Clarifying Obama's Position on Net Neutrality

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:21


In telecom circles, there’s been a little dust-up about Obama’s position on net neutrality, sparked by Carlyle Group telecom expert and former FCC Commissioner Bill Kennard’s statements.

“Where that has typically led us is to supporting tier pricing systems as long as they’re not discriminatory,” said Kennard, an outside communications policy adviser to Obama.
Matt Stoller :: Clarifying Obama’s Position on Net Neutrality
Susan Ness, the likely FCC Chair under a Clinton administration, echoed Kennard’s comments, going slightly further to the right and suggesting that Clinton is quite wary of regulation even though she supports network neutrality.  

Now, ‘tiered access’ is a loaded term.  It could mean charging consumers different amounts for different types of service, like DSL, Cable modems, T1 lines, dial-up, and broadband cards.  That’s fine.  Or it could mean charging youtube and Google and bloggers more money depending on what type of content they put on the web and what their content says.  That’s not fine.  In other words, Kennard either means that ISPs can charge different amounts to consumers who use different amounts of bandwidth, or he means that ISPs can charge content providers different amounts based on the type of content they serve.  We already know that without proactive action from the next administration, cable and telecom companies will inspect, block and censor content, as Cox and Comcast are already doing.  

The political pressure for an open internet is increasing; the Senate just held a hearing on equipment makers that help the Chinese government censor content.  The Senate Judiciary Human Rights Subcommittee raked Cisco Systems over the coals for “having a role in the Chinese government’s construction of a system for monitoring, censoring and prosecuting online dissidents who speak in favor of democratic values.”  The basic system architecture of packet sniffing and monitoring in China is no different than the one American companies will use to tier access to different types of content.  And even McCain is having to concede that an open internet is important.

Kennard is probably a poor spokesperson for Obama, considering his role with the Carlyle Group.  Still, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama, as other surrogates of his are making it clear that his prioritization of an open internet is real.  Obama advisor and MIT denizen Daniel J. Weitzner debated a Time Warner patent attorney representing the McCain campaign and made this political point.

The fate of the Net is important to Obama; his campaign’s success has been built on using it for organizing and fundraising, allowing him to vault from an underdog last year into the lead for the Democratic nomination, Weitzner said.

“There’s an appreciation for the Internet, a recognition of the transformative value of the Internet that I think will go a long way toward shaping the approaches that Sen. Obama would take as president,” Weitzner said.

Obama sees himself as a transformative figure, and every indication is that he is strongly supportive of Silicon Valley priorities and open architectures, and more importantly, that such an open architecture is supportive of his campaign and candidacy.  I know there are people digging into his campaign to find a clarification of what Kennard laid out, and I’m waiting to hear from them.  But I’m not worried about Obama’s position on net neutrality.  McCain, of course, is a different matter – a patent attorney for Time Warner is the worst of all worlds.

');
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Net Neutrality Destroys Networks (0.00 / 0)
Maybe it’s just the libertarian in me, but bandwidth should be charged by the amount of traffic that you use. Why should Johnny BitTorrent who downloads a terabyte a month pay the same amount as his grandma who uses it to check her AOL e-mail? 80% of bandwidth is used by 20% of users, and people wonder why neighborhood loads get overloaded. In a pay-per-byte world, busy nodes would be expanded to accomodate higher traffic, allowing everybody to enjoy the appropriate network speeds. Under net neutrality, you have a tragedy of the commons problem, where people use as much bandwidth as possible because they pay the same amount.

If you wanted to get really outside-the-box, why not (1) eliminate all copyright laws, (2) tax all p2p traffic on a $/byte basis, and (3) distribute the revenue according to their share of the traffic?

It’s similar to the idea of eliminating drug patents and awarding prizes for discoveries instead.

Just a thought.

Nick Bradley
http://crwl.blogspot.com


 
Network Neutrality has little to do with Bandwidth Usage (4.00 / 1)
To my knowledge, the net neutrality debate has little to do with bandwidth pricing.  Rather, it is about discriminatory pricing/access of content.  So while your proposal to charge for bandwidth by the MB/GB is completely valid (I agree that this would be a good approach), it doesn’t have anything to do with the net neutrality debate, which is about preventing ISPs from slowing down or blocking your access to certain sites or content to encourage you to visit somewhere else or unless you pay extra.

[ Parent ]  
It's about Who and What, not How Much (4.00 / 2)
If your ISP wants to charge $1/GB, that’s still a neutral network. If your ISP wants to charge $10/GB for traffic to Google, but only $0.1/GB for traffic to Yahoo, that’s no longer neutral.

Net Neutrality is closely related to censorship; if ISPs want to charge Open Left (and other bloggers) money to serve their pages quickly, only the bloggers backed with money (probably from corporate or PAC sources) can gain a real audience. Would you read Open Left if 90% of the time you tried to load a page, it returned a 504 error? That’s what we’re moving towards if we don’t demand network neutrality.

Network neutrality is concerned with is whether ISPs can discriminate whether to serve traffic (or what QoS to give that traffic) based on where that traffic is going to, who it’s coming from, and what is contained in its packets.


[ Parent ]  
Misunderstanding destroys networks (4.00 / 3)
Net Neutrality means that entities that connect to a network provider should all have the same kinds of service available to buy as others, regardless of who they are or what they do.  I’d make an exception for things like legally registered nonprofits, but otherwise, it’s about discrimination.

The only people who have ever suggested disallowing network providers from offerring different levels of service for different prices, are dishonest opponents of net neutrality who want to confuse people and spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).  Net Neutrality just says that whatever service levels you offer, at whatever prices, offer them at those same rates to whoever wants to buy.

It’s a much much weaker form of “common carrier”, a much stricter neutrality regime that was applied to the railroads and then the telephone companies.  It clearly did not destroy either; rather, it made them much more useful and trustworthy and put both of those networks in a better position to build our economy.


[ Parent ]  
Obama answered this in public (4.00 / 2)
At the MTV debate, Obama was asked about Net Neutrality, and not only did he say that he supports it, he explained why.  He attempted to talk about it in a way that would make sense even if you know nothing about how the Internet works, so the result was a bit clumsy, but it showed that he understands the reason why Net Neutrality is important.



 
Thanks for finding that! (0.00 / 0)
Great video, seems to make his stance pretty clear.

[ Parent ]  

Donate to Open Left
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS

');

MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More OpenLeft video…