Can the Internet ever be truly free?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 23, 2009 at 10:55am

I agree, Bill. There is a parallel between our highway system and the Internet; but seems to me there is a big difference. The Gov funded our highway system and regulates interstate commerce. On the other hand, what role did Gov play in building an improving high speed data networks? I ask the question because I'm ignorant. I know AT&T and Verizon have spent billions...I'm guessing they got some help from Gov / public funds...but still, the private companies took a lot of risk. They weren't just building to Gov spec with Gov contracts. Does this change anything? Do network providers deserve some protection from Gov regulations based on the risk they've already taken?

We might also look at how utilities are run since distribution of power is not unlike distribution of data. How are we going to fund the smart grid in order to help our common goals to reduce, reuse and recycle? It seems the tough part always comes down to this: you can't please all the people all of the time.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 24, 2009 at 8:42am

Pat -

1. We funded expansions through tax credits, abatements, loans, bond issues, etc at every level of government to support fiber build outs.
2. We funded a great deal of the development of technology (remember the internet goes all the way back to DARPA).
3. Last mile providers like the cable company and phone company are given monopoly licenses. Any time you start with a monopoly, you have to have oversight (like the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission).
4. Interchange of traffic among ISPs is handled in peering agreements among "backbone" providers.

The issue here is the the internet providers want to change the nature of what the internet is from a "freeway" where they are basically sell connectivity to being able to charge for content and services. It's about being able to get a cut of Vonage, Google, MSN, Facebook and your website. It's kind of exactly like the corrupt senator in Nevada who set up a toll booth on the public trails at the Grand Canyon.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 24, 2009 at 9:17am

I get it, Mike. I definitely want to see the Internet remain as open as possible. From what I'm reading, AT&T's big issue now is that the proposed legislation seems to focus only on the ISPs. The proposed rules (as written) are not also directed at Google, Yahoo et al. In my ignorance, I assume there's backroom deal making happening here on both sides of the issue. And I also admit that as much as I want the Internet to be free, I have empathy for the companies who've taken risks to develop things that consumers ultimately take for granted...where access to the Internet has evolved from a privilege to a something like an inalienable right, which is the sense I get is bubbling up from the "pro neutrality" side....that the Gov is enforcing a human right here. I don't agree that's the case. Perhaps we need another debate like health care, eh? :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 24, 2009 at 11:55pm

Ummm... who else would a net neutrality law focus on other than ISPs? The grocery store?

This would be a wasted debate because there is absolutely no justification for telecom's position on this thing. It's an old fashioned cookie grab where the grabber has too many cookies in hand to get the hand out of the jar. Telecoms simply have learned to go get a rate increase from the government when they want to make more money. This time, though, their bailout was at Google, Yahoo and other big internet players expense. Foot, meet bullet via gun in hand.

Big ISPs would be wise to look for ways to build value instead of trying to install new toll booths on a highway that does not need them. How about offering faster connections at a little higher price? Or, make big bandwidth accessible again so I can move my servers back into my house... Come up with new products. Focus on making it better instead of freezing technology in the 1990s and business models in the freaking 1400s. The Sheriff of Nottingham just called and wants his olde toll boothe back.


Pat, it's not a sense of entitlement that you are seeing - it's that the big telecoms are wanting to redefine what the internet is. At present, the internet is simply a connection, an IP address and some bandwidth.

They see the same reports we do that show that cable TV viewing hours are going down while internet use hours are going up. They see that internet is delivering the same content on their networks (Hulu, Apple, etc) as their cable tv products. They don't like competition over their own wires. That's all this is pure and simple, and there's nothing else to it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on October 26, 2009 at 9:32pm

I think about it this way... Net Neutrality could bury Smaller Indiana because we don't have the revenue streams that Facebook does. Facebook could easily pay for and advance its bandwidth to a 'larger pipe' and Smaller Indiana would get delegated to the 'slow pipe'.

