Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 26, 2006
1:00 PM
K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum will be online to discuss lobbying efforts in the net neutrality debate and answer questions about what happens when business, politics and government collide on Monday, June 26 at 1 p.m. ET .
Read today's column:
A transcript follows .
____________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello all,
Thanks so much for all the questions and comments this afternoon.
Our topic is controversial: net neutrality.
It also isn't easy to understand--at least that's what the various sides of the dispute would like us to believe.
But without too much more preamble, let's get started.
Fire away!
_______________________
Great Falls, Va.: On today's Internet, sending and receiving data has already been paid for and what the ISPs that are resisting net neutrality are calling for is the ability to charge content providers a second time for access to their customers. An apt analogy would be the phone company attempting to take a percentage of any transaction that was done over the phone. The calling party has already paid for the phone call, the receiving party has either paid for the phone call (metered services or cell phone) or has paid for unlimited inbound calling through a subscription. However, the phone company sees that there is money being made by others transacting business over their phone lines and decides they deserve a cut.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for this simple, straightforward explanation of the issue at hand.
I tried to say something like that and, at least judging from some of my e-mails, I might not have hit is perfectly.
You have done very well, and I thank you.
_______________________
Kalamazoo, Mich.: From what I understand, the other half of this issue is video franchise reform, which will create more competition for cable services around the country. I think anyone who saw this classic YouTube video with the Comcast employee falling asleep can attest that we need serious changes to how these companies do business.
But now this net neutrality thing is holding it up. Do you think there's a chance this could actually derail this reform? What kind of options does the Senate have?
washingtonpost.com: Comcast Employee Sleeps During House Call
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you as well for this expansion on the theme.
Net neutrality is part of a larger telecom bill. I don't want to take sides on any of the other disputes.
But, yes, the net neutrality issue is holding up the broader effort. My guess is that the whole bill will not make it through Congress this year. Nor will the net neutrality issue itself.
The House has passed one version of the whole effort, but that is probably the farthest the enterprise will proceed. Maybe there will be action in a Senate committee. And then again, maybe not.
I'm not betting on much more movement until the next Congress.
_______________________
Aaaaarrrggghh!: And you managed to miss the point entirely on Net Neutrality, by typing a he said/she said bit.
It is not that network providers will intentionally block or degrade service.
It is that tiers implicitly will cause this effect.
Here's one example. Let's say the Washington Post hires a blogger who has issues with plagiarism. The Washington Post has big, big money, and gets to drive the Lexus lane with nice speedy content delivery. Meanwhile, the people who are trying to get the plagiarism info out are individuals and low funded groups, and sputter in the ever more crowded and slow "commoner lanes". Given that Nielsen/Norman studies have shown people leave sites unless they get click response in seconds...gee, who's gonna win? The truth, or the Post?
This could be replicated in consumer sites vs. corporate sites, political sites unpopular with moneyed interests, etc...
One side gets a kazoo, the other a 50K Watt broadcasting station.
That's what you have without NN provisions. McCurry likes to shill around this point, but neither he nor any of his paid shills will reply to that point.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: And so we begin . . .
Don't just sit out there, type something!
If you want to take a side, like our aaarrrrgh friend here, go right ahead. This debate is not going away!
_______________________
Waco, Texas: Hi Jeff, from reading a lot of blogs it seems the rhetoric on this is running high. Some people are saying it will be the "end of the Internet" if there aren't new net neutrality laws. Do you think this is accurate, or more excessive rhetoric. What's the truth?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't think anything out of Washington, including a provision in pending legilsation, is going to end the Internet.
But Washington can shape the Web, and it will. That's one of the reasons that all this rhetoric about "hands off" or "neutral" is offensive to me.
Wishing doesn't make it so, and nothing, not even the Internet, can escape the net of our capital city.
_______________________
Great Falls, Va.: There's been a lot of talk about the status of Net Neutrality on the web and in the press lately. What is the status of any new (let's say 2006) legislation or regulation on the subject?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Last I looked, it was stalled in a Senate committee. And that may well be where it remains stuck.
Anyone disagree?
