would be unfortunate even if there were free competition among
broadband providers. At least consumers could then select a provider that
offered open access. But, in practice, most people at best have a choice
between a DSL and a cable Internet connection. The FCC, and other
communications regulators, should ensure that utilities do not distort
Internet services for their own ends."

URL: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9073a884-8248-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html

From my perspective, it is great to see such a reputable source take such a strong position in promoting Internet Freedom. Others will disagree, but at least we, and even the mainstream press, are now moving beyond the platitudes and trying to get at the heart of the issue.

***

I also saw an announcement recently that the Smithsonian has finally issued a Request for Proposals seeking to improve both mobile and Wi-Fi service in and around Smithsonian museums on the Mall in Washington, DC, by contracting for the installation of a large new network of common antenna sites for these services.

For the past two years, Open Park has been attempting to turn the Mall in Washington, DC into a free and open Wi-Fi hotspot. I have blogged on this worthy pursuit in the past, most recently in our attempts to demonstrate how ubiquitous public broadband could help emergency response efforts and improve communications during times of public crises.

A few months ago, a small plane entered the air space near the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Some 30,000 panicked employees fled their buildings surrounding the Capitol without knowing whether Washington was under attack. An IP-enabled reverse emergency response capability would have assured the populace or otherwise could have instructed them what to do in the moment of crisis. Such emergency response would also be greatly enhanced by a concerted industry and/or government effort to deploy Wi-Fi more ubiquitously.

Not just is public Wi-Fi helpful during times of public crises, there are also positive benefits to building out public broadband access, particularly where private enterprise has failed to do so. During Supreme Court arguments over the Brand X and Grokster cases, Jonathan Askin was able to send me up-to-the-minute accounts by using Open Park's Wi-Fi network outside the US Supreme Court.

Open Park is planning to submit a bid on the Smithsonian RFP and is looking for partners with experience in installing common cellular telephone antenna systems. But, regardless of who ends up doing the installation at the Smithsonian, I look forward to the day when the Mall in my nation's capitol can demonstrate to the World the enabling-power of a free and open Wi-Fi network. This is the kind of positive broadband agenda to which I think America and its Federal, state and local governments should be devoting energy and resources.

***

I bring up these two issues in the context of this blog posting primarily because I see the two issues colliding, and I think there might be a role for government in ensuring an open Internet as a check on the potential emergence of Internet walled gardens or other vehicles to discriminate or stifle the open nature of the Internet. My only goal within this blog is to help keep the debate going. I don't know for sure whether such things as government-deployed broadband networks would help or hinder the growth of the Internet and advanced communications. (Although I suspect it would help more than hinder.)

I have some concerns that we might see the emergence of two Internets - one an ever-evolving and progressing privately-controlled Internet, and the other an increasingly dilapidated publicly-accessible Internet with minimal quality and capacity. Will the emergence of a government supported Internet onramp ensure a quality public Internet or undermine the efforts of private enterprise? Will the public Internet be a dirt road (albeit free), while the privately-controlled Internet will be of top-quality but will not allow users access to the full-range of content and applications that the Internet could offer?

How do we maintain the quality of a public road? Does it simply degenerate into a neglected back road traveled by only the disenfranchised members of the community? And does the establishment of the public road undermine private efforts to build the best, next-generation broadband networks? Would we relive the fiascos experienced by the public projects of failed Communist states, in which they built publicly-owned facilities without any financial incentive and which ultimately led to their deterioration and an inability to meet the development and progress of an enlightened capitalist economy? It is times like this that I look around for my time machine, my crystal ball, my ability to see the alternate futures. I still sense that much good can come from publicly-supported broadband networks, particularly where industry has not stepped up to the plate. At a minimum, I think we could use some government support to build out private, but open networks.

I would like to think that the open and public Internet access projects would serve as a check to ensure that the privately-owned Internet access builds will also remain open and discourage the Internet Access Providers from building walled-gardens with less user control and access to the broadest array of Internet applications and content. But I have heard arguments on both sides. I am however, happy to see that the issues are now front and center and we are finally embarking upon an open and public debate over the more subtle, nuanced issues involved.

Tags: voip, SBC, Net Neutrality, Open Park, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff on January 12, 2006 05:19 AM | Permalink

Additional resources: #140conf events | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

Given the dangers of too replica watches much radiation, Dr. Smith-Bindman said, it is important rolex watches that the lowest possible dose be given. But that is not breitling watches always happening, she said, citing her own study of omega watches more than 1,000 patients who had received CT scans in the San Francisco area. Radiation doses cartier watches varied substantially between different facilities, Dr. Smith-Bindman said, and even within the tag heuer watches same facility, the doses varied dramatically between patients.
http://www.watchessell.com
http://www.watchessell.com/product.php?id=4&categories_id=36
http://www.watchessell.com/product.php?id=13&categories_id=36
http://www.watchessell.com/product.php?id=21&categories_id=36
http://www.watchessell.com/product.php?id=14&categories_id=36
http://www.watchessell.com/product.php?id=19&categories_id=36

http://www.watchvisa.com
http://www.watchvisa.com/breitling-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/rolexr-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/tag_heuer-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/cartier-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/omega-watches.html

http://www.overwatches.com
http://www.overwatches.com/breitling-watches.html
http://www.overwatches.com/rolex-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/tag_heuer-watches.html
http://www.overwatches.com/cartier-watches.html
http://www.overwatches.com/omega-watches.html

Posted by: replica watches at March 2, 2010 12:39 AM

Thanks a lot good idea.

