Ok, I’m a little off the real estate target here but it is an issue that effects us all. The biggest factor behind the creation of innovative companies like CraigsList, eBay, Amazon.com and even Google is what? The Internet of course. The Internet has been a decisive factor in leveling the playing field between the giant corporations and the startups with great ideas. This provides the environment for real estate related companies like Redfin and Zillow as well as social networking sites such as MySpace.com and YouTube.com.
Apparently many of the telcos (Sprint, Vorizon, AT&T, etc) feel that they should be getting a share of the revenue created by these new ideas. In exchange for creating a faster Internet, their proposal is a toll booths, private express ways and the slow lane for those who don’t want to line the pockets of the telcos. The very same pockets that have already been lined with $200 Billion in tax breaks to create an infrastructure they’ve failed to deliver on already.
So what to the power hitters and luminaries of the industry have to say? Well, on one side we have AT&T CEO Ed Whiteacre who said “that in order to bring America up to speed through fiber-to-the-premises (fttp) wiring, content providers are going to have to pony up to use his “pipes.” I’m far more inclined to believe the likes of Craig Newmark, founder of CraigsList.
‘Imagine if the leaders of 16th century Germany, feeling threatened by the democratizing forces of the printing press, had taken Gutenberg’s invention and limited its use to those they politically agreed with — or if Luther had to pay licensing fees for nailing up his 95 Theses on every church door in Germany,’ writes Craig Newmark in an opinion column in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, father of the Internet, has characterized this as a US-only problem at present. “In Europe, net neutrality is the rule“ he said. Interestingly enough they are also way ahead of the US in broadband technology and capacity. What else can you say about an issue that has united Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Moveon.org all on the same side.
Some of the proposed Net Neutrality legislation is seeking to prevent the telcos from charging extra tariffs based upon the type of content delivered. But even with the heavy hitters like Microsoft and Google, this initiative is facing a tough battle. Just last week those companies favoring net-neutrality lost a key vote in Washington DC. The key lobbyists seem to be siding with the telcos and their bread-and-butter lobbying dollars.
On the other hand, is this law really necessary? There are some who advocate letting them put up road blocks — it will spur more market forces to alternative technology like Wi-Max. Others are against the net neutrality laws as they are currently proposed. Andrew Cantor of USA Today’s Cyberspeak column argues that “Network providers need incentive to build faster pipes…But if they(sic) can’t make money by offering a better product, why would they bother building one?”
As much as I’m a free market leaning entrepreneur I lose my trust when it comes to industry big business. We (the American public) already got taken to the cleaners in the great theft called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I’m not ready to stand by and watch the same thing happen with the Internet. If you want to take a stand for Interent Neutrality, contact your congressman or senator today. The Senate is actually getting ready to vote on a crucial bill, so let them know this week where you stand.
Further reading:
- CIO Magazine – The Net Neutrality Debate: You Pay, You Play?
- The Telco’s viewpoint – http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
- PublicKnowledge.org – http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/1541
- www.savetheinternet.com/
Robert,
I’m definitely with you on this one…
I don’t think people realize just how important it is that a few companies (the ones willing to pay!) are not given a special pipeline on the internet that makes their sites perform fundamentally better than other sites!
Robert,
I’m definitely with you on this one…
I don’t think people realize just how important it is that a few companies (the ones willing to pay!) are not given a special pipeline on the internet that makes their sites perform fundamentally better than other sites!
I understand your choice of title but it doesn’t help the debate. The Net Neutrality argument is poorly articulated (by both sides) and it compounds that confusion to suggest that internet users would loose access to Zillow, Redfin, Trulia (or RCG). That’s simply not true, regardless of the final outcome on Net Neutrality.
As an immigrant, I admit to starting off with a bias against the idea of any one country creating legislation around web access. Personally, I think that the internet’s freedom from such controls is (partly) responsible for its success. How would you feel if the UK government created laws that impacted your web experience? So, I was skeptical when I heard about Net Neutrality & looked into it further;
Granted that the telco’s don’t have the most trustworthy track-record but Net Neutrality is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge reality; i.e. that consumers of internet access already choose the speed with which they log on (dial-up vs ISDN vs cable etc.) and that they pay accordingly. Likewise, web publishes pay for the bandwidth required to serve their content. There are real costs associated with delivery of web traffic. There’s nothing wrong with the current system.
With the growth in rich media online, the gap between bandwidth haves and have-nots is widening. Soon, standard cable may not cut it for heavy users of web-based-TV. Under the current model, consumers would have to buy bigger pipes. That’s fine but some people won’t – and publishers will miss out on those revenues. From my understanding, the telco’s were proposing a solution to that problem. They want to sell products to web publishers that contribute to the consumer’s portion of the bandwidth cost.
The telcos (ISP’s) want to sell services that guarantee a great web experience on a site-by-site basis, for ALL consumers, even those who’d typically have too little bandwidth. Maybe I’m naïve, but this just seems like a win-win to me. Publishers are the ones monetizing eye-balls; they would have had a new way to proactively grow their audience if only they hadn’t invented Net Neutrality to block this innovation.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that web publishers actually buy this product and I’m not even sure that anyone would. What I am saying is that the telco’s should have the right to (try to) sell whatever they want – because that’s how free markets work, and that’s what makes capitalism great, and that’s the spirit of freedom that has built the web into the fascinating and useful space it is today.
Note: I work at Zillow.com; this comment is my opinion, and not my employer’s.
I understand your choice of title but it doesn’t help the debate. The Net Neutrality argument is poorly articulated (by both sides) and it compounds that confusion to suggest that internet users would loose access to Zillow, Redfin, Trulia (or RCG). That’s simply not true, regardless of the final outcome on Net Neutrality.
