« The Watermarking of the Web |
Main
| The Content Chimera »
January 10, 2006
A Government Action I Like
Posted by Dana Blankenhorn
Too bad it's not my government.
The Korean government has jawboned an agreement from that nation's mobile operators to get rid of the walled gardens and make mobile Internet service, well, Internet service.
Mike over at TechDirt picked up this story yesterday and noted that Helio, formerly SK Earthlink, could use the lesson to pick up some market share here. He's right.
But the example shows just how far away we are from rational government policy in the U.S., and how easy it would be to make radical improvements with just minor changes to that policy.
If the Bush Administration would put its foot down and DEMAND network neutrality, the Bells would quickly shut up about violating the policy.
If FCC chairman Kevin Martin were to go to the March CTIA convention and say, for instance, that walled gardens are wrong, and that the industry would be wise to do away with them, it would have a major impact. Especially if he were willing to back up his soft words with a big stick.
There are many other tech policies I could wish for, which would be very easy to implement, but that's enough wishing for now.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Internet | Politics | Telecommunications | cellular | computer interfaces | law | marketing
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › The Legend of Dennis Hayes
- › Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
- › Welcome to 1966
- › What Must Craigslist Do?
- › No Such Thing as Free WiFi
- › The Internet As A Political Issue
- › Google Images Ruled Illegal
- › Fall of Radio Shack
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on January 10, 2006 11:23 PM writes...
You're assuming that network neutrality is (a) desirable, and (b) obviously desirable. It's not. One case where it is clearly undesirable is spambots flooding mail and IM networks with unwanted messages. A totally neutral network can't block that. Apparently, you're in favor of spam. Another case where it is undesirable would be if all your neighbors are streaming video and slowing the common pipe to a crawl, so you get to wait forever to get your e-mail. Maintaining (or offering to maintain) minimal throughput for typically low-bandwidth services would seem to be very desirable, something that might be productizable. Apparently, you're in favor of slow e-mail.
Seriously, if there wasn't such vast bandwidth asymetry among various Internet services, you might have an arguable point. It's funny that the only way you can even argue your point is to claim "walled gardens". Nobody is talking about that. They are talking about prioritizing packets in exchange for money while maintaining a baseline performance guarantee for unprioritized packets. This would see only to effect the highest bandwidth services, which use thousands of times the bandwidth of the basic Internet services we all depend on and really need to stay fast enough for daily use. To be arguing for network neutrality is to be arguing against ongoing usability of the web, e-mail, chat, etc. And FWIW, it's like pissing against an oncoming train. Loser concept. Move on already.
Permalink to Comment2. Jesse Kopelman on January 11, 2006 07:56 PM writes...
Brad, this time it's you who are guilty of thinking utopian thoughts. Of course, the network owners are talking about walled gardens. They don't care if you are satisfied with the level of service they provide, since they would rather spend their money keeping competition out and making sure you have no place else to take your business. What they do care about is profitability and they imagine that it will be more profitable to run a "toll highway" rather than provide internet access for a fixed fee. It's fine if you think government should stay out of the way, but don't try and argue that the network owners have their customers best interests at heart.
Permalink to Comment3. Brad Hutchings on January 11, 2006 09:08 PM writes...
Jesse, where did I say that the network owners will have their customers best interests at heart? Quote it please. Or twist my quotes in a ringer to squeeze that out. I didn't say it, and I don't believe that. I am pretty sure, though, that with the profit motive and long-term market feedback, they'll do a hell of a lot better by their customers than the clowns who are demanding network neutrality, whether they claim to be pro-customer or not. If the network owners decide they want to run the next Minitel, the only customers they'll have are the ones who can't remember to unsubscribe.
Permalink to Comment