There is definitely an international impact with the potential passage of COPE of 2006. The telecommunications and cable companies will have the power to punish and reward content providers through pricing. This is one way to prevent foreign competition on their marketplace. In effect, the telecommunications and cable companies would have the ability to place a toll on content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple and other content providers. The result would be that these companies would pass the costs directly to the consumer in form of "premium content" or some Other euphemistic term that disguised its true nature. Oh, but there is more. The telecom and cable companies could also have the ability to charge a rich medium access charge similar to how cable television charges you additionally for premium channels and pay per view for those of us who want things on demand on our portable handhelds. Handhelds like Blackberry's, pocketPCs and iPods may find themselves paying a handheld device fee whereas handhelds marketed by Verizon and AT&T may initially have this fee waived or have a plan that hides this waiver. This is a competitive advantage that the telecom and cable firms have over everyone and the prices will impact international consumers as prices rise. Here is some food for thought: What will happen in two to three years when the power companies are seriously ready to enter the Internet services game and satellite firms discover how to truly exploit wireless connectivity? Yes colleagues, prices are going up because the telecom and cable companies have built expensive fiber optic networks to handle the rich media content like video, gaming and VOIP and now Wall Street wants its profits from these expensive investments. So the K Street warriors have started handing outs campaign contributions and other inducements on the Hill to get this law passed in the name of consumer choice, affordable access and more competition. The reality is that there is no true choice and access will not be affordable and there will be less competition. The Center for Public Integrity actually has a really good book on the history of lobbying and the telecom industry. The real villain here is not the telecom and cable companies as much as it is the Congress and the policy makers who are too busy getting money and promises for their next job to worry about being stewards for the people. The people are simply outgunned and outmanned by the companies which are allowed under the First Amendment to lobby heavily as a result of the Virginia Pharmacy and Bellotti cases in 1976. Before that time, corporations were seen by the courts as a creature created by the law and not possessing rights more powerful than the individual. The international impact could also transform into more international anger with America by countries such as France and now Denmark with American companies like Microsoft and Apple that have used their market superiority to create both competitive advantages and stifle competition. Read Bagdikian's media monopoly and any of Lawrence Lessig's books such as Code. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Janna Anderson Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:39 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] net neutrality April 26, 2006 Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up By Roy Mark/JupiterMedia's Internetnews.com WASHINGTON - Looking at possible antitrust implications of having telecoms and cable companies controlling 99 percent of U.S. broadband connections, a special task force of the House Judiciary Committee took up network neutrality. Like other committees that have heard testimony on network neutrality, the Judiciary panel heard conflicting interpretations on whether legislation is needed to ward off discrimination by broadband providers. Verizon and AT&T have publicly stated they intend to charge content providers different fees based on bandwidth consumption to access consumers, but will not block, degrade or impair delivery of the content to consumers. Tech companies and a growing coalition of consumer groups contend the plan amounts to discrimination since those who can pay the broadband providers' rates will have a competitive advantage over those who can't. "All sides of the net neutrality debate agree that consumers should be control of their Internet experience," Walter McCormick of the U.S. Telecom Association said. "Where we differ is on whether consumers alone should foot the bill for the advanced networks that drive the Internet's growth and evolution." McCormick said Internet content providers seeking to profit on new high-speed fiber networks should not expect a free pass on all costs associated with the increased bandwidth capacity to deliver services and applications. "If you want more, then you pay more, is as American as it comes," he said. "It is a straightforward market proposition. As companies move into live video and gaming and advanced services, they will be seeking more bandwidth." Columbia University Professor Tim Wu spun it another way. "It's as if the electric company one day announced that refrigerators made by General Electric would henceforth not work quite as well as those made by Samsung," Wu said. "That would be a shock, because when it comes to the electric grid and the Internet, people are used to a network that they are free to use as they wish." Wu said the issue of network neutrality is really an issue about market power concentration. "Whatever AT&T and others may claim as motives, the potential for abuse of market power is obvious to everyone," he said. "Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access. Many of us wish things were otherwise, but they are not." Given the concentration of market power between the telcos and the cable companies, Wu said it was clear AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other power players coiuld make more money by distorting competition between Internet firms. "It [AT&T] can, through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up," Wu said. "It's basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while it makes sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn't particularly good for the nation's economy, innovation or consumer welfare." The House Judiciary debate came on the eve of a vote in the House Commerce Committee on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE). The centerpiece of COPE is national video franchising for IPTV providers such as Verizon and AT&T. With the goal of increasing competition in the pay television market, the proposal enjoys wide support on both sides of the aisle. More controversial is network neutrality. Republicans see little problem with the tiered access approach proposed by the telecoms and leave enforcement of network neutrality violations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Democrats and a growing coalition of tech companies and consumer groups, want the FCC's network neutrality principles, which have no force of law, turned into statutory law. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is expected to propose an amendment to COPE to do just that. A similar proposal three weeks ago was handily defeated by the Republicans, 23-8. On 4/27/06 11:33 AM, "Nancy Baym" <nbaym@ku.edu> wrote:

Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US congress/senate,

including how, if at all, it would have ramifications outside the US? I know there are many people on here who pay a lot of attention to these kinds of issues, and I would really like to hear what you see going on here,

Thanks, Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Janna Quitney Anderson Assistant Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj@elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) (336) 446-0486 (h) _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/