Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14154)	3/14/2006 3:40:36 PM
From: tech101	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

[Cisco enumerated four connectivity principles it supports: 1. the right of consumers to choose the legal Internet content they want ("within the bandwidth limits and quality of service (QOS) of their service plan"), 2. to run the applications they want (within bandwidth and QOS limits and "as long as they do not harm the provider's network"), 3. to attach the devices they want to their connection (within bandwidth and QOS limits, without doing harm or enabling service theft) 4. and to receive "meaningful" information about their service plans. ] telephonyonline.com Cisco weighs in on net neutrality By Ed Gubbins Mar 14, 2006 11:31 AM Cisco Systems weighed in on the issue of network neutrality in a letter to Congress last week, affirming the importance of neutrality but urging lawmakers to refrain, for the time being, from enacting legislation on the subject. "We strongly support the principle of an open Internet," Cisco CEO John Chambers wrote in a letter to Congressman Joe Barton, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "We must, however, balance the fact that innovation inside the network is just as important as innovation in services and devices connected to the Internet. Broadband Internet access service providers should remain free to engage in pro-competitive network management techniques to alleviate congestion, ameliorate capacity constraints and enable new services." The letter, which was dated March 9 but released yesterday by Cisco, characterized the router vendor's position as a "first, do no harm" philosophy. The company acknowledged the potential danger inherent in broadband access providers limiting consumers' content choices. However, Cisco recommended that any such restrictions or anti-competitive behavior be addressed by the Federal Communications Commission on a case-by-case basis and "only if and when [the FCC] is faced with a specific complaint…" Cisco enumerated four connectivity principles it supports: the right of consumers to choose the legal Internet content they want ("within the bandwidth limits and quality of service (QOS) of their service plan"), to run the applications they want (within bandwidth and QOS limits and "as long as they do not harm the provider's network"), to attach the devices they want to their connection (within bandwidth and QOS limits, without doing harm or enabling service theft) and to receive "meaningful" information about their service plans. Cisco also expressed support for broadband access providers' right to network management techniques that alleviate congestion, ease capacity constraints and enable new services as long as they are not anti-competitive. Providers should be free to offer additional services, such as bandwidth tiers, QOS, security and anti-spam measures and to enter into commercial agreements with third parties for such services, Cisco said. Executives of incumbent broadband access providers such as AT&T and BellSouth have stirred controversy in recent months by suggesting a move to charge content providers for the delivery of bandwidth-rich media. Content providers and consumer advocates have argued that such charges, coupled with consumers' existing service fees, would amount to double-billing for broadband. The U.S. Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held a hearing on the subject in early February.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14154)	3/15/2006 1:16:39 AM
From: tech101	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Long Live the Free Web! By Alan Murray Readers Criticize AT&T-BellSouth Deal, Argue in Favor of Internet Neutrality March 11, 2006 While I wasn't able to find a good reason to oppose the AT&T-BellSouth merger in this week's Business column, many readers had more success. Here's Sydney Parlow from Boston, Mass: "There are clearly reasons to oppose the merger. As a now-retired once-partner in NYSE firms, I can say with authority that historically mergers do not serve the general good. Studies done in the past indicate with certainty mergers at this level produce no economic benefits and in time wind up being undone and or relegating the merged companies to a lesser position. The principle beneficiaries are as you indicated the top managers." So take that, Ed Whitacre. Several readers pointed out -- as I did briefly in the column -- that AT&T and BellSouth do currently compete for business accounts, and a merger will reduce that competition. Steve Salop even dug up the following quote from AT&T CEO Mr. Whitacre in a competing newspaper: "Whitacre said the timing of the deal was driven, in part, by concerns associated with Cingular. .... Whitacre said AT&T was preparing to go after BellSouth's biggest business customers, selling bundles of AT&T-branded services that included Cingular products. 'It would have become harder' to buy BellSouth once that effort ramped up in earnest, Whitacre says." The anti-trust folks in Washington will certainly pay some attention to that quote, which seems to acknowledge the merger will reduce competition. But the bulk of email comments focused on my dismissal of the argument that the newly minted principle of "Internet neutrality" meant AT&T should be prohibited from charging Google et al for carrying all their digits. Jared Buckley dredged up memories of actress Lily Tomlin's finest hours to make the case: "'We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.' -Lily Tomlin as Ernestine on 'Saturday Night Live' Perhaps Mr. Whitacre was channeling Ernestine when he unfairly accused Google of getting access to AT&T's network for free. Mr. Whitacre would do well to remember that AT&T receives about 6.9 millions checks per month for that network usage. Even supposing all of those subscribers paid introductory DSL rates, that's still roughly a billion dollars a year. Google's usage of AT&T's network is hardly free. Only a someone with the heart of a monopolist could be outraged at the inability to charge for the same bandwidth twice." The problem, of course is that someone has to pay to build the pipeline. One model, used in many countries, is to have the taxpayer do the job. But that's not going to happen in the U.S., given current budget woes. The other argument is to have the customer pay the whole freight. Economists say that's the most efficient model. But it's a lot to put on the rate payer -- especially at a time when Internet-service providers are making buckets of money. Dave Davis was especially offended by my arguments: "Congratulations, Alan. You must be on AT&T's payroll. Or is it possible that you came up with this logic all by yourself? The Internet exists today because this space has been kept free. Companies like Google, Skype, eBay, Amazon, Vonage and a host of others have found ways to provide returns to shareholders without exacting an Internet toll from their users. Phone and cable companies have not done too badly either. A proven economic model is that the consumer is willing to pay the price for bandwidth in order to obtain the Internet content and communications methods. The consumer should and will decide how much bandwidth they need for their own purposes and will pay accordingly. And guess what? AT&T sells bandwidth. Further, in all telecommunications networks, more than 70% of the cost exists in the local loop. This cost is directly related to the end user and the price for this use belongs with the end user." In fact, I did come up with my arguments without any help from AT&T. But after the column had been turned in, a helpful, but somewhat late, public affairs executive at the company sent me some interesting figures. In 2005, he argued, AT&T spent $5.6 billion on capital expenditures. Google spent $838 million. So who's really bearing the burden of building Internet infrastructure? The best arguments for Net neutrality don't have to do with protecting the Googles of the world, but rather with protecting small, innovative companies that you've never heard of. The real fear is that Google, AT&T, Yahoo and Microsoft all cut some sort of deal that downgrades service dramatically for the also-rans. I'd argue antitrust authorities ought to keep a watchful eye, and make sure that sort of denial of access doesn't happen. But in the meantime, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast need to be allowed to innovate, too, in order to raise the money needed to build the broadband network. Write to Alan Murray at business@wsj.com