Senator Dianne Feinstein On Net Neutrality
Today, Senator Diane Feinstein sent me a personal letter. And when I say letter, I mean email. And when I say personal, I mean a form letter with my name spelled correctly. And when I say Diane Feinstein, I mean a 19-year-old intern that the Senator has only ever actually met once.
Her language couldn't be more parsed. Microsoft is officially for Net Neutrality legislation. If you didn't know, there is an effort underway to prevent ISPs from providing preferential treatment for certain content providers. Supporters call this "Net Neutrality," and believe it is crucial to continued innovation on the Net.
On the other side of this debate are your cable and telephone companies who are itching to get a piece of Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and other Internet content providers by forcing them to pay for preferential treatment in a model that's supposed to be analogous to the relationship your cable company has with The Learning Channel.
Of course, the Internet is not cable TV. Although there are several large content providers analogous to cable television stations, the Internet is as much like a telephone as it is like cable TV, especially when it's used for email, and instant messaging, or even blogging.
Imagine being placed on hold before you could complete a call to a relative simply because your relative's telephone company hadn't ponied up to your own telephone company for "preferred access."
From the consumer's stand point, this would seem like a major blow. The cable companies would argue that companies like Google and Yahoo! are about to start sending massive amounts of content down their pipes in the form of digital video, and that it's companies like Google and Yahoo! who should foot the bill for rolling out the network required to carry that data, not ISP subscribers.
The truth is, the network is a commodity and your telco and cable company don't have much more to offer you than an outlet. But does it matter? Legislation probably isn't needed. I'd like to think that if consumers are asked for their informed consent in allowing ISPs to slow down various parts of the Internet, they'll say no. That's not likely, and that probably explains why Google is buying miles and miles of dark fiber. Waiting for the day it will flip the switch and further marginalize your telephone company.
Dear Mr. Roos:
Thank you for writing to me about open access to the Internet and network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.
I agree with the general principles of network neutrality that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.
As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications laws this year, many different proposals have been offered regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the network, service and information providers. Please know that when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.
Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Her language couldn't be more parsed. Microsoft is officially for Net Neutrality legislation. If you didn't know, there is an effort underway to prevent ISPs from providing preferential treatment for certain content providers. Supporters call this "Net Neutrality," and believe it is crucial to continued innovation on the Net.
On the other side of this debate are your cable and telephone companies who are itching to get a piece of Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and other Internet content providers by forcing them to pay for preferential treatment in a model that's supposed to be analogous to the relationship your cable company has with The Learning Channel.
Of course, the Internet is not cable TV. Although there are several large content providers analogous to cable television stations, the Internet is as much like a telephone as it is like cable TV, especially when it's used for email, and instant messaging, or even blogging.
Imagine being placed on hold before you could complete a call to a relative simply because your relative's telephone company hadn't ponied up to your own telephone company for "preferred access."
From the consumer's stand point, this would seem like a major blow. The cable companies would argue that companies like Google and Yahoo! are about to start sending massive amounts of content down their pipes in the form of digital video, and that it's companies like Google and Yahoo! who should foot the bill for rolling out the network required to carry that data, not ISP subscribers.
The truth is, the network is a commodity and your telco and cable company don't have much more to offer you than an outlet. But does it matter? Legislation probably isn't needed. I'd like to think that if consumers are asked for their informed consent in allowing ISPs to slow down various parts of the Internet, they'll say no. That's not likely, and that probably explains why Google is buying miles and miles of dark fiber. Waiting for the day it will flip the switch and further marginalize your telephone company.