Data is Data is Data ... VoIP?
Submitted by Tropology on Sun, 02/06/2005 - 11:44.
Broadband | CNs and Econ. Development | Policy and regulation
The principle I adhere to and which needs to be defended is that data is data is data... (and this point should be defended against FCC and others).
If I have a contract for broadband internet service, I'd like to be able to transmit data of whatever sort I choose. (I'd also like to have comparable up/down badndwidth, but thats a constraint of the current regime.)
Now, is there room for regulation of companies providing a data or network service? Certainly. That is Vonage, as a provider charging for a service, even if riding as data on a network established by others, ought to be regulated to the extent that they are charging fees for service, as should cellular phone providers. That is, there should be consumer protections in place.
However, some VoIP networks do not operate with a fee. (or at some basic level - such as no ability to call out to the POTN, with ability to call out incurring a cost)
It's our ability to utilize the Internet in this manner that I'd like to advocate and defend. (When we already pay for Internet access/bandwidth.)
Some that I've conversed with believe that access to the Internet has the potential of moving to a metered usage model (like water or electricity) versus thee current model, where you are renting the pipe and not paying for the data packets. I dont know if the former is a likely scenario or not, or just paranoia. I dont see it as something the public would want (and it's probably not in the public interest).
The clarity of the principle that data is data is data is a basis for not charging different data uses of the network under different regulatory schema or at different price points.
I'd like to hear argument to the contrary. (That is, I'm open to compelling arguments.) Is there a compelling public interest to do this differently?
Regards,
MM
This discussion is prompted by conversations on the Get Illinois Online [GIO] listserv and the formation of a VoIP SIG.
Technology Hurts
An email reply that I think offers a good conversation point:
I believe that you are correct in your fundamental assertion. However, I believe that the counter argument will come from the incumbents who assert that this new technology "hurts" their ability to profit from "their" investment in infrastructure and therefore ought to be regulated or restricted. Their position, and the one they are selling, is that they have a compelling right to profit from "their" investment no matter what your individual rights are. This same logic is extended to their position on muni or community broadband. Their "investment" negates your individual rights.
In many ways it is a weak and spurious argument but it is, I believe, at the core of their assertion and what they sell to legislators. Their investments carry with them the "right" to profit, even if that right negates your personal rights. Capitalism at its core.
My response:
Yes, I think that your statement captures the current framing of the situation. How can we reframe it?
If we make these points more explicit, it ought to strengthen our case that "we" too should have these rights of investment (cf. "Thou shalt not invest in thy own community") whether "we" are competitve private providers, govt. (muni) based providers, some partnership of the two, or even volunteer networks (as with some segment of the wifi sector), not to mention private groups that would like similar access to the right of way.
Of course I think that a shift of the model from the incumbents owning the copper and fiber in the ground AND selling both access and services on the network to something different... (if I understand correctly, this is what Speaker Madigan is saying) would benefit the ILECs and the Public Interest, and offer an alternative resolution of the problem. This is along the lines of the article distributed and discussed as a "middle way" given that the lines in the ground that the ILECs are defending their right to profit from have more often been a cost... the $ to be made being in the services offered over the network.
-MM