Network neutrality came from the telephone business. With electronic phone switching (analog, not digital) it was possible to give phone company customers who were willing to pay more priority access to trunk lines, avoiding the dreaded “all circuits are busy, please try your call again later.” Alas, some folks almost never got a circuit, so the FCC put a halt to that practice by mandating what it called “network neutrality” – first-come, first-served access to the voice network. When the commercial Internet came along, network neutrality was extended to digital data services, lately over the objection of telcos and big ISPs like Comcast, and the FCC is now about to expand those rules a bit more, which was in this week’s news. But to give network neutrality the proper context, we really should go back to that original analog voice example, because there are more details there worth telling.
Network neutrality in the voice era took from the telephone companies the opportunity to sell priority access to trunk lines, but it didn’t remove the need for big businesses to have such priority access. So AT&T invented a leased-line business where companies could buy whole circuits that operated 24/7 and were guaranteed access to the long distance network. By being a separate product with a separate tariff and sold in a completely different way, this leased line business, which had long been used by broadcasters but was now expanded to other business customers, was WAY bigger in revenue for AT&T (more than 10X) than simple priority access ever would have been, which is why AT&T suddenly stopped complaining. Network neutrality made more money for the old AT&T than had it not existed. People forget that part.
Now Obama’s FCC is trying to fulfill what I’m sure was a campaign promise and codify network neutrality so future more conservative Administrations will have a harder time messing with it. Republican interests, fulfilling promises of their own, are opposing the expansion of network neutrality saying it is an imposition of government on a free market that works just fine, thanks. Oh, except for Wall Street, and the insurance companies, and the banks, and maybe six homeowners on your street and about four million others, but otherwise the free market is perfect.
Internet network neutrality became an issue because ISPs were found to be undermining it, blocking ports and packets and using other traffic shaping techniques not just to help certain kinds of traffic like VoIP, but specifically to hurt other kinds of traffic like Bit Torrent.
What’s the beef here, really? Are we running out of bandwidth? Remember the FCC came about to administer public airwaves, which very much are limited, but wired networks aren’t, at least not in the same sense.
Cable systems these days often run their TV service at break-even and make nearly all of their profit on Internet, voice service, and video-on-demand. I know cable bills are always rising, but so too are the payments from cable systems to cable channels, which is why cable networks are booming and broadcast networks are wilting, because that cash flow to content creators doesn’t exist (in fact it is reversed) in the commercial broadcast model.
Cable Internet and phone services, in contrast, have no content cost. They leverage the existing cable infrastructure investment, and have as their main expense Internet backbone bandwidth that has been going down in price by 50 percent per year for more than a decade with no end in sight.
Right now the typical cable operator uses one analog channel (6 MHz – usually channel 80) for Internet service. That’s ONE PERCENT of the total bandwidth on an analog cable network. Give up a shopping channel and Internet bandwidth could be instantly doubled.
There is no Internet bandwidth shortage.
DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem technology, which is rolling-out now, can bond together up to four analog channels (I can think of a few I’d gladly give up) and in turn offer up to 100 megabit-per-second Internet service.
Taking a look 5-10 years into the future makes the existence of these new network neutrality issues even less problematic. The future of cable TV, for example lies clearly in switched digital cable service with recording capability, where the only active channels are those actually being used on a given subnet, freeing-up huge amounts of bandwidth for other uses.
Now start to think like a cable CEO circa 2019 or even 2015. You have the same short-term mentality of nearly all U.S. CEO’s, which means you care about this quarter, this fiscal year, and that date 2.5 years in the future when you’ll pull the ripcord on your golden parachute. Nothing else matters and nothing else impacts your business decisions. You suddenly realize that 90 percent of your profit is coming from 10 percent of your business – Internet and maybe voice. Nearly all the money you care about – profit – comes from providing a switched empty pipe to customers. So what do you do? YOU SELL OR SPIN-OFF TO SHAREHOLDERS EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE EMPTY PIPE BUSINESS, THAT’S WHAT.
And the telcos will, too, because they’ll be in a similar position.
This is the inevitable future and it makes much of the current debate, well, silly.
Network operators will get out of the content business, which will be handled for the most part by Google/Hulu/whomever using shipping containers filled with servers docked at the local Network Operations Center – shipping containers for which the network (formerly cable and telco) operators will collect rent just like grocery chains now make their profit by renting out shelf space to Proctor & Gamble, not by selling things.
Where, in this new world of renting empty pipes, will the network operators come down when it comes to network neutrality? They’ll be all for it, having by then philosophically switched camps, because ONCE THEY STOP CARING WHAT BITS ARE IN THE PIPE, THAT PIPE STARTS TO MAKE MORE PROFIT.
So we’re getting all worked-up over something that is structurally destined to become a non-issue in the near future. Having said that, I remain a supporter of network neutrality simply because it’s the way I prefer my Internet to run.
yes, provided there’s network abundance, not scarcity, that implies you need to upgrade the networks (maybe not in most of US, but in Europe, for sure) and the present competition model based does not allow to make the needed capex.