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: I'm curious as to Google and Microsoft's long term interests. It appears they are trying to secure market share and since they have billions to spend on infrastructure, they could raise the barriers of entry for small internet companies and garage start-ups. Recently, I have seen a few articles about Google's movement towards becoming a service provider as well as a content provider. So, my question is, despite what we are hearing from people supporting net neutrality, wouldn't small companies be better off without net neutrality regulations?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Better off? I leave that one to people who know the technology better than I do.
But the notion you raise about Google getting into the net operations business, that is a well-worn path.
Telecos used to like deregulation, then they liked it, and then they didn't. It all depends what their business was at the time.
The same will be true of Google if it gets into a different side of the business, don't you think?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: My understanding of this net neutrality issue is not exactly clear, but does it break down to whether telecom corporations can effectively monopolize broadband service through higher so-called access barriers? If so, would enacting such a preservation of net-neutral law signal a move to state control of the Internet?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I personally don't see anything as drastic at stake here as "state control."
The state doesn't want control and no one wants to give it to the state.
What is at stake is a little loosening of rules that would allow broader pricing authority.
I did get a call this morning from an Internet veteran who did assert that companies could be allowed to meddle in content, but I doubt that the government would permit much of that.
_______________________
Wasignton, D.C.: Stalled? It will be reported out tomorrow. Stevens very smartly put a lot of things in the bill in the Senate that a lot of people want -- Universal Service for rural areas; Erate reform for Education -- disability access etc. etc.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Okay then. I can't wait until tomorrow!
I stand corrected (at least at the committee level).
Any guesses about the bill's fate after that?
_______________________
Arlington, Va. re: legislation: I don't know that I'd characterize it as "stalled in Senate Committee." The Senate Commerce Committee is supposed to finish marking up the bill tomorrow. It is likely that for better or worse the Committee will produce some form of legislation within the next week. The Senate floor may be another story.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, there's part of the answer.
We don't know.
_______________________
California: Yes! Aaaaaaarrrrgh! has hit the nail on the head.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: See Aaarrrghh, you have fans!
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: I suppose that it is against some rule or law or something that the people who publish an ad or tv spot do not have to identify themselves. As it is, I could only know that the ad attacking Google was not paid for by Google. Also, the ads are running all day and I presume that nobody watching has an idea of how they can show their support for whatever is being requested.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't think the rules on ads are as demanding as you think, unfortunately.
More disclosure is required these days for purely political, or electoral, ads, but not on lobbying, sad to say.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Jeff,
There has been a lot of shouting about Net Neutrality - like Aarrgghh is doing. But there is little discussion about the telcos point that future technological innovation will require more infrastructure. What do you really think about Net Neutrality? Is it about the telcos getting the corporate users to help pay? I mean if it weren't why is Google spending so much on the hill?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Another voice heard from?
I'm going to say out of this; I don't want to take sides.
But the way I see it, this, at heart, is a commercial fight over who pays how much.
As to which side should pay up, I will leave that to you--and Congress.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: Thank you for today's column and the clarification on the net effect of any Internet action by Congress- the consumer pays. Do you think that we can say nearly 100% of the time that when the lobbyists go to work on something the taxpayer and/or consumer will pay in some big way? Is the same thing happening on the "cable tv" issue as is happening on this issue?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think there's a lot of confusion being wrought on the cable fight. Maybe I should do a column on that too!
On the other questions, lobbyists do both good and ill. Consumers pay either way, I'm afraid. That's the way capitalism works.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Thanks for taking my question this afternoon, Mr. Birnbaum. Many Senators seem to have "a finger in the wind" on whether to support Snowe/Dorgan without amendment (net neutrality). Are they waiting for the public to engage on this issue, do you think, or is more lobbying required?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: More lobbying--or rather more educating--is definitely required.
I don't know, though, whether we should rely on the competing interests to do that.
Then again, other than the occasional column like mine, there aren't many alternatives out there for such a complex topic.
_______________________
Cape May, N.J.: I think aarrgghh sounds like he works for Google.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Uh Oh. Arrrggghh may be in some trouble . . .
