Paul Kapustka's Blog
January 30, 2006
Verizon For Net Neutrality? Don't Believe It
While the headline of this report may give some false hope to Net Neutrality backers, don't believe for a second that Verizon is somehow different from AT&T in its views toward Net Neutrality. Where they are much different is in how they say it.
In terms of smoothness, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is the fist in the velvet glove, while Ed Whitacre is a cowhide mitt grasping a frayed rope. And as a second-speaker, Verizon's Tom Tauke is just as good, able to say things that sound like one thing but mean another.
For instance, in the Drew Clark piece cited above, Tauke says:
"We are trying to work with other players [in the technology and communications industries] to see how we can create the right climate to put market pressure on everyone to abide by the Internet principles."
What that means: Verizon won't block any services. Trust us! But we still think Google should send us bucks, or else... something.
More Tauke, from Clark's report:
But he [Tauke] said Verizon would continue to resist efforts to codify these Internet neutrality principles through legislation.Referring to efforts by the European Union and China to fragment the technical root structure of the unified Internet, and to efforts by China to filter Web content, Tauke said there is a "danger of having governments getting involved in the Internet space."
Ignoring, of course, that one government -- which is supposed to stand for democracy -- created the Internet in the first place. And what he really means is: Government should stay out of the Internet regulation, unless it involves rules to block local Wi-Fi or anything else that might infringe on Verizon's monopoly powers.
The moral? Don't be fooled by how they say it, but instead listen carefully to what they say.
Posted by paul at 01:48 PM | Comments (0)
January 24, 2006
Networking education -- still a long way to go
One of the reasons I wanted to start this blog was to shed some more light on the important issues brewing in the world of telecom, networks and regulation. Judging by the tenor of a "big-picture" article about network neutrality in Sunday's Washington Post, there's still a long road ahead before readers can rely on the mainstream media for an accurate take.
There's lots to worry about with this article, especially with the author, Christopher Stern, who is an analyst with a big financial-investors advice outfit. I'm guessing all the company's work is above reproach, but in this age of people with hidden agendas, it'd be great to have some more transparency into the writer's conflicts, or lack thereof.
There are two more aspects of the article that I find worrisome, especially since it is likely to be widely read given the Washington Post's wide reach; the first is the condescending tone shown by this snippet:
But lately the issue, a matter of heated debate on obscure blogs and among analysts like me, has begun to attract the attention of the mainstream press.
Jeff and Om also had problems with this line. It's an unnecessary smarter-than-thou attitude, one that insults the large group of people already thinking, writing about and discussing the issue.
And then there is a problem when Stern starts trying to talk about networking -- with this snippet:
Whether or not you agree with Whitacre, you can understand his frustration. Companies like Google and Yahoo pay some fees to connect to their servers to the Internet, but AT&T will collect little if any additional revenue when Yahoo starts offering new features that take up lots of bandwidth on the Internet. When Yahoo's millions of customers download huge blocks of video or play complex video games, AT&T ends up carrying that increased digital traffic without additional financial compensation.
Doc Searls and some friends have already started to pick this one apart. It's just sad that between the writer -- who according to his bio has both journalism and telecom experience -- and the WaPo editors, this was the best they could do.
With your help, forums like this one will attempt to clarify, educate, enlighten and expose all the info you need to know. And yes, perhaps entertain along the way.
Posted by paul at 12:57 AM | Comments (0)