A few days ago on my site I wrote this post called Since When Is the Net Neutral? in response to all of the Net Neutrality propaganda....


While I'd like to say how brilliant the post was, the debate that it sparked in my comments section was far more enlightening to me (sigh). As a 10-year veteran of the Old and Better AT&T's Consumer Marketing group, where I held various positions including the marketing of almost every bundle of wireless and wireline service, I thought I had a unique insight and my original post went something like this:
1) I care about what impacts my wallet
2) The internet has never been free when it comes to access
3) You want more bandwidth you pay for it
4) The market cap of the internet giants are a lot bigger than mine or yours unless your name is Bill Gates
5) Charging money to the content providers won't stifle creativity or slow down the internet unless the access charges total in the billions
While I still believe that the above is true, thanks to the debate in the comment section I've shifted on this issue. My conclusion is that Net Neutrality and the positioning that you need to keep the internet free is the wrong position. What this should be about is the competition for the last mile to your household. That's what the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) promised us a long time ago per the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The first paragraph on that link says it all: "The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other."
Ten years later, this is still not true. I live 35 minutes in rural NJ from the former HQ of the Old and Better AT&T's and Verizon's current HQ in Basking Ridge NJ and I still have no real competition for local. I can either choose Comcast (bad service and constantly changing fees) and Embarq the local phone company formerly known as Sprint. That's it. What we have now is nobody trying to enter local because the RBOCs and Cable companies protect their ownership of the last mile to the house.
What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? Everything. Since the duopoly of cable/RBOCs control the last mile we are held hostage to whatever rates they want to choose for access. Since they can't or won't squeeze consumers anymore they are going after the big content providers. The problem is that since they wiped out real competition, we have no upgrades to our access and they can charge whatever they want, all the time protecting their turf.
The issue is not Net Neutrality and protecting content creativity; that's a made up position that will be shredded by the RBOC's lobbyists. The issue is opening up competition to the last mile to the household. Only then will people see real competitive prices and real innovation on the broadband pipe. That's what I learned in a conversation in my original post. If you have the time, browse the link, but ignore my original post and dive into the debate in the comment section. It was really eye-opening for me.
PardonMyFrench,
Eric