Posted by: javon at January 26, 2010 07:43 AM

wholesale pearl jewelry http://www.wspearl.com
wholesale gemstone beads http://www.hibeads.com
pandora beads charms http://www.pbeads.com

Posted by: gemstone beads at January 12, 2010 02:58 AM

Posted by: replica rolex at November 16, 2009 12:52 AM

http://www.towatches.com/
http://www.towatches.com/Discount-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Watch-Faces/
http://www.towatches.com/Jewelry-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Luxury-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Fashion-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Kids-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Pocket-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Sports-Watches/
http://www.towatches.com/Clock/
http://www.towatches.com/Watch-Accessories/

Posted by: Men watches at November 4, 2009 01:32 AM

Posted by: luxury watches at October 11, 2009 05:39 AM

http://www.afreego.com/PressReleases/ViewPR.php?32437

Posted by: windy at September 4, 2009 11:16 PM

www.replicaseller.com As a professional replica watch dealer we are 100% committed to your satisfaction. http://www.replicaseller.com/
http://www.brandlike.com/
http://www.replicaseller.com/montblanc/
http://www.replicaseller.com/breitling/
http://www.replicaseller.com/tagheuer/
http://www.replicaseller.com/rolex/

Posted by: replica watches at August 26, 2009 01:36 PM

http://e1blog.com/24kjewelry/
http://e1blog.com/sellingjewelry/
http://e1blog.com/weddingjewelry/
http://e1blog.com/pearljewelry/
http://e1blog.com/stainlessjewelry/
http://e1blog.com/jewelrycharms/
http://e1blog.com/jewelrydiamond/
http://e1blog.com/customjewelry/
http://e1blog.com/jewelrystores99/

Posted by: xwcw at June 5, 2009 03:21 AM

An oak is not felled at one stroke.

Posted by: Pandora jewelry at June 3, 2009 10:24 PM

http://www.aypearl.com
http://www.bjbead.com
http://www.tangjewelry.com
http://www.56jewelry.com

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at May 20, 2009 05:31 AM

http://www.topearl.co.uk/
http://www.topearl.co.uk/jadeite-jade-jewelry-uk-21/
http://www.topearl.co.uk/pandora-jewelry-uk-92/
http://www.topearl.co.uk/bridal-bridesmaid-jewelry-uk-136/
http://www.topearl.co.uk/freshwater-pearl-necklaces-uk-1/

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at March 13, 2009 01:19 AM

http://www.020newsky.com 特价机票
http://www.020newsky.com 国际打折机票
http://www.020newsky.com 国内打折机票
http://www.020newsky.com/jd.asp酒店预定
 http://www.020newsky.com 广州到海口船票
http://www.020newsky.com 椰香公主号船票
http://www.020newsky.com 广州机票
http://www.020newsky.com 电子机票
http://www.020newsky.com/lx.asp 旅游
http://www.020newsky.com 船票预定

Posted by: 国内打折机票 at February 19, 2009 11:42 AM

Now almost two years later, the Jerusalem free network is an expensive failure. The city council decided that the taxpayers had better things to do with their money such as schools and public works and refused to expand the project. Not surprising, tourism was at an all time low, business were failing and many of the residents of the city do not even own computers and never will.

Posted by: flash game at February 15, 2009 01:08 AM

Posted by: FDASFDAS at October 28, 2006 10:45 AM

The FT article point to the real source of the problem: "the lack of competition in the local loop in the US". If there was total, open access for the ISPs to the local loops, the problem would even not need to be discussed. Customers would choose the ISP who lets them do what they feel like doing with the bandwidth they paid for.

Some commentors take the comparison with the roads; it is a good starting point. Imagine that the lanes on certain highways would only be accessible if you bought your car from a certain brand. Why did the big three not think of that, they could have still owned 80% of the market. Allowing fast lane access *only* to users whom use a certain *brand* of Voice or Video will ensure that only the big three providers will own 80% of that market and the customer will pay through the nose. Come to think of it, it is even worse since, with this upcoming model, you can only get to your local roads if you have the car with that brand.

So is is not about whether one charges more for a bigger pipe for lots of video, that is OK, after all toll highways do exist. It is about linking the ISP service to a content brand, leading to a quasi monopoly of the big boys. A very very dangerous road to be on.