I had a similar point to yours here: http://is.gd/3FpK6
O.B.A.M.A. …. owned and operated by Goldman Sachs.
….enough of the snide comments about conservatives. We’re the ones who said “NO BAIL OUTS”
Ahem. The bailout began with the Bush administration and was voted for by a big chunk of Republicans. It is possible–who knows, just barely possible–that water is wet no matter who is in office. There are, at this moment, no apple sellers on the streets (except for that guy on my corner who somehow gets really good berries out of season). Do you believe in results?
Sorry. Totally off topic. “The woman tempted me.”
Who said anything about Republicans? He said conservatives. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
Thats it, change your shade a little so the self-righteous can deflect the blame… ha ha ha.. Leo
By 2020, the next set of CEOs will need to make their numbers, so they’ll bundle and tranche and create the equivalent of CDOs securitized by future revenues of all that pipework, and we’ll have the next equity bubble. Yay!
There’s no technical reason for bandwidth scarcity, but the telco/cable cos. keep inventing new business methods to create some. Texting plans? “Premium” VOIP (but don’t you dare use a non-branded competitor!). Etc.
The whole point of network neutrality regulation is to force companies to become exactly what you think they’ll become on their own – dumb pipes. But they don’t really want to do that, because that way lies commodityville (just like the electric, water and gas utilities). They want exclusive handsets, leased cable boxes, and video-on-demand through them instead of Hulu or YouTube. Because if they can create enough little monopolies they can make phat profits.
But how do you value-add a pipe? Isn’t that why the telcos keep creating new services and content sources, to create a reason to choose one pipe over the other? Becoming a pipe means becoming a commodity, and the only way to increase profits on a commodity is to either invent differentiation or compete on price, the latter of which is just a race to the bottom via cost cutting.
How did you get the special icon to show up to the right of your name?
gravatar.com
Right on Todd.
As a Service Provider who owns the Last “Wired” Mile we need Content/Apps as a differentiator.
Without it we are a dumb pipe and will immediately be ByPassed by the emergence of some 4-5 Broadband Wireless Networks due to begin operating in our markets in the next 2-3 Years.
(LTE/WiMAX/3.5G). This Content/Apps needs to be combined with Value Add Tech Support (Maintenance) Services that not only support systems (Routers/WiFi/FemotCell/Home Automation Systems/Video Surveillance etc.) we sell bundled in with our Broadband Links.
I agree that the Content Aggregators and OTT Service providers will be Cloud Based, as in Google/Yahoo/Amazon and others like Hulu/Netflix etc. and dominate as the main Source for VIdeo/Data APPs etc.. We need to partner, via Cached Media Servers in local Data Centers as proposed by Googles OpenEdge service, with these Providers if we are to survive.
Dumb Pipes are a non starter.
Jim A.
When are we consumers going to get lower cost broadband [in the US] so we can take advantage of all this?
Bob, I’m confused. What you’re saying is that free markets work, except when they don’t. And then you make a very good case that this market works perfectly fine. But in the last line, you want government intervention anyhow — just because!
The best argument I’ve heard in favor of neutrality legislation has nothing to do with whether the providers will or won’t abuse their ability to shape data. History has repeatedly showed us that business who abuse their market position eventually seal their own fate, even without the government intervening.
I think a better argument for neutrality legislation hinges on the fact that many of these networks were built along public rights-of-way through privately owned property without compensation for the property owners. Others were granted area rights to radio spectrum, which is ethically the same notion. And many of the local networks (cable/telco) are legalized monopolies, at least within some municipal limits. For those networks, neutrality might just be the price to be paid for having laid a cable or tuned a radio on the public’s property or spectrum, and for being granted a legal monopoly in the area.
Of course, my position is that all those monopolies were put in place by municipalities trying to seed fledgling networks, and we’ve grown past that now. Where a provider has lost or relinquished its monopoly status with the municipality, we should free it from neutrality legislation. Everything else will sort itself out, just as you suggest in your column.
There is no monopoly because there is an oligopoly instead. There is and will continue to be a need for regulation since the shortage is not bandwidth but the rights of way required to provide that bandwidth.
Bob makes an excellent point about bandwidth in the neighborhood, but I don’t think it applies higher up into the network. At least he doesn’t address the need to upgrade routers, etc.
Also, the value of all this potential bandwidth isn’t clear to me, other than the potential to stream HD video. Most sites don’t fill up my pipe now, why make the pipe bigger? I have to wonder about the cost of streaming HD video, in networking and servers.
I do want cheaper, unlimited and neutral broadband. Maybe WiMax will do that.
Sorry, Casey, there is nothing free market about the telcos and never has been. They were a regulated monopoly when they were Ma Bell. Then, when Ma Bell was broken up, the local “Baby Bells” remained a monopoly. The problem is not with the empty pipes, but the last mile. It’s the last mile of connection which prevents competition.