_______________________
Aaaaaaarrrrgh! is an idiot: And it's pretty obviously blogger-activist Matt Stoller, the self-proclaimed "know-nothing" on telecom issues.
The fact that he's leading the charge on net neutrality should tell you a lot about about the strengths of their arguments.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: He's definitely in trouble now -- whoever he (or she) is.
_______________________
Great Falls, Va.: On the question of whether companies would be better off without Net Neutrality regulations, the answer is that it depends on which companies. Large ones, like Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Google can all afford to either pay-to-play or to turn the tables on the Telcos (imagine what would happen if Google told Verizon that all of their customers are blocked from accessing Google until Verizon DSL gives Google preferential treatment--lots of people going to the cable company, I think).
However, the small, innovative companies that are trying to make a name for themselves are the ones who are going to suffer with these kinds of plans. If your provider gives preferential services to their own sites and paid content over all other content on the net, all consumers and most web sites will suffer. If it's only done to high-volume sites, then only the popular sites (think slash-dot effect) and ones that provide high-definition or high-interactivity content will suffer.
In the end, the users suffer most. Innovation is stifled by he need to pay twice for your content (and possibly to 20 different players).
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
Anyone disagree (thoughtfully)?
_______________________
Portsmouth, N.H.: Jeffrey:
You talk about obfuscation today in your column. Have you conducted--or do you plan on conducting--any research into the so-called "Netroots," led by Matt Stoller at MyDD and his possible tie-in to the Kos/Armstrong payola scandal?
http://channelchanger.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/birnbaums_misse.html
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I leave this one to you out there.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: I think one vital point is missing in this discussion - there has not, to date, been any actual misconduct that would warrant increasing the government's regulation of the Internet. There has been a lot of speculation about what will happen, but before we create a whole new regulatory regime, isn't it wiser to wait to see what the abuses are that need correcting first???
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Maybe it would be. A point worth considering . . .
_______________________
Saratoga, Calif.: Mr. Birnbaum, you seem to have fallen completely for the telco's line regarding what this debate is about. It's not about large companies paying more because they use more bandwidth; they already do that. It's about the telco's wanting to flag the 'packets' (information bits) originating from certain high-paying customers so that they get priority on the trunk lines, at the expense of smaller content providers. They want to be able to charge corporate customers for the privilege of being the only content providers with a guarantee of reliable bandwidth, with the ability to shoulder smaller interests out of the way. This is a diversity killer, as independent bloggers and site holders will have degraded bandwidth compared to a few corporate giants who will continue to be able to serve content reliably. -- Joshua Englehart
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you.
Yes, I have been accused of this prior to this discussion. I plead innocent.
But I think you should be heard, and thank you for writing in. Surely, the "little guys" have a lot on the line here.
_______________________
Who should pay?: I assumed that I was helping foot the bill for the infrastructure with my $60/month telephone/DSL bill. How much more money do the poor, struggling telcos need? Maybe Bill Gates can give them some.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Or Warren Buffett . . .
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I run a Web site myself - very, very small and non-mainstream - and I'm already paying. I pay my ISP to access the Internet, I pay my hosting service for hosting, I pay them for bandwidth usage (including any overage charges), and I pay to register my domain. The people who access my site pay -their- ISPs for access to the net.
It seems to me that everyone who ought to be getting paid for their services are getting paid already. If the arm and the leg that I'm already paying these folks isn't enough for them to expand their businesses and innovate, maybe they're just running their businesses wrong.
And I agree, while the law might not explicitly allow the telcos to limit the speech and audience of smaller sites, that seems to be the implicit effect.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I understand the fear, but I consider it more hype than real. It's a good selling point for that side of the argument.
If I'm wrong here, please write in and explain why.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Of course it may be exactly opposite and little guy wins. Google has ability to do much of wht telco's want to do itself-- like put content closer to the end-user through server farms. If telco's offerd that same service to the public (little guy), they could compete at a lower price with Google.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hmmm.
(That's different than Arrrggghhh.)
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: It sounds like what Great Falls and Aarrrgh really object to is that they'll be charged more for higher capability services than those of us who don't use the net for streaming this and that.
