Net Neutrality

Somehow, this LATimes editorial gets net neutrality exactly wrong:

As we've said before, the best protection for websites and Internet users is to have more broadband providers competing with the phone and cable companies. Until that happens, notwithstanding the fiery rhetoric by both sides, there is a way to split the baby. Cable operators already divide their wires into two sections: one for prioritized data, which is used for television and related services, and another for Internet access. As phone companies add capacity to their networks, they should be able to take a similar path.

[...]

Unfortunately, that's not the route taken by the House earlier this month when it passed a bill to make it easier for phone companies to offer cable TV-like services. The Senate Commerce Committee is about to take up an even less attractive alternative that would provide a weak guarantee of users' rights but no protection for websites against discrimination by broadband providers.

Opponents of net neutrality have carried the day so far on Capitol Hill, arguing that all the evils associated with prioritization are merely hypothetical. Not to be hyperbolic ourselves, but the same argument would rule out missile defense systems. The Internet is a hotbed of innovation largely because there are no barriers to entry on the last mile. Broadband providers should be free to experiment as they add capacity, but not at the expense of the Internet access they deliver to customers today.

So, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is arguing that the TelCos should get everything they want while at the same time protecting our ability to access all internet content equally.

I could live with that.

But that isn't the issue.

The issue is that the TelCos are saying absolutely they cannot upgrade without discriminating against some web services (and making a few more dollars in the process).

As I quoted below:

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

[...]

Smith, echoing recent sentiments by AT&T Inc. chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., responded that network operators must be free to control the type and quality of service on the system in which they have invested heavily.

I'm sure the editorial board of the LATimes is feeling pretty smug about their clever solution. But their solution is premised on false - dishonest? - assumptions.


.