Wednesday, April 23, 2008

 

Is the internet running out of capacity?

AT&TA recent article on CNET reports that AT&T is warning that the internet will hit full capacity by 2010. It is an attention grabbing headline.

Of course, there is a catch.

When you get into the body of the article you see that Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned that at least $55 billion is needed in new infrastructure investment in the next three years in the U.S. on top of $75B needed worldwide.

Before you go running for cover, Cicconi said that AT&T is doing its part, with plans to spend $19B on its network infrastructure. Some audience members asked if the hidden motivation behind Cicconi's speech was AT&T's position on net neutrality. He responded by saying he believed government intervention in the Internet was fundamentally wrong.
There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet--it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors.
The CNET story includes a quote from the US Department of Justice that merits reproducing, especially given my post from Monday on the NDP perspectives on government interference in network management:
However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet.
William Archer, CMO of AT&T Business will deliver the luncheon keynote address on June 16 and Eric Loeb, AT&T's VP International External and Regulatory Affairs will be speaking on Network Neutrality at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 18.

Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

Comments:
There is some truth to that argument. However, our communication infrastructure would likely not function without government regulation. Those corporations which control the inherently limited pipes into our homes (phone lines, cable, fiber, wireless) must allow the consumer freedom of choice.

If we decide to leave such communication choices up to the consumer, we must provide the consumer with true freedom of choice. When the monopolies that control the pipes decide to set the rules for everyone, this skews the market.

If Bell Sympatico and Rogers Internet want to throttle their own network connections, fine. But the consumer must have the freedom of choice to take their business elsewhere, to free themselves from such throttling.
 
I don't understand how AT&T can make that claim. What part of our infrastructure is not being constantly expanded to have more capacity? There seem to be a great many servers and it's very easy to start new servers. As people build new homes, they will build new cable connections (fiber optic lines or whatever they are using). I guess they are pitching for some government investment in infrastructure, maybe picking up the tab for them.

-Steve
my political forum
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

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