Tuesday, February 13, 2007

 

Pravda: promoting net neutrality

Toronto StarIt is fitting that Michael Geist's column is published in The Toronto Star, which has a reputation as being the official news agency of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Yesterday's column reflected the leftist bias that inspires many academics so thoroughly. It is a wonder that university graduates can become functional in the capitalist environment that greets them in the real world.

There are just too many critiques of Michael's piece to address while keeping this posting manageable. I'll touch on just a few.

Although he tries to find inspiration in the report of the TPR to support his populist campaign against a 'two-tiered internet', Michael continues to quote the text out of context - in exactly the same manner that he did last November. In the interest of space, I'll advise you to simply look there. The TPR explicitly permits ISPs to "take into account any reasonable technical constraints and efficiency considerations related to providing such access," no matter how much Professor Geist tries to ignore the plain text. If you repeat a half truth does it become whole?

He suggests that the FCC imposed net neutrality conditions on AT&T - when the reality was that these were AT&T's voluntary commitments in order to sway the minority Democrat commissioners. The FCC itself has consumer protection principles that are comparable in effect to what is set out in the TPR and are have been generally upheld by CRTC practice.

The article complains on one hand about "steady price increases" from DSL and cable providers, but on the other hand, net neutrality advocates don't want these ISPs to develop alternate revenue sources in order to keep prices for internet access affordable. Indeed, most comments on his site argue that the carriers should just charge more to people who want faster downloads. Well, I'm confused. Which is it? Charge more or avoid price increases? Should the carriers lose money when they invest in your infrastructure?

The article charges that the Minister is "burying attempts to establish a national broadband infrastructure," ignoring the fact that there are already numerous national broadband backbones owned, maintained and continually upgraded by a number of carriers operating in a competitive environment. The last thing we need is a government initiative competing against or replacing private sector corporations. It seems that we are seeing a call to nationalize the internet backbone - returning to central planning and control by government.

Life would be simpler that way - one benevolent crown corporation carrier with all of our best interests always in the forefront of their planning. Sorry to say that the era of PTTs has largely become a distant memory. I seem to recall that we found that those government monopoly phone companies ended up restraining innovation and charging way too much for lousy service.

Of course, the PTTs had decent wages and great pensions for employees. Those were the good ol' days.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Comments:
Geist as a communist? Really classy Goldberg. You know full well the review panel called for a net neutrality provision, the reference to broadband is focused on delivering service to remote areas that the review panel said would not get service, and that the price increases refers to limited local broadband competition, but why let that get in the way of slur.
 
I know full well what the TPR says about net neutrality - I don't know how difficult it must be for you to click on the link to see proof of the misquote - the net neutrality provision in the TPR balances carriers' interests, no matter how many times you try to ignore it. Read the section. Don't take my word for it - or Michael Geist's. Read it yourself.
 
goldberg appears to be ever increasingly jealous of Mr. Geist.

This is very clear and obvious.
 
What's clear and obvious is the Net Neutrality super-squad's unwillingness to respond rationally to arguments against their cause, as demonstrated by the two comments on this post.
 
Net Neutrality is to the Internet what the Environment is to Canadian politics. Buzzwords that most do not understand enough to participate in a helpfull way. That being said, we are witnessing the eternal push and pull, butween the pragmatic capitalists and the idealistic intelectuals. I think both are wrong, and that a mix of the two will end up being what will be put into practice.
 
"rationally" lol hahahaha

who calling the Toronto Star "Pravda?

Who is Calling Mr. Geist a communist?

Who is saying Mr. Geist leaves students unable to funtion in the real world??

hahahaha rationally
ROFL

Any student/follower/believer of goldberg has to be out to lunch..
hahaha thats to funny of a post "rationally" especially after reading goldburgs jealous, deranged rantings.

The only super-squad rantings is that of goldburg itself. Its like someone stole his bag of candy and he's crying.. whaaaahahaha.
 
I've just started seriously looking into net neutrality and I'm looking for both points of view. Obviously it's fairly easy to find the point of view that prevents a tiered Internet (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html) but I'm interested in knowing where you'd recommend reading for a definitive point from the other side of the debate. Have you written a blog post on net neutrality for the uninitiated or can your refer me elsewhere?

My current impressions on the situation based on what I know now are here.
 
Google claims to be for Net Neutrality, and at the same time, they allow for "Sponsored Links" - companies paying for their links to appear at the top of your search query.

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google Inc. says in his statement "But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest."

Google is guilty of the exact same thing. People are willing to pay to have their content seen first and fastest. This is not restricted to the internet. A front-page ad in The Star costs a lot more than one tucked in the Life section, no?

How is that any different?
 
oops. the statement can be found here

(http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html)
 
The Hill Times carried a version of this blog posting as an Op Ed on March 12, 2007. You can download a pdf version of the Op Ed here.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?