Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Net neutralist shows true colours
In a Hill Times letter that was intended to critique my previous week's Op Ed, Russell McOrmond actually helped prove my thesis: there are elements among net neutrality proponents that want to nationalize the communications infrastructure of Canada's carriers.In his letter, he comes clean with a statement that confirms his objective.
You can find the full text of Russ' submission (pre-editorial chopping) on his blog.
If we built communications networks the way I believe we should, we would have a separate communications infrastructure utility that is separate from any specific product or service someone would want to connect to. ... It should be just as easy to connect directly to the home of someone else in Ottawa, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service.Let's look at the design objective - to be able to connect as easily to someone else's home, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service. I'd suggest that this objective is consistent with that of every carrier. Do any of you have any difficulty using the commercial internet to do just that?
The question I have is, why does he think that there needs to be a new "very-high-speed connection at my home (example: fiber)" connection to accomplish this objective? And if you believe that this new utility is a viable business plan, then go ahead and get it financed. Except for one little problem: I don't think he wants a commercial venture to operate this network. The term utility, at least in Canada, is often a code word for a government-owned operation.
No - I am not a McCarthy commie conspiracy kind of guy. Still, up until this letter to the editor, it is rare for the neutralists expose their nationalization objectives in plain language. We generally have to infer their ultimate objective.
But Russ' letter concludes with precisely such a statement:
Not only are the incumbent service providers in North America not a useful path for rolling out future services, but we need to wrestle this critical infrastructure out of the hands of existing telecommunications and cable companies.And these are the folks who took umbrage when I warned in my Op Ed to beware of the People's Republic of Net Neutrality.
I am happy you put such clarity into your letter to the editor. Thank you for your support.
Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, Hill Times
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 3/28/2007 06:52:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Mark, its quite simple; the people of Canada own the Internet and will decide how it is run.
There's room for corporate partnership in this realm, but not for corporate control.
What I think Russell is trying to say is that we need to separate the business interests of being an Internet Access Provider from that of being an Internet Content or Application provider.
The two roles can be done by the same company, sure, but in such a way that one cannot derive unfair advantage from being associated with the other who is _allowed_ to be the one to run the line into your home.
What he's saying is we wouldn't let walmart build roads and charge home depot for a connection and customers to use the exit. What you're saying, though, is thats how we should build the Internet.
Net Neutrality is definitely not about building a national, public, ISP and telling the existing companies to close their doors and lay everyone off; to suggest that's what we want is utterly rediculus and undermines your credibility.
There's room for corporate partnership in this realm, but not for corporate control.
What I think Russell is trying to say is that we need to separate the business interests of being an Internet Access Provider from that of being an Internet Content or Application provider.
The two roles can be done by the same company, sure, but in such a way that one cannot derive unfair advantage from being associated with the other who is _allowed_ to be the one to run the line into your home.
What he's saying is we wouldn't let walmart build roads and charge home depot for a connection and customers to use the exit. What you're saying, though, is thats how we should build the Internet.
Net Neutrality is definitely not about building a national, public, ISP and telling the existing companies to close their doors and lay everyone off; to suggest that's what we want is utterly rediculus and undermines your credibility.
Posted by 
: 11:52 AM, March 28, 2007
: 11:52 AM, March 28, 2007
It ultimately does need to be in the hands and choices of the people – the consumer – the normal average guy – and not owned by any corporates or governments in its entirety.
Sure, I think the government should throw in money for a good infrastructure, much like they did when electricity or the telephone came out. Moving towards faster access speeds, broadband etc. makes a country more accessible, and more prone for tourism etc. I mean, it's good for the economy. But if it's all in the hands of the government, obviously it's a problem. It's also a problem when it's all in the hands of one or two – or even more – corporate giants. Corporate then begins to own a very important infrastructure of a country... and that will have notable other problems.
Sure, I think the government should throw in money for a good infrastructure, much like they did when electricity or the telephone came out. Moving towards faster access speeds, broadband etc. makes a country more accessible, and more prone for tourism etc. I mean, it's good for the economy. But if it's all in the hands of the government, obviously it's a problem. It's also a problem when it's all in the hands of one or two – or even more – corporate giants. Corporate then begins to own a very important infrastructure of a country... and that will have notable other problems.
Posted by : 3:18 PM, July 23, 2007
: 3:18 PM, July 23, 2007
Ideally, this is everybody’s dream. Who would not want a high-speed connection to government services? Who would not want a separate or distinct place to go to transact business? But then this is ideal. In reality, this is not really necessary. Considering that other basic needs are not even sufficiently met how much more this high-speed thingy? Isn’t that wishful thinking?
Post a Comment
Posted by : 6:52 AM, May 29, 2008
: 6:52 AM, May 29, 2008 << Home
Syndicate
