Susan Crawford has a disturbingly convincing argument about why the AT&T concession is so much less than it seems.
Key point: DSL as we know it is so yesterday.
Earlier posts: More on Net Neutrality ‘Victory’ and Incredible Victory for Net Neutrality.
Is the seeming victory for net neutrality all a sham? That’s what I would have expected. Now, via Dave Farber’s mailing list, comes a suggestion that maybe it is all smoke and mirrors:
Dave Burstein, who knows more about DSL than probably just about anyone, lets us know that the fine print in the deal actually may negate the network neutrality premise. The wording is a little tricky, but while they agree not to remove network neutrality from their standard network, hidden in the middle of a later paragraph is this sentence: “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth’s Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” At first that might seem innocuous, but Burstein has pointed out that AT&T’s always planned on using the IPTV network as that high-speed toll lane it wants Google, Vonage and others to pay extra for. Burstein notes that AT&T isn’t even set up to put quality of service on their existing network — so the agreement not to violate network neutrality on that network is effectively meaningless. It is, he claims, a sleight of hand that successfully fooled a bunch of people into supporting the deal, and will probably help it get approval. AT&T promises not to violate network neutrality on a network they never intended to use that way, and carves out permission to use it on their new network, where they had planned all along to set up additional tollbooths.
On the other hand, Harold Feld remains the optimist:
It’s not over until we get it into law. But we now have a strong definition for network neutrality and a clear acknowledgment of why we need it and how it will work.
Step by step, by the numbers, we move the ball steadily forward to the goal.
And, Columbia’s Tim Wu also thinks this is a big win. And he suggests that the exceptions are not necessarily that serious.
And, indeed, one of the shibboleths of the anti-neutrality crowd has been that the concept itself is too amorphous. Well, they can’t say that any more.
I still think this debate mires us deep in the second or third best because, as I’ve said before, we are now stuck in a position where we can’t trust the market to sort this one out, as we might usually want to do. The core problem is regulatory choices by the current administration. We used to have a rule which required the owners of the last mile of wire/fiber to give access on fair terms to competing providers.
This administration reversed that rule, so now there isn’t true competition for the provision of household broadband. Instead most consumers face a monopolist or at best a DSL/Cable duopoly. If we had true competition at the consumer endpoint we at least have some hope that the outcome would preserve the public goods aspects have interoperability and a place for the small and quirky.
So for me the real issue isn’t regulation to achieve “net neutrality”. The real issue is keeping the consumer from being made captive in the first place. But that’s not on the policy menu at present given the power of the (ever bigger) telcos.
Amazing news this evening about an incredible victory for net neutrality. According to Harold Feld’s Tales of the Sausage Factory, AT&T has submitted a new 20-page letter outlining the conditions it will accept in order to secure FCC approval of its merger with BellSouth. And they amount to a wholesale acceptance of the principle of net neutrality for both broadband and wireless.
If you’ve followed the merger issue, or the net neutrality issue at all, you really have to go read this. I’m stunned by how big a victory this is. If I didn’t know Harold to be a stand-up guy, I’d think this was a hoax.
Update: Oh dear. They only last for two years. That’s not so good. Although it does take us into the next administration…
The GAO enters web 2.0 with the GAO Reports RSS feed.
This is good.
This guy estimated the weight of all the electrons in circulation that make up the internet. It adds up to two ounces: ADAMANT: Weighing the Web
Via Slashdot | Who Says Money Can’t Buy Friends?, I find a link to the amazing Fake Your Space, a service that for just 99 cents per month will provide users of MySpace and Facebook with all the fake friends they want two messages from a fake friend (all the fake friends you want costs lots more). Yes, impress the other kids with…no, lets let them tell it in their own words:
FakeYourSpace is an exciting new service that enables normal everyday people like me and you to have Hot friends on popular social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook. Not only will you be able to see these Gorgeous friends on your friends list, but FakeYourSpace enables you to create customized messages and comments for our Models to leave you on your comment wall. FakeYourSpace makes it easy for any regular person to make it seem like they have a Model for a friend. It doesn’t stop there however. Maybe you want to appear as if you have a Model for a lover. FakeYourSpace can make this happen! The possibilities are endless. You can have our Models leave you any type of customized message you may wish. Want to make an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend jealous? No problem. Have one of our Models personally flirt with you on your comment wall. Are you interested in being one of the most popular people on MySpace or FaceBook? Then FakeYourSpace is just what you need. You never need to worry about people finding out about your fake friends because all of our Models profiles are set to private. You may be asking yourself why should you pay for something like this? Our answer to you is because it’s dirt cheap. Our basic plan starts at only $.99 This will give you 2 messages per week for 4 weeks. So for only $.99 you will receive 8 messages that will be there forever, not to mention our Models picture which will show up on your friends list. A pretty small price to pay for online popularity don’t you think?
Amazing.
Jotwell Blenderlaw