Comments on: The FCC, Net Neutrality, and the Principle of Transparency http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/ A member of the Gartner Blog Network Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:29:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Justin Davis http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-5406 Justin Davis Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:39:13 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/#comment-5406 I like your thoughts. Can you send me a link to your other posts? Justin Davis Legal Disclaimer: Author does not represent any legal position of Lightspeed Systems Inc. and is the author's opinion only. Lightspeed Systems provides <a href="http://www.lightspeedsystems.com" title="Internet Filter" rel="nofollow">internet filter</a> services to K-12 schools and institutions I like your thoughts. Can you send me a link to your other posts?

Justin Davis

Legal Disclaimer: Author does not represent any legal position of Lightspeed Systems Inc. and is the author’s opinion only. Lightspeed Systems provides internet filter services to K-12 schools and institutions

]]> By: Andrew Frank http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-5397 Andrew Frank Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:51:30 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/#comment-5397 Thanks for the comment. Item #1 was just what I meant in the last paragraph of my post, more clearly stated. I'm not sure how #2 differs from any other media business, and #3 can't really be addressed without bringing in a whole lot more stuff. The WSJ editorial focuses on the issue of usage-based pricing, and summarizes its view of the main issue in "net neut" thus: "But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google's business model." This seems to me to be a pretty long way off from the substance of Genachowski’s announcement. The principle of non-discrimination focuses on discrimination against specific content or applications; as I read it it's not a ban on metering. And, while usage-pricing may have a chilling effect on some power users, for many it may have the effect by lowering costs and making broadband more accessible. Look at Japan's DoCoMo iMode service, which has thrived under metered pricing. For Google and its ilk, the goal must be to keep access open and access fees low through vigorous competition; the idea that banning telco business models is essential to their survival seems very far-fetched. So whatever one thinks of Google, I think WSJ missed the mark on this one. Thanks for the comment. Item #1 was just what I meant in the last paragraph of my post, more clearly stated. I’m not sure how #2 differs from any other media business, and #3 can’t really be addressed without bringing in a whole lot more stuff.

The WSJ editorial focuses on the issue of usage-based pricing, and summarizes its view of the main issue in “net neut” thus:

“But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google’s business model.”

This seems to me to be a pretty long way off from the substance of Genachowski’s announcement. The principle of non-discrimination focuses on discrimination against specific content or applications; as I read it it’s not a ban on metering.

And, while usage-pricing may have a chilling effect on some power users, for many it may have the effect by lowering costs and making broadband more accessible. Look at Japan’s DoCoMo iMode service, which has thrived under metered pricing. For Google and its ilk, the goal must be to keep access open and access fees low through vigorous competition; the idea that banning telco business models is essential to their survival seems very far-fetched.

So whatever one thinks of Google, I think WSJ missed the mark on this one.

]]> By: Simon Owens http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-5395 Simon Owens Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:59:08 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/#comment-5395 There's actually a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429030182627044.html" rel="nofollow">great piece in the WSJ </a>arguing that Google isn't exactly an innocent bystander in this whole net neutrality debate which segues into a few things; notably that while Google pretends to be against internet gate keeping, it does some questionable gate keeping of its own: 1. Google picks winners and losers online through a search algorithm that no one can see and that constantly changes, 2. Google discriminates in favor of corporate partners (through sponsored search results) and their own value-add services (by making YouTube videos, Google Maps results and other products prevalent in its search results), and 3. Google discriminates against protected political speech (countless examples here and abroad). So the FCC has an important question to ask: as it considers revamping the rules of the online road, should it look at anticompetitve behavior among dominant Internet firms? The DOJ certainly seems to think so. And if the FCC believes antitrust law is sufficient to protect against misbehaving content/applications providers, is it not sufficient to curb bad behavior from ISPs? There’s actually a great piece in the WSJ arguing that Google isn’t exactly an innocent bystander in this whole net neutrality debate which segues into a few things; notably that while Google pretends to be against internet gate keeping, it does some questionable gate keeping of its own:

1. Google picks winners and losers online through a search algorithm that no one can see and that constantly changes,

2. Google discriminates in favor of corporate partners (through sponsored search results) and their own value-add services (by making YouTube videos, Google Maps results and other products prevalent in its search results), and

3. Google discriminates against protected political speech (countless examples here and abroad).

So the FCC has an important question to ask: as it considers revamping the rules of the online road, should it look at anticompetitve behavior among dominant Internet firms? The DOJ certainly seems to think so. And if the FCC believes antitrust law is sufficient to protect against misbehaving content/applications providers, is it not sufficient to curb bad behavior from ISPs?

]]> By: Tweets that mention The FCC, Net Neutrality, and the Principle of Transparency -- Topsy.com http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-5367 Tweets that mention The FCC, Net Neutrality, and the Principle of Transparency -- Topsy.com Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:00:26 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrew_frank/2009/09/22/the-fcc-net-neutrality-and-the-principle-of-transparency/#comment-5367 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by acfrank. acfrank said: The FCC, Net Neutrality, and the Principle of Transparency: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s announcement of th.. http://bit.ly/IrJj3 [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by acfrank. acfrank said: The FCC, Net Neutrality, and the Principle of Transparency: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s announcement of th.. http://bit.ly/IrJj3 [...]

]]>