Are they willing to say that consumers who use more capacity should be charged more for that than rather than relying on us low bandwidth users for a subsidy????
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, you just asked them.
_______________________
Doubt that the government would permit much of that: Riiiiighht. And once the rules are changed that will allow that, who exactly is going to call the foul? By definition, the very website and other forms of web based information dissemination could be blocked as well.
Let's say someone starts a watchdog site checking on this. So the Telelcom degrades its service so most folks don't read it. They set up a propaganda site saying they don't do that very thing, and plop it in the lexus lane. The watchdogs try and start a new site, calling people to action and inform Congress...it gets degraded. The Telecoms hire back McCurry to set up another astroturf propaganda site calling for the opposite...in the lexus lane.
You folks (reporters) keep typing assertions that somehow Congress will go against big money donors in the interest of the overall good. As a reporters on lobbying, please name three incidents where that ever happened? You expect Congress to support an effective internet fairness doctrine, when they banished the original one?
Please.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, take that Mr. Birnbaum.
Oh, I am Mr. Birnbaum.
Well, I took it -- for fairness' sake.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: There is a political element to this as well -- not just a technology policy dispute.
Google gives 99% of its money to Democratic candidates, and is MoveOn.org's single biggest corporate benefactor. Recorded votes so far on net neutrality have shown Democrats to be unified in favor (while Republicans appear divided, but generally against -- see the House Judiciary vote on the Sensenbrenner bill). This is rapidly becoming a partisan issue, at least for Democrats, and probably increasingly for Republicans.
Christian Coalition and GOA are for net neutrality, but on the right, that's about it.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's a thought, but I am always wary of partial information like this. Most companies involved in this fight give pretty evenly to both sides (maybe a little more to the GOP because it is in charge). So, I would have to think a little harder about this one before agreeing.
_______________________
Honolulu, Hawaii: Any comment on the obscene amounts of lobbying/PR money being spent on this? More ratepayer (ie. consumer) money has been spent on misleading ads by monopoly telcos and cable companies than any other issue in D.C. this year. We hear speculation that this is such a money trough that Congress is likely to "consider" telecom legislation in every election year as a means to fund their campaign coffers.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: True, telecom bills are the gifts that keep giving to members of Congress. They are a political annuity.
And is it too much? I guess there's that much more that's at stake, otherwise those obscene sums would not be spent.
The economics of lobbying allows for massive spending, and that's why it happens.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It doesn't seem to me that the issue is nearly as clear as "Aargh" tries to paint it. The telcos are going to cover the costs of their equipment upgrades one way or another. Either they will do this by raising bandwidth prices for the biggest content providers, or by raising bandwidth prices for everyone. Which scenario is fairer to the little content provider?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, it is hard to say. That's why I try not to.
But you may . . .
And please do.
_______________________
Eureka, Calif.: The common carrier model - which has ruled telecom - is based on the concept that communications is a social good, like roads. Because cable/telcom infrastructure is built upon public rights of way, they must be obliged to serve all people on a non-discriminatory basis. These media resources are just too important to be left for the exclusive or discriminatory use of the old white men who "own" them!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: This is a central argument in this debate. It needs to be addressed.
Is the Internet a common carrier, and subject to government enforcement and regulation. Or isn't it?
A lot is on the line on that one, yes?
_______________________
Aaaaarghh!: Is an internet programmer named John who has been working in the tech industry for 10 years. I do not lobby, nor do I presently work for anyone who has any financial incentive either way. The closest I come to Matt Stoller is that I occasioanlly read MyDD.
If those who object to my point by not answering it would care to hear it, I could go over the granular level of how packet prioritization (the heart of the NN debate works), and put everyone to sleep.
Thank you. Now paid shills, please try and address the point.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for letting us know.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Jeff, I think Great Falls believes we're living in a different kind of Internet than the real one. The Internet is no monolith; as Wired reported a few weeks ago, the Internet has never been as neutral as people want to think it is. Instead it's a complex series of agreements between companies and governments, ever since the Internet trunk lines/backbones were privatized and the NSF gave up its job of managing it.
