Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 11
About This Presentation
Title:

Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue

Description:

Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue Presentation for Fall VON 2006 Boston MA September 13, 2006 By Scott Cleland Chairman, NetCompetition.org – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:61
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 12
Provided by: scle2
Category:
Tags: bogus | issue | net | neutrality

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue


1
Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue
  • Presentation for Fall VON 2006
  • Boston MA September 13, 2006
  • By Scott Cleland
  • Chairman, NetCompetition.org
  • An E-Forum Funded by Broadband Companies
  • www.NetCompetition.org --- www.precursorblog.com
  • and President, Precursor LLC
  • An Industry Research and Consulting Firm
  • www.precursor.com --- scleland_at_precursor.com

2
Why Net Neutrality is a Bogus Issue
  • No real problem
  • The core net neutrality assertions are false
  • Driven by special interests -- not principle

1
3
I. No Real Problem
  • No consumer harm
  • Prices falling choice and speed increasing
    healthy deployment explosion of new products,
    services and innovations
  • Free speech and Internet access already protected
  • Hypothetical unsubstantiated allegations
  • One documented U.S. example in last five years
  • Small telco Madison River, blocked VoIP swiftly
    punished by FCC
  • Net neutrality punishes 2000 companies for the
    mistake of one
  • Jumped to worst case conclusion based on a few
    press quotes
  • Existing laws more than sufficient
  • FCC, FTC, DOJ have authority/mandate to protect
    competition
  • FCC has replaced monopolies with competition over
    11 years
  • FTC says no one has yet filed complaints or
    explained problem

2
4
II. The Core Assertions are FalseA. The Net is
neutral shouldnt be tiered
  • Reality the Net isnt neutral or un-tiered as
    the buzzword Net Neutrality term insinuates
  • Net traffic is treated un-equally for variety of
    reasons
  • Net backbone has long had 3 different peering
    tiers
  • Net access pricing has long been tiered dialup,
    free WiFi, and various price/speed tiers of
    broadband
  • Net usage is unequal 5 users use 50 bandwidth
  • Net legal treatment of technologies is very
    different

3
5
II. All Core Assertions are FalseB. A
broadband duopoly requires regulation
  • Broadband is young, fast-growing and dynamic
    market thats replacing monopoly dialup service
  • What matters is the competitive trajectory for
    choice/price/supply
  • The facts prove a competitive market
  • Choice of broadband providers is expanding
    rapidly per FCC
  • Satellite is the most widely available option,
    not DSL/cable modem
  • Real bandwidth prices fallen 50 for DSL/cable
    modems over last few years
  • Speed offered has doubled bundles/promotions
    lower prices too
  • Supply of new broadband competitors is
    increasing
  • Satellite broadband wireless broadband of
    Verizon, Sprint, ATT T-Mobile WiFi hot spots
    Clearwire WiMax Muni-WiFi
  • BPL is now a feasible future third wire into
    home

4
6
II. All Core Assertions are FalseC. Net
Neutrality would maintain status quo
  • Competition No Internet regulation is the
    status quo!
  • Bipartisan Telecom Act 1996 replaced monopoly
    with competition and de-regulation
  • Monopoly-era copper regulations like net
    neutrality have been made obsolete by the
    emergence of competition
  • All non-copper broadband technologies have never
    had net neutrality regulation, e.g.
  • 30 million cable modem users
  • 210 million wireless users
  • Millions of WiFi users and
  • The increasing of users of satellite broadband,
    WiMax, or BPL.
  • Snowe-Dorgan/Markey bills do not restore/update
    old law because current law says keep net free of
    regulation
  • These bills would regulate the Internet for the
    first time

5
7
II. All Core Assertions are FalseD. Net
Neutrality is gaining momentum
  • The official actions that matter show clear
    momentum against net neutrality
  • In May, the House defeated Markey Bill 269-152
  • In June, FCC refused neutrality conditions on
    Adelphia merger
  • In July, Senate Commerce Committee defeated
    Snowe-Dorgan 11-11 and passed Stevens Net
    neutrality compromise 15-7
  • In August, FTC Chairman stated FTC is skeptical
    saying no one has complained to them or explained
    the supposed problem.
  • SavetheInternets touted momentum measures are
    bogus e-petition signers, coalition members
    blogposts they are
  • Local stunts designed to get media attention and
  • Activist and operative staged, not real
    spontaneous grass-roots.

6
8
III. Driven by Special Interests Not Principle
  • Net Neutrality isnt about consumers, principle,
    or policy its about money
  • Political fundraising for Moveon.org and the
    mid-term elections
  • Commercial negotiating leverage for online giants
    to protect their profits by shifting new video
    distribution costs fully to consumers.
  • A cynical few have shamelessly scared the many
    with outrageous and unsubstantiated
    fear-mongering -- for monetary/political gain
  • SavetheInternet.org Moveon.orgs front group
    knows
  • Theres no better way to energize bloggers/online
    activists than scaring them that bad guys want
    to take away their Internet!
  • ItsOurNet.org the front group for Google, eBay,
    Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo are scaring many with
    unsubstantiated claims
  • Small businesseses may not be able to survive,
    online etc.
  • They know it doesnt matter if its true, only if
    they can get enough people to fear that it may be
    true

7
9
III. Evidence Highlights Special Interests
  • Moveon.org and the online giants are not
  • Looking out for the little guy its really
    reverse Robin Hood
  • Net neutrality is average pricing where the
    masses, who use the least bandwidth are forced to
    subsidize the few bandwidth hogs and dotcom
    billionaires.
  • Protecting free speech or the First Amendment
  • The words free speech and First Amendment are
    nowhere to be found in the Senate Snowe-Dorgan
    bill or the House Markey bill.
  • They oppose strong free speech protection
    language in the pending Stevens Bill
  • Markey bill has a provision, which is effectively
    guilty until proven innocent
  • Protecting consumers
  • After screaming Congress should not leave
    consumers unprotected, ItsOurNet and
    SavetheInternet both oppose the only pending
    legislation with a chance of passage that would
    codify more consumer protections than exist now
  • Supporting competition or consumer
    choiceSnowe-Dorgan Markey Bills
  • Would regulate for first time free services, new
    entrants and individual persons
  • Those bills have no sunset provisions for when
    competition may replace the need for regulation
    the assumption is competition can never work

8
10
Conclusion Net Neutrality is a Bogus Policy
Issue
  • FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin
  • "If you offer different tiers of speeds, a
    consumer chooses the lowest tier, and he wants to
    access content that would require higher speeds
    than he has purchased, hes not being blocked
    from access. He just hasnt purchased the speed
    thats necessary."
  • FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras
  • let me be clear that if broadband providers
    engage in anti-competitive conduct, we will not
    hesitate to act using our existing authority. But
    I have to say, thus far proponents of net
    neutrality regulation have not come to us to
    explain where the market is failing or what
    anti-competitive conduct we should challenge we
    are open to hearing from them.

9
11
  • Chairman Scott Cleland
  • NetCompetition.org
  • An E-Forum Funded by Broadband Companies
  • Supporting evidence for this
  • presentation can be found at
  • www.NetCompetition.org
  • www.precursorblog.com

10
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com