Listen to a podcast version of this newsletter.
informationweek.com/newscast
1. Editor's Note: Net Neutrality Hypocrites
It's odd to hear people in an industry that exists because of government regulation argue against government regulation and for the free market. And yet that's exactly what happens when telcos and cable television vendors argue against net neutrality regulations, which would forbid them from giving preferential treatment to Internet traffic for companies that pay for the privilege.
Telcos and the cable TV industry don't exist in the vicious jungle of the free market. They live a protected existence, in partnership with government. Their businesses wouldn't exist if not for government regulations granting these companies the right to supersede the rules of private property and lay their cables through other people's land. Communities give cable TV companies monopoly rights to be the only vendor offering service in an area.
So it's hypocritical when companies that owe their very existence to government regulation scream bloody murder about the holiness of the free market when they're faced with the prospect of government regulations that don't suit them.
That's not the only bogus argument raised by Internet providers against net neutrality. Telcos and cable companies argue that content companies like Google and YouTube (and, um, InformationWeek's parent company, CMP Media) are freeloaders, using the Internet providers' bandwidth without paying. It's an argument that makes any reasonable person scratch his head and say, "Huh?" The relationship between content companies and Internet providers is symbiotic; people get high-speed Internet connections so they can access content. An Internet connection without content is as useless as a highway with no exits; nobody drives on the interstate just to drive somewhere, they use the highway to get where they're going.
Moreover, content companies—like us, Google, and YouTube—already pay, and pay a lot, for Internet access. Why should we have to pay twice?
I'm quite simply undecided on the issue of regulating net neutrality. It's one of those issues that we editorial writers hate because there are good arguments on both sides. But if we're going to discuss the issue, let's discuss it fairly, without bogus appeals to the sanctity of the free market and scare stories about ee-vial, ee-vial government regulation.
Cory Doctorow isn't undecided. He believes net neutrality is essential to the future of the Internet. Cory explores these themes further in his first-ever article for InformationWeek. One intriguing point Cory brings up: Writing a law protecting net neutrality will be difficult. Do it wrong, and you run the risk of stifling innovation. A very badly written law might actually destroy net neutrality, rather than save it.
For more of my thoughts on this issue, and to leave your $0.02 on the subject, visit the InformationWeek Weblog.
Mitch Wagner
mwagner@cmp.com
Opinion:
Protecting Net Neutrality From The Neutricidal Telcos
The Internet community needs to force regulators to preserve net
neutrality. But it'll be tricky to write laws that define net
neutrality without destroying what they're trying to protect, says
Internet activist Cory Doctorow.