On GameFAQs: Halo 3 ODST: Where's the last audio log?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Declan McCullagh
Posted on ZDNet News: May 4, 2006 11:40:00 PM

WASHINGTON--Verizon Communications on Thursday dismissed concerns about Net neutrality as "hypothetical problems" and suggested that new laws mandating the concept were premature.

C. Lincoln "Link" Hoewing, an assistant vice president at Verizon Communications, said that the ability to charge for services such as high-quality video is crucial to being able to afford the multibillion-dollar price tag of upgrading its network-to-fiber links.

"We could put other services on those pipes--it's got a lot more capacity to do this," Hoewing told the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here. That would help "to make it more viable economically and financially and to help us compete."

Calling concerns about Net-favoritism entirely hypothetical, Hoewing said: "I'm getting tired of it...We've never done anything that I know to interfere with anyone's traffic."

Net neutrality, the concept that all Internet sites should be treated equally by broadband providers without any kind of discrimination, has become a hot political topic in Washington, D.C., this year. Lobbying for laws making the concept mandatory are firms including Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google--which have found allies in Democrats and are being opposed by Republicans.

Republican members of the House of Representatives last week defeated a bid by Democrats to enshrine extensive Net neutrality regulations into law. Under the defeated amendment, the Federal Communications Commission would receive the authority to police the Internet for violations of the rules and ban any kind of preferential treatment based on charging extra fees. (Even without the amendment, however, the FCC already has taken action in cases of blocking traffic.)

Hoewing said that Verizon is able to slice up bandwidth on its high-speed Fios service based on different lasers and different frequencies. But he declined to say what services might be offered. "I can't give you a portfolio of services that I can lay out that are coming out of the broadband networks that we're deploying," Hoewing said.

Gigi Sohn, president of the Public Knowledge advocacy group that has pressed for neutrality legislation, said: "This is an issue of discrimination, or on the flip side, favoritism."

Sohn's group has been part of a coalition that includes one or two conservative organizations--but mostly liberal groups such as Moveon.org. Perhaps as a result, Sohn acknowledged, "This has become very politicized on the Hill...They have decided to make this a partisan political issue."

Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, admitted that some longtime Internet hands may be skeptical of giving the FCC more regulatory power. But, he said, if AT&T would ink contracts letting Google.com load in one second but other search engines load in 3 to 4 seconds, "that's a serious distortion of competition in that market."

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 42 Talkback(s)
I give you credit for reading and replying...
...but not all points are clear.


I SAID:
Without net neutrality, a new PIPELINE will be added which only big media companies can afford.
YOU SAID:
Welcome, it's called a free
... (Read the rest)
Posted by: welcome to hell Posted on: 05/10/06 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
If Net-favoritism is "entirely hypothetical"...  welcome to hell | 05/04/06
Yep  petemitchell | 05/05/06
Yes, the FCC should be empowered...  Anton Philidor | 05/05/06
Pay for what you use  welcome to hell | 05/05/06
"Net neutrality" means prevent the billing of heavier users...  Anton Philidor | 05/06/06
No. "Net neutrality" means sharing pipeline  welcome to hell | 05/06/06
Why do you need to pay for a speedy pipeline...  Anton Philidor | 05/06/06
Read my answer again  welcome to hell | 05/07/06
Charge only service users for the high speed lines.  Anton Philidor | 05/07/06
The key is charging for amount, not rate of data  welcome to hell | 05/08/06
Sorry,here is a better diagram  welcome to hell | 05/08/06
Welcome, it's called a free market  Spoon Jabber | 05/09/06
Free market can thrive with a shared pipeline  welcome to hell | 05/09/06
I gave you the....  Spoon Jabber | 05/10/06
I give you credit for reading and replying...  welcome to hell | 05/10/06
I give you credit for reading and replying...  welcome to hell | 05/10/06
I am 100% for this bill.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/04/06
Agreed  marlinj@... | 05/04/06
Paying for someone else's profits.  Anton Philidor | 05/05/06
What are you talking about?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/06
You didn't overlook anything.  Anton Philidor | 05/05/06
Speed is not equal to amount of data  welcome to hell | 05/05/06
Faster transfer speeds are the issue.  Anton Philidor | 05/06/06
No. Shared pipeline is the issue.  welcome to hell | 05/06/06
In other words,  Spoon Jabber | 05/05/06
For once...  nECrO_z | 05/05/06
Hypothetical? Easy for them to say, ...  Mr. Roboto | 05/05/06
It also is already is illegal,  Spoon Jabber | 05/05/06
Bottom Line  Shelendrea | 05/05/06
Where will you go?  Anton Philidor | 05/05/06
Not sure about that  Shelendrea | 05/05/06
Yes, instead of lowering costs...  Anton Philidor | 05/05/06
Shell, don't buy into this bogus argument.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/06
Baloney!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/06
Don't companies pay for bandwidth too?  Mixotic | 05/05/06
Good question, what is your opinion on this?  welcome to hell | 05/08/06
Hypothetical? Try " dangerously misguided"  Omch'Ar | 05/05/06
Question  CynicInBlue | 05/05/06
Mises coined "praxeology"  Omch'Ar | 05/05/06
Damn good post (NT)  Spoon Jabber | 05/05/06
What Uber Capitalist Society are U from?  jpd0126@... | 05/05/06
For now I must disagree for it appears to me...  Omch'Ar | 05/05/06

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Meet Doc