Sunday, December 17, 2006
Making broadband as accessible as telephones
Doc's got a good point! He calls B.S. on an Op-Ed by Cisco's Charles Giancarlo that says that a U.S national broadband plan should (in part), ". . . develop federal policies to make broadband as accessible as telephones . . . " Then Giancarlo says, "We also cannot tie the hands of the Internet through additional regulation, such as 'net neutrality . . .'''
Giancarlo fails to note that telephones became "as accessible as telephones" under a policy of Common Carriage. Today's attempt to preserve some vestige of Common Carriage is called Net Neutrality.
Giancarlo then says that Net Neutrality rules would, "eliminate[] the ability of the Internet to support new applications." Whew. Really, Charlie? Eliminate? Isn't it obvious that NN rules preserve Internet based discovery of whole new classes of app, as I wrote here? Wouldn't it be good for Cisco if we discovered whole new classes of Internet applications?
Doc also notes that Giancarlo fails to credit the job municipal networks have done or appreciate the telco-driven legal barriers in their way.
Hey, Cisco needs the carriers as customers. Further, Cisco sees the complexification of Net Discrimination as a selling point that keeps the commoditization monster at bay. Charlie G saw the hot water John Chambers got into by repeating that voice would be free until Verizon's execs lost patience, and he's not going to make the same mistake. OK. But . . .
The battle is between those who would change the carriers so the Internet survives and those who would change the Internet so the carriers survive. Wouldn't it be better for Cisco to have dogs on both sides?
Giancarlo fails to note that telephones became "as accessible as telephones" under a policy of Common Carriage. Today's attempt to preserve some vestige of Common Carriage is called Net Neutrality.
Giancarlo then says that Net Neutrality rules would, "eliminate[] the ability of the Internet to support new applications." Whew. Really, Charlie? Eliminate? Isn't it obvious that NN rules preserve Internet based discovery of whole new classes of app, as I wrote here? Wouldn't it be good for Cisco if we discovered whole new classes of Internet applications?
Doc also notes that Giancarlo fails to credit the job municipal networks have done or appreciate the telco-driven legal barriers in their way.
Hey, Cisco needs the carriers as customers. Further, Cisco sees the complexification of Net Discrimination as a selling point that keeps the commoditization monster at bay. Charlie G saw the hot water John Chambers got into by repeating that voice would be free until Verizon's execs lost patience, and he's not going to make the same mistake. OK. But . . .
The battle is between those who would change the carriers so the Internet survives and those who would change the Internet so the carriers survive. Wouldn't it be better for Cisco to have dogs on both sides?
Technorati Tags: Cisco, NetworkNeutrality
Comments:
As long as you're quoting Cisco's own publications, I would add a link to their white paper, The "Transition from a Basic Highway to a Value-Add, Personalized Toll Way". Clearly, when speaking to their business customers the emphasis is on user control and profit maximizing. This is a far cry from the Op-Ed's call that we "ensure that all Americans have equal, high-speed broadband access" and the final line claiming, "We should be breaking down barriers rather than building them."
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 12/17/2006 10:59 AM
: 12/17/2006 10:59 AM
