NB: "Free" does not mean the "best deal" when choice is eliminated. Being able to stream Desperate Housewives for free is not something that interests me. Yes, it's easy to conflate "free" as in free beer with "free" as in freedom of choice. It's like arguing the open source movement all over again.
From WSJ's discussion btw McCurry and Newmark:
Mr. McCurry: Look, the Internet is not a free public good. We all pay something to make it work right and that's the issue here. We pay federal taxes for interstate freeways but we charge 18-wheel semi-trailers higher taxes because they put a heavy burden on the road.
The Internet needs investment. That investment will be spread across the market and the big companies that provide content will help pay the cost and work that cost into their business models. Or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill. And my mom who uses the Internet to email and read news will have to subsidize the guy down the street who wants to stream HDTV movies 10 times a day.
Having the FCC regulate net neutrality (and what exactly is the definition of "net neutrality" anyhow?) will dampen investor interest in building bigger, faster, smarter pipes -- Wall Street has already made that clear. The best protection for the "little guy" is a robust market with lots of competition that will force those with "power" to make the best deal available to the consumer.
I don't see how projectig toward the internet the same logic of old media will give any solution to the new market logic we are facing.
competition without objects to trade is based only on best-practice/best-shape of the informations.
To me this all seams like when we were reading books loud, beacause we were used to talk to eachother.
the internet is a common good, is not something we can offer or trade. and I mean the infrastructure.
if you use it only for emails or you want to stream live from your office a conference, you are using light impulse anyway.
It's like you make me pay more for my phone calls if I make money with them, and less if I call my girlfriend.
the bandwith is a no issue here, most of it has been unemployed so far and the costs are easily affordable by any state in the g8.
the copyright is the real problem we are facing, but is not a natural problem.
I mean copyright is not a law of phisics, has been created recently in our history, in connection with the invention of printing, and can be changed now that we invented something else, the problem is to discuss how.
You are mistaking the focus of the Net Neutrality argument. It is the company, the server end, of internet traffic where the market abuse lies.
The market efficiency at the user end is healthy, i.e. your mum's connection contract is competitive. Your mum pays a lower connection rate than the HDTV downloader down the street.
To use your example, the danger is that 18-wheel semi-trailers get priviledged right of way at the expense of small companies, i.e. cars. If the 18 wheelers buy right of way on all crossroads, where are the small companies supposed to go ?
If this law pass the united states will set apart from the rest of the planet, or as you would say, you will lose touch, and voices, from the rest of the planet.
in any case you see it, is goin to be a big loss on both sides.
Comments
"Should the Net Be Neutral?" (or neutered?)
NB: "Free" does not mean the "best deal" when choice is eliminated. Being able to stream Desperate Housewives for free is not something that interests me. Yes, it's easy to conflate "free" as in free beer with "free" as in freedom of choice. It's like arguing the open source movement all over again.
From WSJ's discussion btw McCurry and Newmark:
Mr. McCurry: Look, the Internet is not a free public good. We all pay something to make it work right and that's the issue here. We pay federal taxes for interstate freeways but we charge 18-wheel semi-trailers higher taxes because they put a heavy burden on the road.
The Internet needs investment. That investment will be spread across the market and the big companies that provide content will help pay the cost and work that cost into their business models. Or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill. And my mom who uses the Internet to email and read news will have to subsidize the guy down the street who wants to stream HDTV movies 10 times a day.
Having the FCC regulate net neutrality (and what exactly is the definition of "net neutrality" anyhow?) will dampen investor interest in building bigger, faster, smarter pipes -- Wall Street has already made that clear. The best protection for the "little guy" is a robust market with lots of competition that will force those with "power" to make the best deal available to the consumer.
Posted by: Bill K. | May 24, 2006 09:50 AM
Hey.
Thanks for posting this. I posted it on my blog as well.
Pax!
(When are you Chicago-bound again?)
Posted by: Tripp | May 24, 2006 09:59 AM
I don't see how projectig toward the internet the same logic of old media will give any solution to the new market logic we are facing.
competition without objects to trade is based only on best-practice/best-shape of the informations.
To me this all seams like when we were reading books loud, beacause we were used to talk to eachother.
the internet is a common good, is not something we can offer or trade. and I mean the infrastructure.
if you use it only for emails or you want to stream live from your office a conference, you are using light impulse anyway.
It's like you make me pay more for my phone calls if I make money with them, and less if I call my girlfriend.
the bandwith is a no issue here, most of it has been unemployed so far and the costs are easily affordable by any state in the g8.
the copyright is the real problem we are facing, but is not a natural problem.
I mean copyright is not a law of phisics, has been created recently in our history, in connection with the invention of printing, and can be changed now that we invented something else, the problem is to discuss how.
Posted by: gianluca baccanico | May 24, 2006 11:39 AM
To answer Bill K.
You are mistaking the focus of the Net Neutrality argument. It is the company, the server end, of internet traffic where the market abuse lies.
The market efficiency at the user end is healthy, i.e. your mum's connection contract is competitive. Your mum pays a lower connection rate than the HDTV downloader down the street.
To use your example, the danger is that 18-wheel semi-trailers get priviledged right of way at the expense of small companies, i.e. cars. If the 18 wheelers buy right of way on all crossroads, where are the small companies supposed to go ?
Posted by: Paul Elosegui | May 25, 2006 07:48 AM
There is also something else Paul.
If this law pass the united states will set apart from the rest of the planet, or as you would say, you will lose touch, and voices, from the rest of the planet.
in any case you see it, is goin to be a big loss on both sides.
Posted by: gianluca baccanico | May 25, 2006 01:22 PM