Sen. Ron Wyden: Why We Must Protect Internet Neutrality

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Why We Must Protect Internet Neutrality
June 17, 2006; Page A11

In his June 12 editorial-page commentary "Ominous Neutrality1," Steve Forbes argues against net neutrality and asserts that "unnecessary regulations would be an inexcusable barrier to the tradition of innovation at the heart of the Internet." As the original Senate sponsor of the Internet Tax Freedom law that currently protects transactions on the Internet from discriminatory taxes, I could not agree more. However, net neutrality has been fundamental to the development of the Internet, and net neutrality protection is critical for the Internet to continue to meet its innovative promise.

Mr. Forbes claims there is no evidence of discrimination by Internet providers. This is simply not true. Cox Communications, a broadband provider that also has a large classified advertising business, is currently blocking access to craigslist.org, a large, free classified Web site that competes with Cox. In another instance, Madison River, a broadband provider and phone company, blocked access of its Internet customers to Vonage, a competitor in providing phone services. Luckily, because net neutrality rules were in place when Madison River blocked Vonage, the FCC was able to act in ending Madison River's discriminatory practices. Unfortunately, today those same net neutrality provisions are no longer in effect, and the FCC would no longer be able to protect Vonage from discrimination.

Mr. Forbes also claims that the 1996 Telecommunications Act forced telecom companies to provide network access to competitors, which "put a chill on network innovation" and which was "a big factor in letting America slip into the high-tech Stone Age, with consumer broadband services lagging far behind what's available in countries like Japan or South Korea. To the contrary, policies that spurred competition, including forcing incumbents to provide network access to competitors, are exactly what drove the rapid broadband deployment in South Korea and Japan. Over the past 10 years, while South Korea and Japan were opening up their incumbent's networks to spur competition, here at home the Baby Bells spent millions of dollars and filed numerous actions at the FCC to prevent competition.

Mr. Forbes also makes a poor analogy that many opponents of net neutrality have used comparing the Internet to the Postal Service and mail delivery. This analogy is wrong. Net neutrality protections are not analogous to the post office charging consumers different rates for regular mail and overnight delivery. Rather, net neutrality would protect the person who pays for overnight delivery from having it take five days for his package to be delivered because the person receiving it did not pay for receiving overnight delivery as well. Internet providers want to prevent consumers who pay for priority delivery of data from receiving the data unless Web sites also pay for priority delivery. Net neutrality protections would prevent them from doing so.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.)
Washington

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115050981931483168.html (subscription)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. That's my Senator!

He does good most of the time. :)

(I don't claim G. Smith :puke: )

[snappyturtle]

2. My Rep. from the 8th district of MN....

James Oberstar,replied to my inquiry of how he felt about the issue. He explained in his letter that he supported Rep. Ed Markey's bill because "it seeks to reinstate a federal regulation that ensures the preservation of a free and open internet." He explained further he wants to block Ma Bell companies from favoring transmission of their own content and services.....YES! He's also really protecting those of us who live in the boondocks.....mine being the National Chippewau Forest.

[magellan]

3. You know, we are so far behind other countries in hi-speed rollout

...it ain't funny. I lived in the UK for several years till '02. During the last couple of those years, BT (British Telecommunications) dragged its feet rolling out DSL across the country. They wouldn't upgrade the local switches to handle DSL. Mind you, BT own most of the telephone lines in the UK, with few exceptions, so if they didn't do it it wouldn't get done. Guess what finally happened? OFCOM, a government regulator, stepped in and told BT to get on the stick, dammit, and upgrade the lines. The result is that now DSL coverage in the UK is almost complete. Near about everyone, apart from those stuck way out in the boondocks, has hi-speed access if they want it...and can choose from a myriad of providers to boot!

I live just south of Orlando now, and Sprint still haven't provided hi-speed access in my area. I can't move to another phone company because Sprint own us thanks to anti-competition laws. They refuse to invest in getting DSL access to our locale.

And now the big Telcos like Sprint want to do away with Net Neutrality so they can make even MORE money off their captive audiences. And they have their little front organizations lying their asses off on the public airwaves to convince us that Net Neutrality -- leaving the Internet as it is, i.e. keeping the Telcos from profiting from website access -- is a bad thing.

Let's hope Senator Wyden isn't alone in his understanding of just how bad it would be for consumers if they do away with Net Neutrality.

[me b zola]

4. Good on Senator Wyden

:)