“History has repeatedly showed us that business who abuse their market position eventually seal their own fate, even without the government intervening.”
That is true when there is a market place. When governments intervene, they prevent market actions.
“Of course, my position is that all those monopolies were put in place by municipalities trying to seed fledgling networks, and we’ve grown past that now.”
I think you are talking about the cable companies, not the phone companies. Governments tend to suppress business, not foster it. There is no reason we couldn’t have competing phone companies if the government would get out of the way. The theory of a natural monopoly is absurd. Monopolies exist only because some government squashes competition.
Long ago, I saw a theory that in a mature market there will be 2 1/2 competitors: 2 that are roughly equivalent, owning substantially all of the market, and a gaggle of others that collectively are about 1/2 of one of the Big Boys. It seems to work. And the 2 that own the market always collude, so the effect is that of a natural monopoly. At that point, government regulation is necessary to prevent to ones that own the market from gouging those who have no practical alternative. The Last Mile has been subject to that problem almost forever, and in recent years it’s been the telco vs cable local monopolies that compete (sort of) rather than companies with similar technologies (when was the last time you heard of telco-telco competition, really? have you checked cell phone rates lately? have you found any real differences between main-line companies in actual service cost/terms?). Of course, cable & telco provide the same services for the same price, so with only minor differences it’s kind of a coin-flip unless you happen to have somebody else in the area to upset things or the Regulators can keep the small-customer-gouging from getting ridiculous.
Bob wrote “a free market that works just fine, .. except for Wall Street, and the insurance companies, and the banks, and maybe six homeowners on your street and …”
Let’s remember the infamous Eliot Spitzer, then NY State Attorney General, forcing out under threat of prosecution the competent management of AIG (CEO Maurice Greenberg) to further his political career.
Cardinal rule of banking: Only lend money to people who will pay it back. Let’s remember the Federal Government requiring banks to make loans (no money down) to people who couldn’t pay the money back. Let’s remember government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying these loans. Let’s realize making and buying bad loans is still occurring with FHA loans today.
Hi “Irv”
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Get your facts right. The banks lobbied the Bush administration to remove as much regulation as possible from the books. The Bush administration promply did the bidding of the banks. The banks then went wild with no control on the switch. Free markets without regulation do not work. 200 hundred years of the American experiment have proven that. Go research the railroad industry of the 1800’s and early 1900’s, and the robber barons and you will see quite a bit of parallel. Much of the anti-trust and monopoly regulation in place today is a direct result of those times. It is interesting to see the banks haven’t learned anything and once again are lobbying against any regulation, even after being bailed out by the public.
The internet reaches your home mostly over cable
The cable companies are used to selling you packages. Want to watch the good movies? then you have to buy crappy movie package 1-3 before you can buy Premium movies.
Want to access the BBC web site? Then you can buy crappy news package 1-3 and then we will allow you to subscribe to get access to the Premium news sites.
Alternately if your cable company is owned by Sky (=Fox) then you don’t get the BBC site (or cringley on pbs)
Then somebody turns Tor or another onion routing protocol into the next killer app so simple grandma can use it. Suddenly the ISP finds 5 to 10% of it’s bandwidth being used to circumvent it’s own self imposed limitations. So they 1) put up with it; 2) hire 50 Indian temps to try and stop it; 3) ingratiate themselves to the music industry by taking over the position of hated bullies suing their own customers to support a broken business model; 4) all of the above.
There is a free market. It’s just not entirely legal – on both sides.
“There is no Internet bandwidth shortage.” – Says who?! We are a bit miscalculating all the aggregate “potential” bandwidth around your neighborhood, eh Bob?
Well, 100Mbps x 100m households do not make the potential US internet bandwidth using DOCSIS 3.x. Just so your data pipe can potentially carry that much bandwidth means you are given such bandwidth. Case in point, I know VDSL shorter than 1000ft from the DSLAM cabinet should be able to give me 100Mbps+ potential bandwidth. But why the heck that I only get a sliver of 25Mbps for both my TV+phone+internet? In a word, you and I will pay dearly for that 100Mbps network.
Another, all households have to be muxed back to a single high-speed stream. And the fastest muxer tops at 10Gbps, where 40Gbps muxers are coming on line recently. That is the fastest trunk speed for a lot of people to share.
The time will come when every household is afforded “unlimited” bandwidth according to our current consumption (1080p HD broadcasts, 50-100Mbps internet, video telephony, etc) levels. That is when every home is wired with flexible optical fiber (much like what FiOS, but not exactly like FiOS) cables. It will be Ethernet+ATM hybrid, meaning Ethernet at the home and ATM up the network.
In that scenario 20-30 years down the road, AT&T, Verizon and the cablecos would have already merged in the what is being predicted as the “End Game” in communications.
So much for free market in our future.