The issue is that since large Internet companies could afford to invest and expand their pipe, we'd all be fighting over a little one that no one is investing in. In other words, it would drive small sites off the Internet and make it a wealthy company's domain.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tom Marsh on October 25, 2009 at 10:18am

I have empathy for the companies who've taken risks to develop things that consumers ultimately take for granted...where access to the Internet has evolved from a privilege to a something like an inalienable right

I don't, because they didn't "develop" anything. They built-onto an existing piece of technology--which was paid for by the taxpayers through DARPA--and only did so after being given a massive amount of tax-largesse for that build-out. Sweetening the deal further, getting the right to establish a monopoly and keep all the profits that get generated from it. The Internet exists because the American tax-payer created this precious resource for commerce and communication, and expanded it by giving a handful of companies monopoly or duopoly rights to sell access.

Effectively, they've drawn billions (maybe trillions) of dollars in profits over the last 15 years providing services in a business that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into as a gift from the taxpayers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on October 26, 2009 at 9:34pm

Amen, Tom! Just because you're big business doesn't give you any more rights than a small company. If I made a stupid mistake and invested 90% of my money in something stupid, I'm looking for a job. If a big company does it, they look for a handout. Or worse, they look for government to take control and give them the cash.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marita Topmiller on November 9, 2009 at 7:16pm

Tom's answer relates back to a business model established in the late 1960's. The
New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads merged to form the PennCentral
Railroad. Immediately, the ownership of all the land owned by both railroads
including right of ways was transfered to a new holding company called the PennCentral Holding Company. This value was now no longer owned by the
railroads and could not be touched in the bankruptsy. It was owned by a wholly separate corporation, a separate entity.

Then these railroads laid off a large portion of their section gangs and quit
maintenancing the tracks and road beds. Traffic had to be slowed down on the
increasingly unsafe road beds and tracks. The railroads began losing money.
More derailments happened because of the unsafe tracks which hurt their
income further. Then the railroads filed bankruptsy!

The government demanded the railroads fix the rails because the railroads are
of national interest, but the railroads whined that they didn't have any cash and
they were bankrupt.

So, as a result, the government took over the railroads and formed Conrail in
about 1970. Conrail (the name says it all) kept the same management in place
that had figured out a way to legally steal all the money, ie land, and the
taxpayers' money too. The taxpayers paid billions and billions of dollars to rehab
the rail beds.

I read about it in the paper. The railroad bosses were in the halls of congress
with their little tin begging cups. After the tax payers were fleeced and the rail
beds were replaced with welded rail, the rail road became profitable again. Stock
was issued and Conrail was sold to CSX The American taxpayer was never repaid.

But the guys in the boardroom made out like bandits!

I remember this because my husband was a railroad conductor at the time.

I know linking this story to Pat's question is pretty tenuous. But bilking the
American taxpayer and giving our money to corporations, who use it for their
personal gain without repaying it, is happening all around us now.

I have really enjoyed reading the responses to this question. Thanks, Pat.
And Doug, I'm sorry I missed the final day at the Bean Cup.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by matthew w. wilson on November 6, 2009 at 3:14pm

Are you insane!?

You are a Mavericky Maverick, aren't you?

Bahaha.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cissi Sherlock on October 25, 2009 at 8:13pm

There they go again, trying to fix something that isn't broken!

Yes, there are flaws in the systems and we encounter them frequently. But much like the health care system, why dismantle the whole thing and rebuild it when all you have to do is fine tune the glitches and patch the holes.

And then there is the case of more government control. And this case, national as well as international government control...need I say more?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 27, 2009 at 10:31am

Cissi -

This issue isn't about what most people think.

It's about companies like Comcast, AT&T and others who provide internet connections being able to limit what you have access to. What makes the internet the internet is that you get full access to the whole thing. This power would be used to extract more money from you, and would likely spell the end for small websites who can't afford to pay big ISPs to enable access to their users.

This is now an issue because large broadband providers are now the norm. 10 years ago, there were tons of competitors who could not afford to begin putting up toll bridges on the Internet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marita Topmiller on November 6, 2009 at 6:06pm

If I understand all this right, thanks, Mike, Tom and Doug, it's another "big get bigger, small get
smaller/ rich get richer, poor get poorer" scheme.

Another aspect comes to my mind that Mike touched on, the monopoly of thought, of ideas.
We've seen it before in the news - literally. Where can I find real world journalism that follows
stories to the end and checks all the facts, one where opinions are cited as opinions and biases
are disclosed?

No toll booths for me, Sheriff.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last