[tw]

Fundamental to net neutrality (as even discussed in a 2006 threads) is "content providers" and "data transporters" (carriers). First defined in the early 20th Century when Bell Companies dominated telephone systems. Using monopoly powers to subvert and dominate the entire telephone business - because profits were more important than the product. In a major concession to government, Bell companies became utilities. They cooperated with all other telephone companies. Separated service from manufacturing. And did dedicated research into advancing the technology of the industry. They became interested in advancing the product and not maximizing profits.

Bell companies became data transporters. Each company has exclusive service areas that answer to state PUCs. They transported data. Did not care what that data was. Offered same services to everyone. And only restricted what could be safely connected to their systems using an approval system.

So phone systems expanded into a nationwide cooperative system that made the North American phone system an envy of the world.

But this system began to break down in the 1970s when new technologies demanded that communciation systems do more. For example, anyone could have modems and dedicated phone lines. Those costs more than even leasing video terminals from phone companies. Bell companies were not innovating fast enough for content providers.

Bell System was broken up into Operating companies (the baby Bells) and AT&T. So that AT&T could innovate more and also be content providers. Data transporters (baby Bells) only transported data.

Trouble is the internet required the entire phone system to be scrapped and rebuilt. A concept clearly defined by Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma". A fundamental replacement of circuit switched technology with packet switched technology was necessary. $Multi-million switching computers had to be replaced. Unfortunately companies such as AT&T wanted to control content and did not want to innovate. Data transporters refused to innovate - refused to install packet switched technologies.

DSL was available and demonstrated in 1981. It took Clinton's 1996 Federal Communication act to force the baby Bells to innovate. It took more than 15 years to make that innovation available.

Meanwhile, some companies wanted to be both content providers and data transporters. Since controlling both could massively increase profit margins due to no competition.

AT&T first tried to cut back into the data transporter business by buying the nation's two largest cable companies. But when the baby Bells separated from AT&T, the baby Bells got product people; AT&T took MBAs. AT&T business school trained management was so dumb as to spend about $140billion on cable companies. Then discover those cables could not support communication without another $80billion to replace all cable wires.

Along comes Comcast. Comcast bought AT&T's fiasco for $80billion two years later. (Yes, AT&T routinely made deals that were that financially bogus - but necessary due to MBA trained management.) Then spent another $80billion to replace all obsolete technology cable wires. Then Comcast began a program of increasing costs to everyone (using a strategy that Putin loves). A $8 cable provider now charges $50 for same service. PUCs condoned it since more advanced electronics now did same functions.

Comcast bought content providers (ie Universal Studios, Spectacore, NBC, etc) so as to dominate in both data transporting and content provider industries. A monopoly once averted in a phone industry in the early 20th Century now exists in the internet. Critical to free market competition is separation between content providers and data transporters. This is a key ingredient to a concept called net neutrality.

Content providers include Google, Skype, Netflix, Amazon, CBS, Paramount, ABC/Disney, etc. Data transporters who have no business regulating what data is transported are Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. That separation of powers should even exist in mobile phones. Any phone manufacturer (Apple, various Androids, etc) who meet industry specs must operate on any phone system (Verizon, T-mobile, AT&T). And those data transporters do not care what data is being transported. You pay them only to transport data - when net neutrality exists.

Free markets need and net neutrality is based upon this separation of powers and markets - between data transporters and content providers. Clinton's 1996 Federal Communication Act - that finally made the internet possible - has been under attack by right wing Republicans whose interests are quite clear: enrich the few companies who in turn are generous with campaign contributions. This sudden shift in power and increased monopolies even force the Silicon Valley to hire and spend massively on Washington lobbyists.

After 1996, your had tens or 100 choices of data transporters including Covad, PSInet, etc. Thanks to extremists in the George Jr administration (ie Michael Powell who then became chief lobbyist for the cable industry - he knows who can best butter his bread), you only have two data transporters. In NYC that is Time Warner and Verizon. In Philadelphia, that is Comcast and Verizon.

Republicans got the monopoly (a duopoly) they wanted by dismantling a 1996 Federal Communication Act. By limiting your choices so that these large companies can increase prices with extraordinary profits. So that the data transporters can own or manipulate the innovators (ie content providers) for ever increasing profits. Comcast is doing today what the Bell Company tried to do in the early 20th Century.

Net Neutrality is based, in part, the the fundamental concepts of data transporters and content providers. Making innovation possible by demanding that data providers provide service to all. So that content providers can concentrate on innovation - not on maximizing profits in a monopolistic manner. Net Neutrality is fundamental and essential to have an economy that innovates.