And while I can't speak to how every site will do under changed circumstances -- nor can I say about these circumstances -- bloggers should remember that their individual Blogspot pages are served by... Google. Nobody will be closing off access to your blogs, that's for sure. (This is also true because text-based pages take up so very little space)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: This seems to make sense to me.
But that's just me.
_______________________
Olney, Md.: Part of the net neutrality thing, as I understand it, is that telephone companies had no say in what went on the Internet before, but without net neutrality, they could play favorite with services they own or which pay them money. That's why small businesses, and big businesses that were small, support keeping the telephone and cable companies out of controlling content.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, and thanks for keeping it simple (for a change).
_______________________
Original thoughts please: "Doubt that the government" - who is paying you? You keep using the same talking points that are either hypothetical sky is falling scenarios about WHAT IF net neutrality doesn't happen... or you talk abot Mike McCurry? Who cares - what does he have to do with this? He's a lobbyist - like you.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I am not a lobbyist. And actually, my guess is that Mike is not all that happy with my column.
_______________________
Great Falls, Va.: In reference to the "there has yet to be any misconduct," it is (as far as we know) true that no provider has yet leveed a tax on the incoming traffic. However, BellSouth, AT&T, and Verizon have all stated publicly that they are interested in doing this and BellSouth has announced that they are in talks with customers to provide preferential access.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Misconduct? Maybe or maybe not.
But conduct, it is. Thanks for the dose of reality.
_______________________
Springfield, Va.: Jeff, I'm afraid that many people are missing the point. This comes down to, "Nice website, Company Y. It'd be shame if something happened to it. Company X over here just paid for our new Preferred Access plan that gives it priority over you. Now, since you're competitors, wouldn't you like to pay up, to guarantee that you stay in business? No? Oh well, your loss."
Consumers will find that Company X's website seems to respond faster than Company Y's. Guess which one will get their business. Now Company Y MUST pay for this higher tier or lose out. And a year later, time for the Super Premium Access Plan. And so on. And every cent of these costs gets passed on to us. Now the ISPs are effectively double-billing: you have to pay both your bill and those of the content providers. No one wins but the incumbent telephone and cable companies.
So, I have little sympathy for the "cost of upgrades" argument! We'll pay for this either way in our ISP bills. That's what they're for.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Another salvo from the "little guy."
Any defenders of other sizes?
_______________________
San Jose, Calif.: It is NOT just about who pays. It's about whether or not how much you pay will be allowed to set the priority of the content you deliver. Currently, if you want more bandwidth you pay more, but while using that bandwidth it's just like everybody else's.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks. This is a nuance worth adding to the mix.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: Here is a pretty mainstream economic analysis of why we probably ought to "go slow" on net netrality, courtesy of the Wharton School of Business faculty:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&id=1497
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I went to Penn, so I pass this along.
I will not vouch for its mainstream-ness, however.
_______________________
Columbia, Md.: Above you seem to endorse the "double dipping" charge of the pro-net neutrality argument. I've never really understood this. If the telcos are offering a new service (that would be faster access for certain types of content) then why the outrage over another fee? Last time I checked business could determine what fees to charge and there's no reason to make a federal case (literally) out of it...
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Now there's a reasonable argument for the non-net-neutral side. Thank you for passing it along.
_______________________
Wait, there's more...: Also in the telecom bill are some goodies from the movie and record industries to cut back on what consumers do with music they record. We thought that was settled by the Supreme Court last summer, but not. That one's not getting much attention.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: You've gotten some attention now.
In fact, the whole bill has yet to be thoroughly vetted, mostly because its fate is unclear (or unlikely to pass) this year.
_______________________
Centreville, Va.: It wasn't more than about 5 years ago my monthly phone bill was around $1500 because of the amount of international calls I had to make. Now using VoIP, that bill is well below $50 and dropping.... now who lost that income? The big phone companies. Why is this relevant ? If this bill passes and the content of the traffic can be identified legally as VoIP it is a simple matter to introduce what is call "Jitter" of only a duration of a tenth of second to cause it to sound like your worst cell phone call ever..... and consistently.... and they would do this in the name of protecting the integrity of the Internet.... their executives have already stated these intentions and the law would allow them to do it LEGALLY with out the FCC being able stop it as they can today under the older 1996 laws
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The Jitter gives me the jitters.