So lets fight with all we have to get real competition back to the local loop. Two things will happen: Freedom and Price cuts. Two core American values..... for the moment many countries have us beat

http://alvenux.en.wanadoo.es/ kazaa telechargement
http://alvenux.en.wanadoo.es/telechargement-gratuit-kazaa/ telechargement gratuit kazaa
http://alvenux.en.wanadoo.es/telechargement-kazaa-gratuit/ telechargement kazaa gratuit
http://alvenux.en.wanadoo.es/kazaa-telechargement-gratuit/ kazaa telechargement gratuit
http://alvenux.en.wanadoo.es/telechargement-kazaa-lite/ telechargement kazaa lite
<

Posted by: Bart Louwagie at May 17, 2006 04:53 AM

So lets fight with all we have to get real competition back to the local loop. Two things will happen: Freedom and Price cuts. Two core American values..... for the moment many countries have us beat

Posted by: Geoff Mendelson at March 16, 2006 06:38 PM

My company is investing $120 Million to bring fiber to the premises (FTTP) to eleven rural communities in the State of Indiana. In justifying this investment, we need revenues for voice, video and internet. Also, in our plan we included in our business decision, future revenues from VOD, Games and other income producing services. We cannot justify this investment by charging for internet access only.

If VoIP suppliers are able to get a free ride on our network, they will be able to undercut us on our pricing because they do not have the investment and maintenance costs that we have. The same is even more true with IPTV. The net result would be bankruptcy for network builders.

There is also a technical problem with IPTV if access to the network by content service providers is free. Content providers will bypass the cable companies and deliver their services for a fee to the viewing customer. If ESPN gets the rights to the superbowl, for example, then 70% to 80% of our customers would want to watch the game. This means that every customer would have their own individual link to ESPN. Our backbone does not have the capacity to carry that much traffic.

The case for wireless internet providers is even more drastic than FTTP because wireless bandwidth is severly restricted.

The answer here is that any service provider providing content or services for a fee should have access to our network for a toll so that we, the builder of the network, can recoup our investment and maintenance costs along with a profit. If this is not the case, FTTP networks simply will not be built.

We as a company are providing VoIP on the FTTP networks of several Municipal providers. We are paying them a toll. We are able to offer this service and make a profit. The Municipal network owner is able to recoup its investment and maintenanced costs of its network. In this senerio, everybody wins and the FTTP networks will be built.

Al Cinelli

Posted by: Albert E. Cinelli at February 27, 2006 04:45 PM

So lets fight with all we have to get real competition back to the local loop. Two things will happen: Freedom and Price cuts. Two core American values..... for the moment many countries have us beat

Posted by: Bart Louwagie at January 16, 2006 05:54 PM

Our company is a small ISP serving about 100 communities in SE Iowa. We bring all traffic back to a centrally located town and consolidate it on 2 x DS3 to the net with a peak usage around 50%. The 90Mbs amounts to less than 3% of the full bandwidth sold to our customers, about 20% of whom are broadband. Those 20% account for 80% of the bandwidth sold at the customer end. We have no issue with voice over IP. However, it is difficult to see how we could serve streaming video to our DSL customers without significantly increasing our Internet port connection-- perhaps 20 or more times as much. This would raise our cost per customer more than $20/month. It's not clear to me why you think that should be done at no charge to the user.

Posted by: Dave Magill at January 16, 2006 01:22 PM

Jeff, thanks for your excellent post highlighting the Net Neutrality issues. As an advocacy group for creative media artists, the Center for Creative Voices in Media is extremely concerned that the cable and telco broadband providers are determined to turn the open Internet as we know it into a closed walled garden that discriminates against independent and diverse voices and viewpoints. We track the inside-the-Beltway legal and regulatory issues surrounding Net Neutrality closely and welcome all to visit and comment at our blog and website: www.creativevoices.us and www.creativevoices.typepad.com

Many thanks again for your efforts,

Jonathan Rintels
Center for Creative Voices in Media

Posted by: Jonathan Rintels at January 13, 2006 10:08 AM

I'd like to address the issue you bring up about government intervention in the Internet. For example, Intel provided the hardware and the Jeursalem government paid to install a free WiFi network throughout the city.

At that time I was in the process of forming a company to do the same but advertiser supported. My investor backed out, and no others could be found.

So now we have "spotty" service, which for example works at one end of a pedestrian mall, but not at the other. Plans to expand it to other streets, shopping malls, etc have been placed on hold indefinately.

What does exist is funded by the taxpayers most of whom see no need for it or even understand what it is.

This is IMHO a place for private enterprise. I envision several WiFi or WiMax networks available to the consumer. The casual user will go for the free networks provided by advertisers or businesess, the higher demand users will go for the high performance deal bundeled with their Telco or ISP.

Geoff.

Posted by: Geoff Mendelson at January 12, 2006 07:00 AM

January 12, 2006

What Should the Government Role be in Ensuring an Open Internet (more questions than answers)?

Comments

Post a comment