“Republican interests, fulfilling promises of their own, are opposing the expansion of network neutrality saying it is an imposition of government on a free market that works just fine, thanks. Oh, except for Wall Street, and the insurance companies, and the banks, and maybe six homeowners on your street and about four million others, but otherwise the free market is perfect.”
Uh huh. The only opponents of network neutrality are “Republican interests.” The corporate supporters of NN are just selfless public-minded entities, like, um, Google. Interesting that the examples you cite of free market “failures” are all areas where the government is most heavily involved in terms of regulations, mandates, subsidies, etc. The subprime housing crisis and the distortions in the health insurance market are all problems that were *caused* by government intervention. Note that industries and markets where the government intervenes the least, such as computer hardware and software, consumer electronics, etc., are those that are the most innovative, dynamic, competitive, etc.
“I remain a supporter of network neutrality simply because it’s the way I prefer my Internet to run.”
Then go build or buy your own damn Internet instead of presuming that you and those who agree with you know what’s best and consequently have the right to impose your preferences on everyone else.
“The subprime housing crisis and the distortions in the health insurance market are all problems that were *caused* by government intervention. Note that industries and markets where the government intervenes the least, such as computer hardware and software, consumer electronics, etc., are those that are the most innovative, dynamic, competitive, etc.”
Umm what has Dell done that was innovative lately? Mircosoft? Panasonic? The netbook phenomenon I think can be traced to a source the OLPC project a project of get this government (UN). Likewise, blaming government for the health insurance problem ignores the state of the country before Medicare/Medicaid which it seems as though you free market types think can’t be messed with.
“Then go build or buy your own damn Internet instead of presuming that you and those who agree with you know what’s best and consequently have the right to impose your preferences on everyone else.”
Have you tried? The “free market” government ie government bought sold and for the sole purpose of entrenched business has not only made local Muni ISP’s illegal but all but closed off access to any network startups in this country. See also Canada: https://www.competitivebroadband.com/
In a very fundamental way network neutrality is the government regulation that allows a free market. Absence of government does not make markets free rather time and time again absence of government leads to one outcome market dominance by the strongest thug.
I was also surprised to see Cringely post that fallacy about the mortgage industry, Wall Street, insurance, and banking failures somehow proving that free markets were inappropriate. As was explained already above (but I’ll use my own words to explain it my way again since I’m like that), those industries were all HEAVILY regulated and poor regulation bears much of the responsibility of said failures. Any attempt to logically connect problems in those (and similarly regulated) industries with shortcomings in free market principles is, well, illogical.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
The free market is a tool. Government regulation is a tool. Sometimes one is the right tool for the problem and sometimes it isn’t. There was no government regulation that forced lenders to invent NINA loans, Option ARMs, CDOs or all that other crap. It was too much cash in the free market looking for too few investment opportunities. So the bankers and brokers created new investments that were as unregulated as possible. The mortgage brokers didn’t have enough customers to use up the money generated from these investments so they made up new ones by doing refi’s and falsifying applications.
Yeah, you could say Fannie and Freddie contributed to the problem by buying up the defective mortgages, but so were the private companies in the market.
It really is an indisputable fact that more government intervention = more problems with an industry. I really don’t see how anyone with any sense can look at the world of evidence surrounding all of us and think any differently. The problem here is what to do when the government’s hand has already shaped an industry. For instance, the ills of the USA’s medical industry as relentlessly reported by our president are real, they were, however, actually created by decades of heavy-handed government meddling. Now that the veneer of ‘everything’s great’ is cracking, exactly how do we fix this problem? By implementing even more government meddling? Same deal in the telco/ISP sector regarding net work neutrality and all other operational issues today hitting the headlines. The hand of government shaped today’s mess. Is this the same hand to make the repair?
I see we have the usual outbreak of “It wasn’t the market’s fault! The government did it!”.
To paraphrase one of the guilty, it really is an indisputable fact that more commercial interference = more problems for a government. When will you Americans learn that governments have to be allowed to govern. That is what you elect them for. No one elects a crappy bunch of self-serving, low life CEOs. Being forced to buy stuff from them, with no alternatives because they all behave just as badly, is not the same at all.
Is there anyone more self serving and least possessing of wisdom than your modern politician? As the saying goes, I would rather be represented by any random 500 names in the phonebook than the class of thieves we have in office today.
Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, William Jefferson, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, James McGreevey, Mark Sanford, Duke Cunningham, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, etc. etc etc
Enron, Bernie Madoff, viatical settlements, Acai berry juice,
https://www.google.com/search?q=Falsified+financial+results&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Ummm, so why do you elect them?
Seriously, if they really are that heinous, how do they get elected? Massive conspiracy? Are you certain they’re all terrible? Really, if they’re that bad America really has to turn to a different system of government: there are certainly lots to choose from from around the world.
However most Americans politicians strike me as basically honest toilers working within an imperfect but reasonably democratic system. To me as an outsider they look broadly representative of America at large. In fact such mindless cyniscism as yours may well be at the root of the malaise affecting the government you complain so bitterly about.
Just a thought.
There is a fundamental disagreement among Americans as to the role of government. Conservatives believe the government should supply a military to defend us from foreign governments and regulate “natural monopolies/oligopolies” in the public interest. Liberals want it to do more if not everything. Few of us want to spend the time to learn about, nominate and elect the people who represent our own view. They all make promises that sound good enough to get them elected. All we can do in the end is vote for one of the two philosophies: liberal or conservative.
The consumer internet just-a-pipe won’t become a complete commodity because the cable company and/or phone company already have either a monopoly or duopoly in all places. They do need to compete with each other a bit, but they can do that on the quality of their service, on customer service, and on inertia to switching (i.e. a small effort to coronvert customers, a bigger but still relatively small effort to keep existing customers.)
Also, I’m pretty surprised that some commenters here think there is anything like a free market in the telco industry.
Look, if you actually think about it, if you want to promote competition (call it a “free market” if you want) is to have net neutrality in at least the last mile. That segment really has to be a monopoly or near-monopoly at the local level, it’s just not reasonable to have 12 sets of wires on 12 sets of telephone poles. Requiring that that monopoly be a common carrier allows actual competition at various levels upstream from there: among content provider, backbone providers, etc.
[…] All Circuits Aren’t Busy | I, Cringely 〈すべての回線がタイトなわけがない〉 […]
Hey Bob, you’re dissing of the free market is juvenile. Before you open your mouth and reveal how little economic understanding you possess do some homework first. I suggest you start with reading Joseph Schumpeter, cliff notes version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction. If you are truly courageous give Milton Friedman a try.
If Net Neutrality results in the Internet suffering the Tragedy of the Commons it is difficult to see how this is a good thing. If Net Neutrality means low bandwidth users pay the same monthly rate as high bandwidth users than it is difficult to see how the policy is a good thing. Network infrastructures are not cheap. If the FCC equates IP networks to the airwaves it will be making a stupendously silly and shortsighted decision.
Please define the term “free market”.
Free Market is a non-existent entity, it is a convenient catch-all phrase that so-called
“conservatives” and “libertarians” throw around to make themselves appear to be
knowledgeable, in vain self-serving attempts to attribute blame for anything financial
that fails to succeed to anyone that does not espouse their beliefs. Free markets
have not existed for centuries, do not exist now and most likely will not in the future!
<{;-)
Really? There is no such thing as a free market?
Well, of course, because government gets in the way. Example: my local farmer sells me some tomatoes. I buy them. Sounds like a free market to me.
But oops! I have to pay sales tax on the tomatoes. And the government has to inspect his tomatoes to “protect me” and they have to tax both of us on the gas we used to meet each other to initiate the transaction. Don’t forget the inspection of our vehicles, which were more expensive than they should be because the government made rules and regulations for selling cars, and the list goes on and on and on. It’s a miracle any businesses make any money these days.
Wow. I feel so much better in a non free-market system.
Blad_Rnr…don’t confuse the term “free market” with “capitalism”. Though similar,
there are differences, as we can see from the comments. In a free market, the
parties involved can negotiate on price, service, warranty, etc. between themselves.
In a capitolist market, one or both parties may receive a perceived “profit” (benefit),
as long as the “contract for sale/service” is deemed fair. Too often, history shows
that a completely “free” market results in an exploitation of one of the parties
involved (“laissez faire”, let the buyer beware), so outside interests, government/
court systems/regulatory agencies, are typically enlisted to prevent exploitation.
At least, in theory, it is supposed to work this way. Too often, many look for
“holes” in the protection schemes, and you find the Enrons, Bernie Madoff,
junk bond traders, etc. that prey on what could be a free market.
If your tomato farmer sold you a bushel basket of tomatoes, with a false bottom
in the basket such that only 75% of a bushel actually was delivered, without some
means of recourse you would lose the proceeds of 25% of your purchase.
What do you do next? You could complain to the farmer, but he could claim
to only have agreed to sell a “basket” of tomatoes, not a “bushel”. If you
could not reach a satisfactory result with the farmer, in a “free market”, you’re
out 25%. BUT WAIT…you get a lawyer and sue the farmer for breach of contract!
Ahhh, now you no longer have a free market, since you have introduced a
regulatory agent, who with the help of the court system develops rules that
set “basket size”, price per basket, etc.
Add to that the certainty of taxation on the farmer’s proceeds…no, Toto,
we’re not in Kansas anymore, and there is no “free market”.
<{;-)
Bob, did you suddenly forget your own writings over at PBS? You are contradicting yourself.
https://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060629_000351.html
And there were a few more.
