InformationWeek Former FCC Chairman Powell: Net Neutrality 'Doing Great'

"Powell, for one, thinks that no service provider would even try to violate one of the Freedoms, especially the blocking-of-service edict. Though much debate currently revolves around whether or not an AT&T could force a Google to pay for preferential treatment, Powell said blokcing Google or Yahoo would be suicidal for AT&T, and as such he sees the public posturing as a window on what is basically a business battle between big companies.

"I'm getting where I want to on the Net, with no problems -- and there would be problems if I couldn't get to Google," Powell said. "What's really going on here [in the public debate] is a battle between the Googles and Verizons of the world -- it's a big scrum about who should absorb the full costs [of running the network]. From the consumer side, it's going pretty well -- they are getting fairly inexpensive access to high speed broadband, and Google keeps innovating with cool stuff.""

The New York Times Tollbooths on the Internet Highway
[requires 'free' registration]

"If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those corporations' profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices, would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They also might be able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet telephony, that compete with their own business interests.

Most Americans have little or no choice of broadband I.S.P.'s, so they would have few options if those providers shifted away from neutrality. Congress should protect access to the Internet in its current form. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, says he intends to introduce an Internet neutrality bill, which would prohibit I.S.P.'s from favoring content providers that paid them fees, or from giving priority to their own content."

redux [02.13.06]
BBC News Why the net should stay neutral

"Social justice is best served by ensuring that public utilities, of which the network is surely one, are regulated in the public interest.

Markets fail, and they do so in ways that any humane society must address. Ensuring that network access is available to all and that the network itself carries all lawful traffic is the only way forward.

We must just hope that the US government recognises that this is the case, and sets a good example to the rest of the world."

News.Com Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?

"Broadband providers reject the notion that prioritizing some traffic will inherently hurt the performance of nonprioritized traffic. In fact, they argue the opposite will happen because prioritizing some traffic is like opening an "express lane" on the highway, which ultimately keeps all traffic flowing.

"We are building a fifth lane on a four-lane highway," said Dave Pacholczyk, a spokesman for AT&T. "If you offer a high-occupancy lane for certain traffic, it ought to be better for those who remain in the other four lanes.""

ZDNet Politicos divided on need for 'net neutrality' mandate

"Net surfers should be able to enjoy unfettered access to content, politicians said Tuesday, but they remained divided over whether new laws forcing "net neutrality" principles on broadband providers are the way to go.

"Committee members acknowledged that net neutrality principles would be a vital part of their debates, but some indicated uncertainty as to the best solution for the future. Some said they were reluctant to legislate because no broadband provider has moved yet to block or impair certain sites. Still others were apprehensive about the laissez-faire approach."

Telepocalypse Neutrality, schmootrality: a heretic speaks

"Would you want to make it illegal for at&t to offer a $5/month plan to poorer households that only allowed access to services by Yahoo!?

The proposed neutrality rules would do just this, hurthing the weakest in society most. Perhaps the Internet is supposed to become a polite, middle-class over-educated ghetto, but that’s news to me. (Personally, I’d prefer to make typographically-challenged corporate identities illegal first!)."

The Washington Post Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google's 'Free Lunch'

"A Verizon Communications Inc. executive yesterday accused Google Inc. of freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build."

""The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," Thorne told a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers.""

Om Malik on Broadband Net Neutrality Not An Optional Feature of Internet

"The desire of AT&T, Verizon, et al to end network neutrality and assert fees for access to connected customers represents a death wish. Imagine the prospects of an info tech industry without “software neutrality” where Intel charged a fee to enhance software performance. Pay Intel and your applications run faster. The incentives driving Moore’s Law disappear in this pay-to-play model. Intel’s profit maximizing incentives become serving the interests of software companies willing to spend the most on “enhancing software performance” not the end users of computers. The meritocracy driving competition between software companies disappears as Intel picks winners and losers based on willingness to pay. Innovation becomes permission based at Intel’s discretion.

The Internet does not exist without net neutrality."

redux [02.06.06]
The Nation The End of the Internet?

"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."

"Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received."

[ see also, "How Big Cable and Phone Companies' Plans for Broadband Threaten Democracy" ]

BusinessWeek At Stake: The Net as We Know It

"That prospect is the worst nightmare of Internet stars such as Google (GOOG) , Amazon (AMZN), and eBay (EBAY). They're gearing up for a clash with the phone and cable giants early next year as Congress begins to redraft the telecom laws for the broadband era. The Internet gang fears that unless they get lawmakers to intervene, the network operators will soon be able to put a chokehold on the Web. "The issue is about the future of the Internet," says Alan Davidson, Google's Washington policy counsel."

"This new view of the world will break apart the Internet and turn it into small fiefdoms" divided between the network providers' friends and foes, says Vonage Chief Executive Jeffrey Citron."

Financial Times AT&T chief warns on internet costs

"“We have to figure out who pays for this bigger and bigger IP network,” said Mr Whitacre, who was in New York ahead of AT&T’s annual presentation to investors and analysts on Tuesday. “We have to show a return on our investments.”

"“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network – obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees – but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.”"

Networking Pipeline Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

"Google's Barry Schnitt told Paul in an email: "Google is not discussing sharing of the costs of broadband networks with any carrier. We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without limitations."

Google has that absolutely right. We're all already paying through the nose for Internet access, especially compared with the low access prices in the rest of the world. Good for Google for standing up to this cyberextortion."

Times Online Rumours mount over Google's internet plan

"Google is working on a project to create its own global internet protocol (IP) network, a private alternative to the internet controlled by the search giant, according to sources who are in commercial negotiation with the company."

"A leading content provider, who did not wish to be named, told Times Online: "We are in discussions with Google to provide content for their alternative internet service, to be distributed through their Google Cube product. As far as I'm aware they have been conducting negotiations with a number of other players in our marketplace to provide quality content to their users.""