the Digital Town Hall

One of the things I keep hearing from MultiService Providers (MSO's) is that they have to moderate access to certain parts of the Internet because, as they claim, a few "bad apples" are spoiling it for the rest of us. They use more technical jargon explaining how 2% of the subscribers are using 50% of the bandwidth. These 2% are not abusing the Internet, they are the early adopters who are making full use of it.

In short order more and more people will be utilizing the net in much the same fashion. Just look at the growth of services like Skye and Microsoft Live Messenger who are both known for video messaging. By the way, for those of us over 40, this is the realization of the much anticipated "picture phone" we expected to come with our flying cars.

These services use enormous amounts of bandwidth. Especially the Microsoft product. I know this because a dear friend recently moved to an area that does not have broadband service. The fastest service there is 600K. Microsofts Live Messenger does not even connect video calls at that speed, and Skype does so with artifacts in the video signal. Other services like Yahoo and AIM also work but with reduced resolution and frame rate.

Additionally more and more people are finding that they can watch their favorite television programs online. I personally watched the entire "Life On Mars" series online only. This also uses much bandwidth. Netflicks offers full length films online as do many other companies. As you can see, soon we all will catch up to that 2% the Internet Service Providers are complaining about.

So rather then making the necessary investments in their infrastructure at the expense of inflated profits, these short sighted companies would simply tell us to slow down. Rather then promoting innovation in the Internet, something they seem to claim they want to do themselves but can't if government regulations come into play, they would tell content providers "Offer less so our subscribers will not clog our networks."

Please, these service providers are in business to provide a service that is in demand, if they are unwilling to make the product the consumers demand they need to step aside. Oh but wait, why should they, most are monopolies, just like the local phone companies were. Who is the subscriber going to go to if they are unhappy? Remember Lilly Tomlins "Telephone Lady"? There was one skit where she is taking a complaint, and in the end she tells the customer to just accept it because they are the phone company and they can do whatever they want. Many MSO's seem to behave the very same way. I know I once stood in shock as a Customer Service agent told me they didn't have to provide service on my schedule even if that is what was originally agreed to because if I didn't like it, I can just get an antenna. I bet you can guess who I was talking to. So what to do?

We have a few choices, one is to remove the monopolies by allowing competition to come into communities, playing by the same rules the incumbents play by, or if none are willing to make the investment, allow local municipalities and organizations to establish service. One way to foster this is to make the transmission cables, the fiber optic cabling, nationally owned like the national power grid. Then at least the cost of connecting to the homes and businesses will not be born by either the current providers or any who would wish to compete. Maintenance can be contracted out, a portion of the cost can be covered by each provider based on the percentage of subscribers per area served.

Who would manage such a thing? How about setting up a commission or using the already established Public Utilities Commissions (PUC) in each state. Yes this is government involvement but if the fiber is to be nationalized, then it absolutely should be managed by the public trust through the PUC.

So how does this all relate to the title of this discussion? Simply because if the current providers refuse to expand their capabilities and we do nothing to force them, they will systematically close access to the highest bandwidth content unless we pay significantly more. For many, this is the same as switching off their access. Regardless of the method by which this access is denied, it is still a form of censorship.

Business is there to make money for the owners of that business. They are not there for the public good. While that is capitalism pure and simple, and we all agree there is nothing wrong with that, if a fair and evenly applied set of rules are put in place by government by which all service providers must play, the public good can be protected. I often think too many people on the right have forgotten why government exists in the first place, why industries are regulated. To protect the public good. To create the clear set of enforcible rules by which society runs. Anarchy, or the absence of government regulations, leads to chaos and abuse. That doesn't serve the public in any way.