Cisco's Washington D.C. office is pushing hard Cisco's opposition to Network Neutrality Laws, an effort that could lead to its downfall.
Cisco is supporting its big carrier customer's anti-competitive lobbying initiatives that oppose Network Neutrality Laws.
Obviously, this means that Cisco has "arrived," at least in the eyes of its big carrier customers.
 Jeff Campbell - director of Cisco technology and communications policy in Washington, D.C., is pushing hard for Cisco's opposition to Network Neutrality Laws. |
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on the matter siding with Cisco and last June, the Federal Trade Commission submitted a 170 page Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Report that sided with Cisco.
The effects of Cisco siding with its big carrier customers is already being felt by consumers:
Comcast Cuts Off Bandwidth Hogs
Our Internet Policy Is A Disgrace: Here's The Proof
The irony here is that rather than innovate and/or buy new Cisco equipment to handle increased bandwidth usage by consumers, Cisco carrier customer Comcast has chosen not to innovate and/or buy new Cisco equipment (with the full support of Cisco's Washington office mind you).
Instead, Comcast chooses to fire consumers who increase its bandwidth usage, saving Comcast from innovating and/or buying new Cisco equipment.
The seeds of Cisco's downfall have been sown.
Related story:
Network World - Cisco and Google enter sumo wrestling match over FCC 700 MHz DTV spectrum auction
Advertisement: |
Brad Reese cofounded BradReese.Com Cisco Refurbished which offers one year warranties on Cisco Refurbished and Cisco Repair.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Net Neutrality leads to down fall of US network build out
There is a very simple economic reason why we don't have these laws. The US is behind globally in network build out, call it urban sprawl or government bureaucracy.
If I am a service provider, what incentive do I have to build out my network if I can't guarantee I will get paid for the services that run on it?
And why does Comcast and the others regulate their customers, its simple supply and demand. There is only so much capacity, if you have more demand, then it should cost you more. Any user is welcome to negotiate the proper SLA, if they really need it. If there is so much demand for internet service its only natural that supply will meet that demand.
Interesting paradox
Interesting paradox in that you state,
Your statement appears "contradictory" based on the fact that we currently have no Net Neutrality Laws.
Why are we behind globally?
Obviously, because we have do NOT have Net Neutrality Laws.
Do you trust the big carriers enough to believe that big carriers have consumer's best interest in mind?
Where would we be today without Vonage and the original Mom & Pop ISPs back in the 90s?
If we had left it up to the big carriers we would still live in an analog world today!
In my opinion, Cisco has started to rot and it began in Cisco's Washington, D.C. office.
Sincerely,
Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com
Net Neutrality
Hi, Brad,
I find myself agreeing with your position. As with the automakers and the telephone companies (when they controlled their markets and subsequently their customers), the big carriers will do only what is best for them (not what is best for their customers) unless there is motivation to compete.
Where would we be with the phone system if companies like MCI had not changed the playing field? They were only successful in entering the market because they had the lawyers that could break down the entry barriers. I'm inclined to think that you are correct in believing that it would be still be an analog world. And we may not have seen the Internet as soon as we did.
The Mom 'n Pops ISPs have gone the way of the dinosaur except in parts of the world where high speed connections are not available. Broadband has changed the playing field and unfortunately it gives the big carriers the advantage.
Madison River Communications in North Carolina should have been a wakeup call when they blocked access to other providers offering VOIP services. Thankfully, that got resolved. But it shows that we need a net neutrality law to protect consumers from such anticompetitive practices.
This is a serious issue and needs serious action. The whole idea of the Internet is that it is supposed to be a forum that gives us the freedom to use any of the providers and their technologies we choose to use. I don't want my ISP deciding what I can and can't use or do on the Internet.
Regards,
Fred Atkinson
John Chambers and Charlie Giancarlo lash out
John Chambers and Charlie Giancarlo lash out at the big carriers for being slow on network infrastructure build out:
Local government getting in the way of Cisco's consumer ambitions
Simultaneously, Cisco's Washington office has "climbed in bed" with the big carriers AGAINST Net Neutrality Laws.
Sincerely,
Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com
Cisco's position on Net Neutrality
Brad:
I would encourage you and any readers to check out our official stance on network management and net neutrality here: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/markets/network_neutrality.html
We have also blogged extensively on the topic here: http://blogs.cisco.com/gov
Full text of our position:
Connectivity Principles and Consumer Choice
Cisco has long supported an open and innovative Internet. Many of the Internet's benefits come from its open nature and the ability of anyone to develop new and innovative devices and services that connect to it. Such innovation has created entirely new industries and has fostered competitive markets in Internet applications and equipment. Recognizing these advantages, Cisco helped produce the High Tech Broadband Coalition's "Connectivity Principles" in 2003, which were embodied in the FCC's Policy Statement of 2005. The Connectivity Principles and FCC Policy protect consumers with information and the ability to use the Internet in an open fashion. Cisco continues to support these principles:
1. Broadband Internet access consumers should have access to their choice of legal Internet content within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.
2. Broadband Internet access consumers should be able to run applications of their choice, within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plans, as long as they do not harm the provider's network.
3. Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to their broadband Internet access connection at the consumer's premises, so long as they operate within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plans and do not harm the provider's network or enable theft of services.
4. Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their broadband Internet access service plans.
Network Management
Innovation inside the network is just as important as innovation in services and devices connected to the Internet. As the Internet becomes better, faster and more integral to our economy and personal lives, it is necessary for broadband Internet access providers to use innovative technology to manage their networks to provide quality of service and new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco supports the use of network management tools by Internet access providers to improve the Internet experience as long as there is no anticompetitive effect. Specifically, Cisco supports:
- 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.
- Broadband Internet access service providers should remain free to offer additional services to supplement broadband Internet access, including bandwidth tiers, quality of service, security, anti-virus and anti-spam services, network management services, as well as to enter into commercially negotiated agreements with unaffiliated parties for the provision of such additional services.
Regulate Only if Problems Occur, Not Before
In recent years, telecommunications regulation has had a difficult time keeping up with changes in technology and markets. Imposing specific network neutrality rules now to address hypothetical problems would only compound the problem. Rather, the FCC has taken the appropriate path by setting forth principles and indicating that it will take enforcement action in the event that problems arise. At present, there is no indication of any significant violations of the Connectivity Principles by broadband Internet access providers. Cisco therefore supports case-by-case FCC action only if and when it is faced with a specific complaint with respect to the Connectivity Principles or related anticompetitive behavior.