Start with making a problem where none exists. Then after filling folks with fear ride in on a white charger with the solution - Works every time. Ask the socialists.

It is a fallacy to say that if they price it out of the commons mans reach they hurt themselves. If you loose say 1000 people paying 20 dollars a month to give extra bandwidth to 100 large companies at 2,000 a month you have just made a tenfold profit.

The problem I have here isnt with internet access per se. People should be able to connect at any speed they want and pay for more. In fact though this is alread a reality you can pay extra and get a T1 line and surf as fast as you want. This is about the hosting services. Access to information. Large comapnies can afford to buy up bandwidth which is static. It will come from somewhere and that somewhere is the little guys.

I really hope some agreement can be reached without government intereference. Being a libertarian I hate when the g men step in. But being an MCSE, network guy, website administrator, and Interent junkie I see bad things coming if they dont.

With a tiered service, anyone can still access the internet just as they do now. However, people who want to pay a little extra for a super-high speed connections will be able to have flawless VoIP, download High-Def movies etc. without all those huge files clogging up the regular internet lines. I’m with you…I like what Hands of the Internet stands for in this case.

To Sam, I’d like to say that a corporation benefits its customers and shareholders by the very act of managing its services and profits (or bottom line) wisely. That includes reinvesting its profits back into the company for research and not giving away it’s assets and products for free.

If a business prices its product out of the market, it suffers. However, if it simply prices its product out of YOUR reach, you have to prioritize just how important that product is to you and whether you are willing to find a way to afford it. You do not have an inalienable right to cheap gas or internet services.

One thing people who share Sam’s view generally fail to understand (unintentionally, I hope) is this: insisting that a company unconditionally give something away to “prove” it is “moral” or “unselfish” is–in and of itself–an immoral and selfish expectation. You are not entitled to the products and ingenuity of others simply because you exist.

If you want to ensure that the things you want are readily available at reasonable prices (which are determined by the market, not by you or the gov’t), keep the government out of it. Government regulation historically drives up the prices of high-demand goods (like gasoline and pharmaceuticals), disrupts the market and reduces the resources available for innovation. Guess who wins when the gov’t intervenes. Not me and you, that’s for damn sure.

And to Lance, I agree and know exactly where you’re coming from. However, corporations that jump into bed with government get what they deserve due to the compromises they make and favors they must honor against their better interests. There is no such thing as an even trade with the gov’t.

It gladdens my heart to see all of the capitalism boosting here, but I do want to note something about the telcos and cablecos. While the accomplishments of the men and women in these industries are nothing short of heroic and world-changing, it disgusts me how readily certain companies are willing to jump into bed with government if they feel they can use government power to suppress their competition. What’s more, they are too often willing to explicitly support and lobby for extensions of this power. My support for Hands Off The Internet is not because the telcos and cablecos are innocents in this, but because I think Save The Internet’s cure is worse than the disease. I’m just glad there’s satellite!

I would like to address Sam’s comment: “…why can’t they just do it because it’s good?” This struck a cord with me because I use to think this way — Why do people have to be so greedy? After a lot of reading and thinking, I’ve come to realize that people *do* provide services “because it’s good” and not just because they are greedy. Most innovators and businesspeople genuinely want to improve the lives of others. And how can they possibly be expected to give their products and services away just because “they already have enough money?” People who make a lot of money feed the economy (by buying things and employing people). It works well if the government would just leave it alone.

Nothing? Building, maintaining, and improving a complex system that provides you ready access to the internet in your home is nothing?

“Yes, they built the pipes and want to upgrade the pipes, and they want someone else to pay for it.”

No, they want those who wish to use and benefit from the pipes they build and upgrade to pay for their level of use/benefit. I suspect that whatever line of work you’re in, you expect the exact same thing from those who benefit from your labors.

“I’m sorry, but why can’t they just do it because it’s good?”

Why are you sorry? Could it be because you expect them to sacrifice their own judgment and pursuit of happiness to benefit yours? And how exactly have you determined that requiring these companies to cover the cost of maintaining your internet pipes is “good”? I think you’ve hinted at your reasoning here… it’s “good” because it’s good for *you* — I mean, “why should [you] suddenly worry that once again, quick efficient internet will once again be priced out of [your] reach?” No matter how much it costs to provide, everyone’s simply entitled to cheap, efficient internet access, right? Is everyone equally entitled to the fruits of *your* mind and labor?

“The telcos know we can’t go anywhere else, no matter what they propose.”

And here I think you’re just plain wrong. If people become unhappy with the way things turn out, innovators WILL come forward to provide internet users what they want (for there will be promise of great profit to those who sastisfy consumers best). Other options (such as satellite broadband, broadband over power lines, WiMAX, etc.) are already looming as possible alternatives to DSL/cable broadband. This sort of innovation and consumer option is just what the free market allows and what government regulation might very well work to impede.

“Instead of looking at what is good for the people, capitalism is all about next quarter’s numbers.”

I urge you to follow the link Shannon has provided above to the article that argues for the moral basis of capitalism. I agree with her that capitalism is the only moral economic system, and it’s high time those who recognize its rightness stop merely apologizing for it and instead hold it up as the moral ideal it is. Who exactly are “the people” to whom you refer? Apparently, everyone *except* those who work in telecommunications (who in your ideal world would apparently be made to work for the benefit of others rather than for their own profit). How have you decided who should sacrifice their own interests and provide slave labor and who gets to be in the elite group (i.e., “the people”) who get to benefit from that labor? Shouldn’t *each* individual hold the rights to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Capitalism is the only economic system which recognizes the sanctity of the individual and his freedom to live for himself.

COD, I’m not sure. We’ve seen INCREDIBLE advances in Internet technology and my bill hasn’t gone up. In fact, it’s gone down relative to what I’m getting. I used to pay AOL $24.99 a month for a snail’s pace 2400bpm modem connection. (Gosh, remember when??) And I don’t agree that the telcos are trying to charge twice for the *same* service. They would be charging for an *enhanced* service.

Natalie and Alasandra - thanks for visiting and commenting! Oh, and Natalie, I saw your comment on my “Pages & Pounds”… {throws a shoe in your direction while eating a double chocolate muffin for breakfast}.

Thanks for blogging an important issue. I am always wary of government oversight/control.

I used to be a regional internet marketing manager for a MS branch in a smallish cable company (Cable One). I can tell you, it is EXPENSIVE to upgrade a decades-old system in middle America to fiber. If consumers want to have access to the quality and speed of services provided by an upgraded system, from head end to household, comsumers will have to pay for it.

As for neutrality, cable companies that control and own the system can charge their competitors a fee for utilizing their infrastructure (called “overriding”). Where I live, Time Warner pays Suscom for access to its lines. What Suscom loses in potential customers it gains (and possibly then some) by charging it’s competitor out the wazoo for “rent”.

Companies who control the flow of data as middlemen, via cable or whatever, already have a HUGE amount of power over how data is delivered or if it is delivered at all. Corporations stand to make a hell of a lot more money by selling access to their plots of power than letting Congress regulate it or ticking off their customers by blocking sites and services.

Under the current laws, and lack thereof, consumers already benefit. I’m ok with that and see no reason to topple that balance of power in favor of regulation.

[sigh. libertarians.]
:p

Google is already paying anyway. The datacenter where Google content resides is paying for a connection to the Internet. What the telcos are trying to do is double dip and charge twice for the same service.

The internet pipelines were built with huge government (i.e., our tax dollars) subsidies. It’d be a giveaway of unbelievable magnitude to give the backbone over to the telcos.