I came here or this. I had a discussion with some colleagues regarding this the other day. I quoted, as best I could from memory, your original thoughts on net neutratily. Now, you’ve completely reversed your opinion with nothing more than “why not” as your primary argument? This is highly disappointing and quite telling of your opinion in regards to your readers. I can see from most of the commenters that we are not as ignorant as you think.
Still, your change of heart on this topic is the exact reason I am frustrated with the general public today. You’ve all bought into this idea that the government is the solution to every problem. Our government serves the interest of business. It just happens to be different businesses that each side of the aisle grant favors. If you thought Republicans were giving great deals to the banks and wall street firms, then surely you can see that Democrats are doing the same with their own “buddies”.
As I read it Cringley is not contradicting himself. His earlier piece was about how traffic shaping is a useful tool for giving Dad’s VOIP packets more priority than the children’s YouTube packets. Cringley was warning about how regulation written by well meaning but technically inept political appointees can miss the point and break things. This article three years on reflects the reality that the Bush FCC was essentially absent and the situation out in the real world is of a bunch of monopolies that have grabbed control of the government to stifle competition. Net Nuetrality is a tool and like any tool used carelessly it could do harm but rusting in the closet it can be just as bad. What Cringley ought to do is get a couple of really smart types together in some kind of NerdTV kinda way to formulate an outline of Net Neutrality that responsible regulators could use.
So, cable prices are going up because distributors (ISPs) have to pay higher prices for content. How interesting it would be to see what changes in programming content would occur if we could select only the channels that we wanted to watch instead of having to subscribe to many channels that we don’t use. Even more effective in improving quality would be if we paid only for the content that we tuned in to. – Oh my God! It would be PAY TV! Horrors! But, we would only watch what was worth watching, and since I now pay about $60/month for TV, at say 25 cents per hour of programming, the total cost per month would be about the same. And what valuable feedback for producers.
On a related note, I’m surprised that you haven’t written about Comcast’s recent “servicing” of their customer base. Here in the Seattle area, they are converting all channels above number 30 to digital content, so we have had to install a converter box on each TV, negating the benefits of picture-in-picture, and the use of my 5 year old programmable DVD recorder, and providing one more remote controller to keep track of. At least it only has 21 buttons. These boxes could certainly report back to Comcast what channels are being tuned in, and maybe they already have figured out that and can use that data to negotiate prices with producers.
A little simple programming and they could ask you to pay $x.xx after say, three minutes of watching a program.
Like we’ll ever get a la carte channel selection. Good luck with that! I’d love to pay only for the dozen or so channels I watch (perhaps with a basic connection charge to start with, to cover the cost of cable maintenance), but the cable company depends on me to subsidize the channels I never watch. They defend the practice by saying that it would be impossible for new channels to break into the lineup — i.e. it’s a chicken and egg problem. Also, they say it’s too hard.
But if everything’s coming over IP, with two-way comms with the cable co/telco, it’s easy for them to bill on a per-channel — indeed, a per-program — basis, just as they do already with pay-on-demand movies. And I can hear about new channels I might want to watch through other advertising, watching (and paying for) only those I choose.
But the system’s not built that way, and I’m not holding my breath for any fundamental changes in that area.
Bob misses the point (to soften that blow, he is in extremely numerous company).
Network neutrality is about censorship. It is about structural (built into the network) enablers or obstacles to censorship. It has never been about anything else and it cannot be about anything else.
Stop trying to blame the free market for the housing collapse. The government spent decades inflating the housing bubble. Low interest rates encouraged high-risk lending, FDIC rules socialized the cost of high-risk lending, Fannie and Freddie subsidized high-risk lending, and the community reinvestment act outright mandated high-risk lending. Yet when all these high-risk loans collapsed, suddenly it was caused by the “free” market? There wasn’t anything “free” about our housing market, and there still isn’t.
So the poor people caused the recession?
Umm, when you can’t pay your mortgage that you never should have had in a free-market system, then that certainly contributed to it.
It’s not a slam against the poor, it’s the ACORN offices that protested in front of banks that wouldn’t lend to people who could not afford or qualify for a mortgage, but got one anyway. Am I saying that was always the case. No. But it certainly contributed to it. So the banks now took on bad debt because the Feds forced them to (thanks, Barney) because, you know, everyone deserves a house, and here we are. It’s really simple. But we are so trusting of government that it couldn’t possibly be contributed to something with great and wonderful intentions that caused this.
Well, it was.
Once again, thanks Mark!
It’s amazing how many closet Socialists we have in this country who don’t even know that they are. Always wanting something for nothing or next to nothing and screaming at the government for more intervention when they don’t get what they want from legitimate businesses trying to make a profit (oops, I said the “P” word. I have to keep telling myself profits are evil).
Blad_Rnr – less Fox News, more analysis. Parrotting the line about Acorn, Socialism and Barney Frank is just the standard unthinking response of those who are told what to say.
It’s as if George Bush and team were never in power from 2000-2008. Apparently Barney Frank, despite being in the minority, caused it all.
