NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day
Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000469.html
The following is adapted from a posting of mine distributed on Dave
Farber's IP list earlier today ...
- - -
Greetings. I can only assume that much of the readership feels
trapped in a situation like that of Bill Murray in the film
"Groundhog Day" -- when the usual suspects start batting Net
Neutrality back and forth here in IP.
But there are underlying truths in play -- this isn't like a movie
review where opinions are mainly a matter of taste.
Let's start with a number. According to the best public estimates
right now, the top 5 ISPs have over a 55% U.S. market share
( http://www.isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html ).
The top 23 hold more than 75% market share.
Everyone else, including most of those 4000+ wireless ISPs that
Brett Glass likes to talk about, are clustered down in the remaining
less than 25%.
Brett portrays his (often laudable) business practices as if they
were representative of the ISP industry at large. But even his own
statements illustrate why so many observers put the dominant ISPs in
a completely different category. From Brett's last posting here in
IP:
"While the government seems intent upon making it impossible for
us to compete by denying us reasonable access to radio spectrum
and by allowing the telephone and cable companies to engage in
anticompetitive practices with impunity (witness the Trinko
case), we are surviving and growing nonetheless."
Who are these "telephone and cable companies" being referred to?
None other than the dominant carriers with that monster Internet
access market share!
Why aren't wireless ISPs on the radar for most consumers? In many
cases, it's because they are not accessible for technical reasons in
a given location, or can't offer a similarly attractive
price/performance package as the dominants, frequently due to the
anticompetitive situation that Brett cites.
David Reed brought up a critical point that illustrates why so many
of us bristle when some advocates attempt to draw comparisons
between Google's market share for particular Internet services, vs.
the extremely limited practical competition for Internet access
services for most U.S. Internet users.
The term "monopoly" gets thrown around a lot but it's a much more
complex subject than simply a board game with a "Get Out of Jail
Free" card.
First, it must always be remembered that whatever Google's scope,
your friendly ISP has it beaten in terms of your data seven ways
from Sunday. Every single blessed byte you send or receive, every
TCP or UDP connection you directly establish, every piece of e-mail
passes through your ISP. That is power with a capital P.
And how did these ISPs attain such exalted positions? Much of the
time, simply by edict. Your local DSL and cable firms are usually
the direct descendants of the basic telco and CATV services that
were typically granted monopoly (in the most basic sense of the
word) status in any given location.
This is precisely the sort of telecom situation where regulatory
apparatus historically has been most applicable.
Google is entirely different. They weren't granted any exclusive
establishment rights by municipalities or other government
entities. They didn't even twist arms the way that courts have
found Microsoft guilty of widely doing.
Google got to where they are now "simply" by being so effective at
providing the services that they deploy, and through Internet
users -- remaining free to enter non-Google URLs into their browsers
at any time -- who have chosen to use those Google services.
A firm that achieves market dominance in any business segment
through its own hard work and customer satisfaction is *not*
the same as a company that achieved dominance by virtue of special
privilege grants or illicit manipulation of the marketplace.
While it can be true that any dominant firm may sometimes be subject
to certain extra responsibilities and in some cases specific
restrictions, attempts to equate Google to ISPs in these regards are
in my view misleading and inaccurate, and do not well serve reasoned
dialogue on the serious issues involved in the Network Neutrality
debates.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com