24 Comments

Summary:

The Wikipedia profile of Phil Kerpen, a Beltway insider and policy director for Americans for Prosperity, should be enough of a reason for us to not take him too seriously. At least not when it comes to issues pertaining to technology, network neutrality and broadband. His […]

The Wikipedia profile of Phil Kerpen, a Beltway insider and policy director for Americans for Prosperity, should be enough of a reason for us to not take him too seriously. At least not when it comes to issues pertaining to technology, network neutrality and broadband.

His politics notwithstanding, his column over on Forbes.com, Internet Super Traffic Jam, blaming network neutrality for what he thinks is a coming traffic jam is just asinine piece of drivel, which doesn’t take into account how networks are built and how technology has evolved.


Kerpen uses a study by Deloitte & Touche, which says that the Internet backbone speeds are going to be reduced to a crawl if there isn’t substantial infrastructure investments and deployments, to argue against net neutrality legislation. DT, Accenture, McKinsey and others showed their true worth when they advised companies like Enron. So why take them seriously! But that’s a different rant.

The infrastructure investments in the backbone have been an ongoing process. Level 3 and Global Crossing, despite all their issues, have been using technologies such as boxes made by Infinera to lower their costs, and add more capacity. Since Kerpen doesn’t actually link to the study, we are left to wonder what his conclusions are based on. It looks like DT doesn’t even believe there’s a problem, since another research paper there predicts that “unrelenting progress in processing power, network bandwidth and storage capacity” will let electronic games proliferate.

What you’re seeing in Kerpen’s missive is another offering from the “telco chorus,” a group of bloviators who are paid either by conservative advocacy operations (like Kerpen’s Americans for Prosperity), or by groups indirectly supported by telco contributions. Other groups who make similar arguments to Kerpen’s have been outed before, and their goals of trying to provide “expert” or “unbiased” opinion are pretty transparent.

It’s surprising that a generally reputable outlet like Forbes is giving airtime to someone like Kerpen and his by-the-Ma-Bell book net neutrality opinions (service providers need incentives to invest!). Even if Ed Markey & Co. get a net neutrality bill to the President’s desk this year, there’s no guarantee it will be signed. The only thing stopping providers from building the network of the future is their decisions to spend money elsewhere, like in spending $89 billion to buy BellSouth and its networks of the past.

Luckily, the industry has innovators like Cisco building its CRS-1, and deployers like the folks behind the 10-gigabit Internet2, who are helping build the bigger pipes of the future. The “Internet is falling” argument is just another telco talking point, tailor-made to add more FUD instead of clarity to the debate. Too bad Forbes doesn’t have the time to find writers who actually know what they are talking about.

(Om Malik contributed to this post.)

  1. Since when has Forbes been “a generally reputable outlet”? The Dan Lyons articles about the SCO-IBM case were some of the most biased and poorly researched pieces of drivel to come out of that debacle.

    Share
  2. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    Share
  3. GigaOm and Forbe: Information Super Traffic Jam??? (Must Read)…

    Note:  As I was browsing Om Malik’s Blog and I came across this piece which I thought was very entertaining piece of mis-information on the behalf of Forbes.com.  Now I am not saying that this is not a problem that…

    Share
  4. Read the print copy of Forbes tonight and was as disturbed as you and Om are. BUT don’t imply that Kerpen is astroturfing or on the payroll of the Telco’s and then offer no proof. The links to Common Cause’s “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” expose make no mention of Kerpen.

    Share
  5. Big telcos just trying to keep the largest piece of the pie in the huge building coming in IPv6 and Networx

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_45/b4008080.htm?chan=search

    http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=16100&contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW

    http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cmattachments/GSADOCUMENT/2007FASNetworxProgramUpdateR2BVF-h0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

    Share
  6. Level 3 and GC are not the only ones deploying Infinera. XO Communications is also deploying it, and probably how more Infinera gear deployed to date than the other two.

    Share
  7. Net neutrality is nothing more than an elaborate business negotiation between Google and the ISPs, dressed up as a public policy issue. It’s a nice slogan, but little more than that. Google and other companies are effectively using the “activist anti-industrial” complex as a bullhorn to push their agenda. The telecoms and cablecos are using their own cast of characters. Both sides have paid-for actors as well as a host of “useful idiots” to make their respective cases

    See how their doing it at http://www.thenetneutralityshow.org.

    Share
  8. What a sad blog this is.

    First things first, the D & T study is here: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/bgtmtpredictions2007telecoms.pdf

    Read it and then correct your drool.

    The bottom line is this: video needs bandwidth, not just in the core but in the access network. Bandwidth costs money, and somebody has to pay for it. An uncertain regulatory climate makes it difficult for corporations to invest, so the net result of net neutrality is gridlock.

    Anybody who deals with the facts is welcome in this debate, whether they work for activist groups or, as Kapustka does, for Pulver Media. What counts is the quality of the analysis, not the pedigree.

    Om, posts like this one are the main reason I rarely read this blog. I can get gossip, hysteria and spin anywhere, but thoughtful analysis is harder to come by.

    Share
  9. Richard,

    basically you are entitled to your own opinions. who is denying that video needs bandwidth. the issue is not that – issue is stop blaming network neutrality for everything.

    make a coherent business case, separate the long haul and last mile networks.

    Just to point out, the companies that did not invest in the infrastructure – MCI for example – are the ones who need to upgrade their pipes, and are owned by the opponents of network neutrality.

    by the way paul works for gigaom, not pulver media. as you said, smart analysis and careful going over the facts is hard to come by.

    Share
  10. Good eye, Paul. ;)

    1/31:
    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81331
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070131/171856.shtml

    My primary beef is the pretense that groups like this are “grass roots” or consumer focused when they’re just corporations and executive funded PR tools to rail against government oversight of industry.

    One of my “favorites” is the Heartland Institute, who hides the Tobacco money they receive, then claims they fight for smokers rights and rail against “junk science”:

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post