> YOU SELL OR SPIN-OFF TO SHAREHOLDERS EVERYTHING EXCEPT…
I live in the Northeast, with phone service from Fairpoint. About a year or so back, Verizon decided to do exactly what you said, and sold off their land-line business, remaining in the highly profitable wireless business. Fairpoint bought the land-line business, and the PSB went along with it, in spite of many warnings at the them that they just weren’t big enough to swallow our whole region. One blog went so far as to suggest that Fairpoint had the financial structure of a ponzi scheme, and wasn’t even set up to sustain service, let alone invest for the future.
Today, Fairpoint is on the hotseat, having missed promise after promise, deadline after deadline. They have a new CEO who STILL doesn’t have a telco background, so there’s little faith that he’ll bring the right skills to the table to help them succeed.
So go ahead, “SELL OR SPIN-OFF TO SHAREHOLDERS EVERYTHING EXCEPT” the profitable stuff, but don’t forget the mission for the old, unglamorous stuff is still there, still needs to be done, and still needs to be executed with competence.
I’m in the far southern end of Silicon Valley right along Highway 101 and I pay $79/month for 512 kbs wireless internet. Neither Charter nor AT&T offer broadband to my house. A few miles up the road I had 6 Mbs Comcast for half the price, but Comcast isn’t allowed in this area. How is this not a duopoly?
Agree wholeheartedly – that’s the only way this makes sense – and sooner the cable operators and telcos realize this – the better it would be!
[…] FCC chairman formally proposes net neutrality rules All Circuits Aren’t Busy […]
Thanks, Cringely, for once again speaking against freedom. Geez, you didn’t even quote ANY part of the bill. Here it is:
Commission Action- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service–
(1) fulfill the duties described in subsection (b);
(2) disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider’s Internet access service in a clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner and in conformity with the duties described in subsection (e);
(3) generally, to the extent feasible, make available sufficient network capacity to users to enable the provision, availability, and use of an Internet access service to support lawful content, applications, and services that require high bandwidth communications to and from an end user; and
(4) not operate Internet access services in an anticompetitive, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive manner.
Did you notice the word “promulgate?” That means to “create and enforce regulations with no restraint.” Is that what we want the government to do? MORE regulation without restraint? So the government is ALWAYS trying to do the right thing? Hogwash.
If the cable companies were so intent on providing LESS access to certain sites, then why haven’t they done it? It’s ludicrous to think in this heavily competitive market, where all the cable/satellite networks are scrambling to provide more (HD) content, they would suddenly provide less. Ever hear of a free market? People would leave them in droves. That’s how a FREE market works.
With this legislation they could (will) go after all the records of the ISPs whenever they feel like it under the guise that there is anti-competitive behavior going on, and they’ll be able to see where you have been going on the Internet. Nice. So much for freedom.
Only in Cringely-land do we get opinion based on nothing but his opinion. How about providing facts next time.
” People would leave them in droves. That’s how a FREE market works. ”
And go where? To the other ISP that’s doing the same thing? An oligopoly is not a free market.
Very timely post!! I thought of this post instantly when I read about Comcast/NBC deal in the works
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125438284720055575.html?mod=djemITP
It seems Comcast CEO Brian Roberts of Comcast can see the future and they want to diversify into content from dumb pipes. I’d like to hear Bob take on this potential deal.
I agree with Bob’s statement “Network operators will get out of the content business, which will be handled for the most part by Google/Hulu/whomever using shipping containers filled with servers docked at the local Network Operations Center – shipping containers for which the network (formerly cable and telco) operators will collect rent just like grocery chains now make their profit by renting out shelf space to Proctor & Gamble, not by selling things.”
I worked for a few operating companies. They have tons of cash, and every so often they decide to dable in something “more exciting” like content in hope to drive up usage. In the end, they realize its a completely different business, and they return focus on what they know best. I don’t see it ending any different with Comcast.
Max
Bob,
I’ve valued your opinions on technology (and still do) for a long time now, and told many people about your column, however – you seem to be confusing a free market for the corporatism masquerading as one currently.
The big banks on Wall St. are the complete opposite of a free market. Goldman Sachs has a revolving door policy in the US treasury and other parts of governments, bailouts proliferate everywhere, etc, etc, etc. If there was a free market, the big firms that got overleveraged would all be bankrupt, providing an important lesson to future investors about the need for due diligence when investing. Instead no one has learned a lesson since the government has elected to prop up a failed system.
This has nothing to do with a free market, no matter what MSNBC calls it.
Again, with real estate – more government intervention. Tax credits for first time homebuyers, tax deductible interest payments, etc all aim to keep housing prices high, and homeowners deep in debt. Prices are deliberately being manipulated this week to keep prices high, so the illusion of wealth can continue. If the free market were allowed to function, the prices would drop and housing would become cheaper to buy.
The Banks comment re free markets is ludicrous – banks now operate on a FIAT money system, the exact opposite of a free market in money, which is forced on us by government created legal tender laws. There is not even remotely a free market.