_______________________
San Diego, Calif.: Any way you slice it, it looks as if the Telcos are looking for a new revenue stream. They are trying to get it through legislation. Is what they are offering to the public valuable enough for us to legislate a new way for them to make money?
I don't see how it is. They will be making more money by providing the same amount of bandwidth. There is no guarantee the revenue from the extra fees they charge will go to network improvements. In fact, this regulation of the Internet will encourage the opposite. By throttling the majority of traffic and providing more bandwidth to preferred customers they can get by without making improvements.
The money that is ending up in the Telco's' pockets all originates from the consumer. They will be charging us more and giving nothing in return.
It's a legislative land grab. It gives them more money and power over communications at the expense of the people. That is unacceptable.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Back again at ya'!
Now, at least, we're debating on the tangible issue: who pays how much.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I am finding it very difficult to stomach Google's position on the issue. Google, a chief proponent of net neutrality, uses a sponsored links system where users that pay get prominently placed links in the "Sponsored Links" search results. Do you see this double standard?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I see it now. . .
_______________________
Clarification: Sorry - didn't mean to imply that you, Jeff, are a lobbyist. I was saying that whoever wrote the post about "Doubt that the government..." sounds like a lobbyist beating up on McCurry and using baseless hyperbloic points.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks. Then again, with out baseless hyperbolic points I wouldn't have a job.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: The Eureka commenter calls upon the "common carrier" telephone model to justify equal treatment of businesses and individuals, but the fact is that the telephone companies already charge a wide variety of highly differeing plans to individuals, small businesses and large businesses for telephone service. I don't necessarily know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it does allow us to vote for our favorite American Idol.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: And you say that's a good thing? Or do I misunderstand. . .
_______________________
This is not new regulation: The Internet as we know consumers know it has been a common carrier infrastructure, because until recently all consumer Internet was carried over telephone lines into our homes, and the telephone network is subject to common carrier regs. Cable modems had the potential to change this, and that is what the Supreme Court decided last June--that cable Internet service is NOT common carrier.
So called "net neutality" is not a new issue, but rather the attempt to restore the common carrier status we all take for granted. For instance--name a two-way infrastructure that is NOT governed by common carrier. Roads, railways, telephone, cell phone, etc. are all common carrier. It's ridiculous to say that Internet was not or should not be.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Railroads and the Internet. Now we're getting somewhere.
_______________________
Laurel, Md.: I'm trying to understand the main idea of your column today. Are you advocating one side over another (it kind of sounds like you are against Net Neutrality)? Or is your point that because consumers will end up paying either way, we shouldn't really care?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: My point is that the public lobbying had been deception or confusing. That doesn't help anyone, least of all the voters.
_______________________
Marshall, San Diego: Jeff, I noticed that your story didn't deal much with the online debate. Have you been following this aspect of it? Because if you think the offline debate is emotional, boy howdy, you should see what's being saide on the web. Do you think one side or the other makes different arguments, or better arguments, debating this issue on the Internet?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: True enough. I didn't have the space to critique the online stuff, but you're right, it's wild!
_______________________
Net Neutrality: I agree that the consumer is who will lose in the end, one way or the other. But, in one sense, the big companies are right. Both the companies and the consumers pay for their Internet access. We and they pay for the use of the 'utility' of Internet access.
Is it right for the telcos to regulate what/how we have access to, even through we're already paying them ?
I'm trying to come up with an apropos analogy, like water service. If we pay the gallon and for the hook-up, does the water company have the right to vary the flow rate into our house on its whims ?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: One last word here.
And now I must be off.
This has been the busiest chat I've had on washingtonpost.com, and I am thrilled.
Thanks for writing in. We aren't going to settle net neutrality here, but I hope that my column and this discussion together have helped make the issue a little clearer.
That's my fondest wish--always.
Cheers and we'll meet again in a couple weeks after my next column!
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.