(Page 2 of 2)
But in other ways, comparisons between the Internet and mobile phone networks are inaccurate. For one thing, mobile phone networks lack a common platform, such as the Web browser on a PC, Mac, or Linux machine, to which content can be delivered; instead, hundreds of handsets run a half-dozen incompatible operating systems. And government-imposed decency standards for data transmitted over the airways mean mobile phone companies are obliged to screen and filter data traffic, while Internet routers can let it pass through regardless of content.
"James Glass," when contacted by Technology Review, acknowledged important differences between the Internet and cellular systems. (Glass asked to be identified only by his pseudonym in this piece, to avoid possible retribution by cellular carriers.) "People want to draw distinctions between the two networks, and that's fine," he says. "But the main thrust of my argument -- that the owners of networks want to maximize short-term profits and don't really care about anything that doesn't help them with the profits -- stands."
To back up his point, Glass offers his own historical analogy. In the 1950s, he notes, "It was illegal to attach anything to the phone network that wasn't owned by AT&T. So third parties couldn't make any devices that attached to the phone system." AT&T's control slowed the development of the telephone and computer industries, Glass argues. "Notably, they used their power to make it difficult for anyone to make a good modem," he says. "How much did this set back the development of the Internet? We don't know. Possibly years. It definitely made things more expensive for the consumer, which meant that fewer people tried to use them, which meant that fewer people tried to innovate."
Ironically, innovation is also cited by the telecommunications industry as an argument for abandoning net neutrality. Industry leaders say tiered pricing of Internet services would give them more incentive to innovate, introduce new services, and complete the broadband Internet infrastructure by running fiber-optic cables into more homes.
However, compared with the computing industry, telecoms invest little money in actual research and development. Here, again, history is instructive, say Princeton's Starr and others. "Even in its heyday, [Western Union] also devoted little to research," Starr says. The incumbents in the telecommunications business "invest more in politics than in technology -- indeed, they are downright frightened by innovation, whose ultimate effects they can't control."
The most important effect of net neutrality has been to ensure an "even playing field," says Craig Aaron, communications director at the Free Press in Washington, DC, which hosts the net-neutrality advocacy site SaveTheInternet.com. "Most of the big ideas on the Internet haven't come from the telecom companies; they've come from the garage."
Indeed, it is safe to say that nothing resembling today's Internet economy could have arisen under the Western Union regime in the 19th century or the old AT&T monopoly in the 20th century. And that's the main reason net neutrality should be preserved, says Aaron. "It's less about what happens to Google and Amazon and eBay -- they are big enough they could buy themselves a spot in the fast lane. The problem is, where do we get the next Google, the next eBay, the next blogging revolution?"
An advocate for free expression worries that a key Web principle is withering in Washington.
Some see it as a positive step--others see loopholes.
The FCC's coming struggle: regulating "fairness" on the airwaves.
Guest (Richard Tedrow)
Net Neutrality -- no need for lessons from the past
No examination of Western Union's practices a century and a half ago is necessary. One need only look to the practices of Comcast and the rest of the cable television providers. Nonetheless -- for the record -- the practice of buying up the competition ala' Western Union rather than innovating and competing certainly hasn't been lost on today's telephone/cellular oligopolies. And -- hey -- aren't they largely the same companies lobbying against net neutrality?
Guest (Steve)
Sadly, it seems that nothing ever gets resolved.
Back in the day when radio was still fairly new, Marconi and then RCA-equiped stations were only allowed to communicate with other Marconi or RCA stations. This was an attempt to control the market, obviously.
It's a fairly good analogy for the current debate, because they weren't using different standards than anyone else.
Guest (Robert Johnson)
umm...of course the federal government had granted monopoly status to AT&T...
I don't know much about Western Union and government's role in the 1800s... it's a shame though that we've had no innovation and that we're still sending the same telegrams around.
Guest (mjc)
The way that monopoly (telegraph) was broken was when a whole new technology (telephone) came along.
Of course, that eventually developed its own monopoly.
What new technology might come along to replace the internet?
Guest (Stuart Lombard)
Consumers will determine the future of net neutrality
The mantra of cable companies and telcos has long been that they want to be more than purveyors of dumb fat pipes. However, you don't need to look very far back in history to see why tiered service will not work. Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, Excite@Home are all examples of failed tiered services and demonstrate how telcos and cable companies have no idea what consumers want when it comes to content. At the end of the day, consumers want a reliable fast pipe and they want the ability to get to whatever services they choose. If I can not get Skype, Google, Youtube, P2P, IM whatever in a fast and reliable way, I will switch providers. For example, a major Canadian broadband provider recently shut down access to P2P file sharing services due to the high bandwidth usuage. They lost 10% of their broadband customer base in 3 months.
What sounds like a great strategy in a telco board room will not, in my opinion, work in the real world.
Re: Consumers will determine the future of net neutrality
What you are saying is true but in many parts of the country there are a very limited number of broadband providers to choose from. Where I live there is only one, Time-Warner. I could switch to DSL but again I would only have one provider available.
Guest (J.D.Bailey)
Net-Neutrality or Net-Nepotism an important choice for US
The USA is ranked 20th at best by some US/EU surveys in telecommunications (voice/data, infrastructure, services, cost...) of the developed countries. There may even be a third world country, which proportionately has better telecommunications infrastructure, services, and cost then the USA. This is today's reality for the USA and letting the tele/cable-cos and politicians destroy Net-Neutrality will further trash our economy and push US eventually in to a third world WMD super power.
Corporate welfare [AKA: Corporatist Communism] is destroying capitalism and democracy. Net-Nepotism is more of the same corporatist communism.
Guest (A H Rosen)
It took a massive assault by the Justice Dep't to break up the ATT monopoly; despite exemplary innovation at Bell Labs the public could only lease a black phone that would last forever, thereby assuring a robust stream of rental income. I suggest that the cell pnone companies' restrictive policies (especially over instruments) may invite the same scrutiny soon, if not now.
Guest
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (The Teacher)
Telecom companies certainly have an absolute right to their private property, intellectual or otherwise. But experience has shown that, given unfettered expression of that right, the overall right of the rest of the population to develop new private property is deliberately hampered. On the basis of what is fair and just, and the relevant history being what it is, I vote for net neutrality.
Reply