As an immigrant, I admit to starting off with a bias against the idea of any one country creating legislation around web access. Personally, I think that the internet’s freedom from such controls is (partly) responsible for its success. How would you feel if the UK government created laws that impacted your web experience? So, I was skeptical when I heard about Net Neutrality & looked into it further;
Granted that the telco’s don’t have the most trustworthy track-record but Net Neutrality is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge reality; i.e. that consumers of internet access already choose the speed with which they log on (dial-up vs ISDN vs cable etc.) and that they pay accordingly. Likewise, web publishes pay for the bandwidth required to serve their content. There are real costs associated with delivery of web traffic. There’s nothing wrong with the current system.
With the growth in rich media online, the gap between bandwidth haves and have-nots is widening. Soon, standard cable may not cut it for heavy users of web-based-TV. Under the current model, consumers would have to buy bigger pipes. That’s fine but some people won’t – and publishers will miss out on those revenues. From my understanding, the telco’s were proposing a solution to that problem. They want to sell products to web publishers that contribute to the consumer’s portion of the bandwidth cost.
The telcos (ISP’s) want to sell services that guarantee a great web experience on a site-by-site basis, for ALL consumers, even those who’d typically have too little bandwidth. Maybe I’m naïve, but this just seems like a win-win to me. Publishers are the ones monetizing eye-balls; they would have had a new way to proactively grow their audience if only they hadn’t invented Net Neutrality to block this innovation.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that web publishers actually buy this product and I’m not even sure that anyone would. What I am saying is that the telco’s should have the right to (try to) sell whatever they want – because that’s how free markets work, and that’s what makes capitalism great, and that’s the spirit of freedom that has built the web into the fascinating and useful space it is today.
Note: I work at Zillow.com; this comment is my opinion, and not my employer’s.
Hey David thanks for your comments. It’s hard to say which is the “right side” of this argument so I was hoping for comments from both perspectives. Your probably right on the headline, not exactly indicative of the topic — but trying to gather attention to the issue from a crowd that’s tuned in to the real estate tech scene. The biggest impact I’d like to see is not that I necessarily sway anyone one way or the the other — I just want to make sure that we all pay attention to what’s happening on this issue. It’s hugely important.
Thanks Robert; I think it’s a fascinating discussion and I’m glad you’re encouraging the debate. Web users should give this issue more thought — and obviously, the title of your post got my attention. ;-). It’s a tough one for me too because many of of my favorite characters (goog, craig etc.) are on the other side of this; I just think they’ve got it wrong in going the legislative route.
Here is a blog post by Tim Berners-Lee on the topic of Net Neutrality.
The example of Craigslist being throttled by an ISP (that just happen to compete with them in the classified ads business) is just a small example of what the large ISPs would surely be tempted to do should they be allowed.
In my opinion, this issue is not about allowing users to pay extra for faster service. This debate is about whether or not ISP can limit what you can realistically see on the web. Sure, they may still “allow” access to a site, but if they throttle a site so that a page takes so long to download that it “times out” then you are not really able to access that site.
Here is a blog post by Tim Berners-Lee on the topic of Net Neutrality.
The example of Craigslist being throttled by an ISP (that just happen to compete with them in the classified ads business) is just a small example of what the large ISPs would surely be tempted to do should they be allowed.
In my opinion, this issue is not about allowing users to pay extra for faster service. This debate is about whether or not ISP can limit what you can realistically see on the web. Sure, they may still “allow” access to a site, but if they throttle a site so that a page takes so long to download that it “times out” then you are not really able to access that site.
Thanks Dustin. I read Berners-Lee’s definition of Net Neutrality in that post, and was surprised that he just defines Net Neutrality as the system that we already have – securing the status quo should not require new legislation, right?
The example of craigslist being throttled does suck – but it’s unrelated to the origins of the Net Neutrality proposal which was originally conceived to block the sale of premium pipes to publishers who would far rather we (consumers) foot that bill. Web publishers have shrewdly coupled the concept of “not blocking” access to their primary agenda of blocking “premium publisher services”. It’s classic politics and it doesn’t belong on the web.
If the telco’s were asking for legislation allowing throttling, I’d be writing letters to my congressman – or switching ISP’s – they are not – that’s just another example of the misinformation around this issue. You are right, the debate is not about consumers paying for more bandwidth (read my comment); it’s about publishers chipping in as-and-when more bandwidth is required.
If I am missing something, please link to a proposal by the telco’s that advocates for throttling or blocking access – from my understanding that threat is another fabrication but if I’m wrong, I’ll definitely consider changing my opinion.
Thanks Dustin. I read Berners-Lee’s definition of Net Neutrality in that post, and was surprised that he just defines Net Neutrality as the system that we already have – securing the status quo should not require new legislation, right?
The example of craigslist being throttled does suck – but it’s unrelated to the origins of the Net Neutrality proposal which was originally conceived to block the sale of premium pipes to publishers who would far rather we (consumers) foot that bill. Web publishers have shrewdly coupled the concept of “not blocking” access to their primary agenda of blocking “premium publisher services”. It’s classic politics and it doesn’t belong on the web.
If the telco’s were asking for legislation allowing throttling, I’d be writing letters to my congressman – or switching ISP’s – they are not – that’s just another example of the misinformation around this issue. You are right, the debate is not about consumers paying for more bandwidth (read my comment); it’s about publishers chipping in as-and-when more bandwidth is required.
If I am missing something, please link to a proposal by the telco’s that advocates for throttling or blocking access – from my understanding that threat is another fabrication but if I’m wrong, I’ll definitely consider changing my opinion.