I agree with your criticisms, but your labels are far from correct, and you’re unfairly besmirching the free market.
I actually read ALL these comments which made for amazingly interesting reading. Thank you very much everyone!
Anyway you look at it, you have to hand it to Bob for the way he writes. Stepping a fine line between conspiracy theory and insight, controversy building and inside knowledge, he obviously manages to attract really knowledgable readers.
Where, exactly, does the FCC get the authority to regulate ISPs in the first place? Do we just assume the Feds can regulate whatever the brouhaha of the moment is?
And as to monopolies, everywhere I’ve lived for the last decade there have been at least two ISPs vying for my business — generally the cable and the telco — so I don’t see any problem there at the moment — except that prices are too high on both. If the TV satellites could only figure out how to go duplex…
Decent weblogblog site diverse . doing it
Hi there may I use some of the information here in this post if I provide a link back to your site?
There’s no technical reason for bandwidth scarcity, but the telco/cable cos. keep inventing new business methods to create some. Texting plans? “Premium” VOIP (but don’t you dare use a non-branded competitor!). Etc.
cheap VPS
The whole point of network neutrality regulation is to force companies to become exactly what you think they’ll become on their own – dumb pipes. But they don’t really want to do that, because that way lies commodityville (just like the electric, water and gas utilities). They want exclusive handsets, leased cable boxes, and video-on-demand through them instead of Hulu or YouTube. Because if they can create enough little monopolies they can make phat profits.
anyway ,nice comment ,and i love your blog ,i will back again ,i promise – -:ffxivgilkaufen”>ffxivgilkaufen
This is really a useful site. I’ve bin here reading for about an hour.
It’s an interesting view for sure and I appreciate it so this is a little something for all…
As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools. 🙂
Hmm, that is some compelling information you’ve got going here! Makes me scratch my head and contemplate. Keep up the great writing!
Thanks so much for this good page;this is the stuff that keeps me going through out my day. I’ve been searching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I found it after searching for some time. Being a avid blogger, I’m blessed to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. I just wanted to comment to show my approval for your work as it is very challenging to do, and many writers do not get credit they deserve. I am sure I’ll drop by again and will send some of my friends.
Wastin’ away on this blog again…searching for my lost mouse…some people say there’s a webmaster to blame…but i don’t. It’s my own darn fault.
Thanks very good o/
Appreciate the advice! I will try it out.
great thanks man…
great thanks man…
have you actually seen this in action??
good (article|information) thanks
That helped me a lot! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again!
I’ve been searching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I found it after searching for some time. Being a avid blogger, I’m blessed to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. I just wanted to comment to show my approval for your work as it is very challenging to do,
hello, i like that very much.
I’ve found so much on your website and I stay up for extra updates and can be back. Maybe this can be a bit offf matter however in any case, I’ve been surfing about your blog and it seems to be actually neat. impassioned about your writing. I’m creating a brand new weblog and hard-pressed to make it seem great, and supply excellent articles.
My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you’ll be happy; if not, you’ll become a philosopher. Socrates (470-399 B.C.) http://imagofilmfestival.com/biggerbetter/index.php?action=profile;u=121191
I was’nt sure I would like this site since it was about I, Cringely » Blog Archive » All Circuits Aren’t Busy – Cringely on technology but I was wrong and thought it was cool and found it on Google . Thanks and I’ll be back as you update.
Thanks friend. This is cool reading a
Hi, just doing some browsing for my Kansas 4g site. Lots of information out there. Not quite what I was looking for, but very nice site. Cya later.
Please tell me that youre going to keep this up! Its so good and so important. I cant wait to read additional from you. I just really feel like you know so very much and know how to make people listen to what you’ve to say. This blog is just also cool to become missed. Excellent things, truly. Please, PLEASE keep it up!
Thanks for expressing your ideas in this article. The other matter is that if a problem develops with a computer system motherboard, folks should not go ahead and take risk with repairing this themselves because if it is not done right it can lead to permanent damage to the whole laptop. In most cases, it is safe just to approach your dealer of that laptop for any repair of that motherboard. They’ve got technicians that have an skills in dealing with mobile computer motherboard issues and can make right prognosis and conduct repairs.
Hi! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the excellent work!
From all the sites I have been to covering this subject matter, I think you do that best at explaining it, so very well done my friend.
Increased merchandise and also exelent effects for any people that are searhing for this low cost direct telephone tier recommendations the idea CONTACT AT THIS POINT 866-943-6381
My brother recommended I would possibly like this website. He was totally right. This put up actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how so much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!
chanel sac…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive All Circuits Aren't Busy – I, Cringely – Cringely on technology[…]…
http://fationhandbags.blogreaction.net/christian-louboutin-summer-season-fringe-camel-sandal,463325
This article will help the internet people for setting up new blog or even a weblog from
start to end.