The House Committe on Energy and Commerce voted down last week a net neutrality amendment to a telecommunications bill. The action on this moves to the Senate where a net-neutrality bill will be introduced by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Main) and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota).
Intel CEO Paul Otellini recently signed a letter to the Senate Committe on Commerce, Science and Transportation to 'ensure the internet remains open and neutral". Other co-signers included the CEOs of Google, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo and IAC/InterActiveCorp.
I'd a signed it too. Not that my endorsement as CEO of a small services provider would mean that much. But for us a tiered-service plan endorsed by ATT & Verizon will effectively kill our business.
Unfettered, unencumbered, unimpeded access to our site is critical to our success. Granted, we generate 30-40% of our prospects from referrals that result from our devotion to our customers. But how would that be effected if our website can never be found. And certainly we could not pay enough to ATT/Verizon to insure speedy display of our website if we're competing against the likes of an ATT conferencing services or other larger, publicly traded companies where the share price is more important than their customers.
A neutral net, a level-playing field, has been the source of tremendous innovation for our economy. It's been that innovation that's created new jobs to replace those outsourced for cheaper labor or eliminated completely as industries die in the global market.
That innovation has sprung from, been the source of, a huge wave of job creation with small, entrepreneurial companies growing to deliver niche products, new services, innovative solutions. Job creation hasn't come from incumbent telcos like Verizon and ATT. It's come from startups, it's come from startups (Google is an example. Yes it was once a startup) that grow with unencumbered access to the marketplace to deliver services valuable for web 1.0 and now the web 2.0 economy. Oh, did we mention the values created for shareholders with companies like Yahoo, Google, Amazon during this time of net neutrality? Hmmm? And did we mention the thousands of jobs created also?
How did these high-paying jobs and shareholder wealth benefit our economy? In a fairly positive manner I'm sure and I'd document it or at least link to the research if I had more time. Still it's fairly axiomatic that these and thousands of other large and small enterprises created with the benefit of net neutrality have helped drive our economic recovery.
And what's ATT, etal done for our economy? Have they created jobs? No. In fact, they've announced repeated layoffs.
And that's what they intend to do for our economy with their tiered-service legislation.
They'll stifle competition, eliminate innovation, kill job growth, award only their shareholders with added value.
Sounds a little harsh and hyperbolic. Not really. A tiered-service plan in effect becomes a protection rackets game endorsed with Congressional approval and benefiting only those who structure the tiers and their costs. ATT, etal, claim they don't intend to block any website. Of course not. That would be interference. What they intend to do instead is to give preferential routing and traffic handling for those sites who've paid for this treatment.
What's different with that and how 'protection rackets' with the Mafia? Pay us a fee and we'll show your website promptly. Don't and who knows when it will be displayed? We just can't promise....you see. You're not a customer. And we have to show preference for our customers. You want to be a customer don't you?
And all with Congressional endorsement.
You see, ATT, etal, are competing in the arena where they have an advantage. That arena is congressional influence with the use of highly-paid lobbyists. Rather than invest today in innovation, or better service, or partnerships to deliver added value to their customers...they choose instead to invest in buying congressional influence and hope that either our elected representatives don't understand, don't care or don't care.
ATT's always benefited from the kindness of strangers. They're kinda the Blanche Dubois of telecom. Back in the day when we sentimentally held them as "Ma Bell" they served as our benevolent service providers. Benevolent but still a dictator aka monopoly in economics terms. They did so with the endorsement from Congress when they were established as our nation's telecom provider.
As ATT failed to deliver upgrades of service and technology, choosing instead the standard incumbent monopoly approach of failing to innovate, update or upgrade their services, maintain high prices (as we've now discovered...$.25 or more a minute for interstate long-distance) it became obvious they were an impediment to our economy's growth. Hence Judge Greene and the decision to breakup ATT.
This began one of the greatest periods of innovation, cost-cutting, job creation, in our economy. Granted there was lots of craziness and frustration. But look where we are now with internet, low-cost for telecom services, wireless, wi-fi, wi-max, etc. None possible with an incumbent strangling innovation and job growth.
Now, here we are again with ironically, ATT seeking to turn back the clock 20+ years to the time when they ruled the telecom world and strangled our economy. Following their deftly worded plan to create a tiered-service plan would serve only companies with the mindset of incumbent telcos, companies like ATT, Verizon who thrive on eliminating innovation and its competitive threat.
Call your elected representatives today and let them know that a tiered-service plan is the death of our economy.
Story links:
Wired , Slashdot, Google Blog, Cnet, US Senate. You'll notice the dearth of coverage from mainstream media...
Comments