Dear Sean :Thank you for contacting me regarding recent interest group proposals for so-called "net neutrality." It is good to hear from you.
This year, Congress will reauthorize the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the key criticisms of that act (and the original 1934 version for that matter) is that, despite supposedly benevolent intentions, Congress essentially picked winners and losers in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry instead of allowing a free marketplace in which competition would lead to new technology, better service, and lower prices for consumers. As a result, many industry experts have concluded that governmental regulation has impeded the emergence of new technology and better applications. Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment. In anticipation of the reauthorization, I believe we must honestly examine and reflect upon the many government regulations already on the books and carefully consider the pros and cons of any newly-proposed regulations before endorsing proposals that may simply sound good on the surface.
One of the issues that Congress will address is the concept known as "net neutrality." Certain interest groups and press editorialists proclaim that Congress should mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband operators offer control of their networks equally to any and all Internet traffic. In fact, several major software and e-commerce firms have already formed a lobbyist organization called the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do just that. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Internet users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. Despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. Outlawing the ability of network owners to favor certain content kills a major financial incentive for entrepreneurs to invent and build new networks in the first place. Ultimately, in the absence of clear harm, government typically does not regulate in the preemptive fashion that CBUI members are requesting.
Please be aware that the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006. Among other points, the act empowers the FCC to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated within including: 1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, 2) consumers are entitled to run the applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, 3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network, and 4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Throughout the 1990s and more recently, I have resisted placing additional regulations and taxes on the Internet because of its effect on slowing development and service for consumers and the propensity for those regulations to actively harm certain businesses while rewarding competitors. Instead of being so preoccupied with maximizing consumer welfare within the confines of existing systems, "net neutrality" proponents would be better served to put more thought and energy into how future alternative networks may be created. The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks.
Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation comes before the House floor.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please continue to keep me informed of your concerns.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
The only thing editted about that letter was some of the formatting. You can tell it's a really badly coded pre-written reply by looking at the remaining original HTML from my direct copy/paste prior to editing.
Well I e-mailed him again, with a reply to the above e-mail. This was my reply:
Dear Representitive Boehner,
I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to send me a reply, even if it is a generalized form letter in response to the deluge of e-mails you have recieved as part of the various network neutrality advocates and their petitions which I am sure you have been receiving. I am, however, writing you back to correct you on a few points.
In Canada, where there are no similar safeguards for network neutrality as there are here, a BSP had blocked access to a site supporting a worker's union while they were in a negociation with their workers who belonged to that union.
Also, I am all for future development of the internet and of the networks -- my chosen major centers around computers and the internet, after all. But what I also think you fail to understand is that the Internet did not start as a privately-funded and developed enterprise: it was born from publically-supplied investments and publically-developed networks. The broadband networks were laid down by corportate interests, under regulation from the government. Yes, private investment in networks is needed and desired, but a little thing like network neutrality has not and will not kill the profit of large corporations with their hands in numerous pots.
Also, BSPs make more money dependent on how many clients they have, not how much traffic they have. Traffic -- as in bandwidth -- is a commodity which it costs money to allow access to, and they make extra money alloting extra bandwidth to high-end users like websites, heavy downloaders, et cetera.
The real concern with the repeal of network neutrality is not that corporations be forced to issue everyone the same bandwidth no matter what their usage is -- that's why they have a sliding billing cost depending on bandwidth usage for high-end users. The concern is that they will use the lack of network neutrality to "double bill" and block competitors off of their networks. The double-billing would come from a tiered internet which functions on a cable TV model: if you want access to the higher tier of bandwidth, you must pay a special "fee" to the BSP in order to access that, and then you're still paying the sliding scale fee based on actual bandwidth usage.
Blocking competitors services is another concern. There are many VOIP -- Voice Over Internet Protocol -- providers, among them the very BSPs which we are currently discussing. The concern would be that, say Time Warner, the key broadband, internet phone, and cable TV provider in this area would, for example, block Skype, a cheap VOIP service, and YouTube, an online video service, as they would be competitors to Time Warner's VOIP service and cable television services.
The other concern, though certainly lesser, would be the blocking of views which dissent with the corporation (in terms of labor disputes and others) and/or are unwilling to pay the fee to access the higher-tier (a "bribe"), and therefore would be silenced.
Yes, BSPs may lose money blocking content -- but only if they can't make up for it in double-billing and creating a tiered internet much akin to the way cable tv operates. You see my concern, as both a citizen, a netizen, and a (hopefully) future participant in the development of computers and the networks which connect them?
I doubt my views will persuade you, or that this e-mail will see anyone higher than a staff member assigned to wade though all of these e-mails. I do, however, wish you luck in your endeavors, good sir, and that I am glad I live in the district which the House Majority Leader represents.
Again, good luck to you and your re-election campaign this fall.
Sincerly,
Sean Stinnett
So yeah. That was my big reply. I decided to be formal with him, despite my urgings otherwise.
So yeah, I knew I was going to be voting against Representitive Boehner, the House Majority Leader, before this... but somehow this was the final straw. I've been pushed by Mr. Boehner into actively campaigning against his re-election.
Anyway, peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment