Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am confused over this.

One side is advocating regulation of the internet so that there can be no regulation of the internet, the other side is advocating no regulation of the internet so that they can regulate the internet.

Who to believe? I tend to favor the proponents of the bill, such as Microsoft, Amazon, Goolge and other software providers and E-vendors because they are the core of the economic and intellectual thrust of the internet.

On the other hand, the opponents are the ones putting money into expanding the networks and physical access points around the world and I wouldn't want them to be hampered.

In the end, I believe that the net has the most potential to educate the worlds poor of any program in human history, at least since the phoenetic alphabet. I want there to be a level playing field. I'd be willing to pay a little bit more so that the poor could access the web and I don't beleive it is sensible to limit content and bandwith to those who can't pay for it.

On the other hand, the web is a physical reality as well as an electronic and surrealistic reality, so somebody has to pay for access. The fact remains that internet searches and usage take up real energy, space and time and need to be paid for somehow. The arguement that the poor should be given expensive access for free will link itself to questions like "If the web access should be free, what about food and health care?". By the end of that line, people will be providing freebies to those who are unable or unwilling to work for it and we have even more overbearing entitlements than before.

On a third hand, unlike the endless consumption cycle of free health care, welfare and food stamps - the web has the potential to teach people how to fish while feeding them. Health care, food stamps and welfare are a self perpetuating pit, but the web is more akin to school. It can help people become self reliant where the other programs fail. The web IS commerce and education. Simply using it creates value for all of us.

Gah. Help me. As of the last line I am in favor of the Net Neutrality act.

[CountArach]

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

I don't believe it is a specific bill per se, rather the specter of one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, the ISP's are the ones who make the huge investments in bandwidth, right?

Right now they aren't regulating the speed to sites; the whole problem is invented.

The net neutrality folks have invented a problem as an excuse to regulate the internet. And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them. The regulation, on the other hand, would make it much less attractive to build more bandwidth because they couldn't control it even if they wanted to.

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

CR

[drone]

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them.

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

[Lemur]

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"

Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies.

Well, gee, if we got the government out of that then there would be less monopolies, huh? I don't see how you proving government intervention in the market is bad makes the case for more government intervention. I mean, what you linked to is a clear reason to keep the government out of the internet.

Because the government screws thing up.

Especially, especially, for an imagined problem like net neutrality.

And your second link is eleven years old.

Oh, and this isn't a bill, it's being imposed without any legislation by the FCC.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"


Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

I agree. "Regulations" of things are neccessary - excessive regulations are the enemy. We need to determine who is the bigger threat here, government oversight or the ISP's. They are both a threat. If the government gains a foothold over the web the way it has with the FCC over television and radio, we are screwed. Similairly if the ISPS begin to bottle neck information and handicapp lower income users we are screwed.

We need the web, we need it to be private and we need it to be all encompassing. Government regulation of content is the enemy, governemnt regulation of those who would monopolize service is necessary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm also a strong believer in the legitimacy of internet piracy of anything digital, so that may be clouding my judgement.

[Crazed Rabbit]

governemnt regulation of those who would monopolize service is necessary.

Often, they are only monopolists because of the government.

Also, I found a more articulate argument against net neutrality:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Unfortunately, there are at least three big problems with making net neutrality a federal mandate.

First is that bandwidth is not, in fact, unlimited, especially in the wireless world. One reason ISPs are averse to neutrality regulation, they say, is that they need the flexibility to ban or mitigate high-bandwidth uses of their network, like BitTorrent and Hulu.com, which would otherwise run amok. Take away their ability to prioritize traffic, the ISPs say, and overall service will suffer.

“As long as there have been networks, people have had to engineer them to ensure that congestion doesn’t occur,” Carnegie Mellon professor and telecom expert David Farber said Monday (he’s the co-author of a cautious anti-net neutrality opinion piece published in 2007). Farber is especially concerned about the impact of the FCC’s position on wireless networks, where bandwidth is already very limited. “When you’re operating that close to capacity, you have to do a very tricky job of managing your spectrum. If you have unconstrained loads being dumped on you, something’s going to have to give.”

Case in point: AT&T has repeatedly stumbled in its ability to provide 3G wireless capacity, thanks to the unexpected popularity of the iPhone. Those difficulties lend credence to AT&T’s (and Apple’s) reluctance to allow apps like Skype and Slingplayer unfettered access to the 3G network: If the network can barely keep up with ordinary demand, just imagine what would happen if we were all live-streaming the Emmy Awards over our iPhones at the same time.

Take away ISPs’ ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you’ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they’re actually using. Want to BitTorrent all 6.7GB of the uncompressed Beatles catalog via 3G? Fine, but you’ll have to pay for the bandwidth you’re taking away from your neighbor.

Second, enforcement of neutrality regulations is going to be difficult. Comcast may not be able to block Skype traffic altogether, but what’s to prevent the company from slowing it down relative to other traffic it carries? Such preferential “packet shaping” is easy to turn off and on, as network demands ebb and flow. By contrast, proving such infractions of neutrality will be complex, slow and difficult. It sets up a classic “nimble, resourceful criminal versus slow-footed, underequipped cop” scenario.

Third, the new regulations create an additional layer of government bureaucracy where the free market has already proven its effectiveness. The reason you’re not using AOL to read this right now isn’t because the government mandated AOL’s closed network out of existence: It’s because free and open networks triumphed, and that’s because they were good business.

Now the FCC is proposing taking a free market that works, and adding another layer of innovation-stifling regulations on top of that? This may please the net neutrality advocates who helped elect the current administration, but it doesn’t add up.

Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Don’t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet. Don’t care for AT&T’s spotty 3G wireless network? Try T-Mobile or Verizon. Need help finding an alternative? Check Broadband Reports’ interactive ISP finder.

That’s why the FCC should take a very cautious, careful approach to implementing its brave, new principles. Free, unfettered innovation has been the secret to the internet’s explosive growth over the past two decades. Let’s not let a well-meaning attempt to preserve that innovation wind up doing exactly the opposite.

As Farber says, “Whatever you do, you don’t want to stifle innovation.”

CR

[drone]

It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay.

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

[Fisherking]

When in doubt, having nothing is better than just something....

Look at who is behind the measure. Google and Microsoft are out to gain something...is it in your best interest?

What do you think?

[Beskar]

I dislike how giving people universal healthcare in the opening statement is portrayed as a bad idea. I am unable to contribute to the topic because of that statement. So I am bowing out.

[Major Robert Dump]

The internet is not a truck.

[Lemur]

The internet is not a truck.

It's a series of tubes!

[Whacker]

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies. The odds are you will have at most two to three cable providers for an area, usually it's just one. Your alternative is DishTV or Dishnet. Phone is similar but different. You will have one ILEC that owns and is responsible for all of the service to the area. You CAN opt to have other CLECs, but they still 'rent' from the main ILEC and it will invariably cost more, even though the fees and costs are regulated to ensure competition.

You are limited by sheer fact of how these things work. This isn't like buying a car, where you have dozens upon dozens of brands, and multiple dealerships in an average city that will compete for your business. You must pick one of the above, or do without. If all of them limit, then you are forced to pick one and go with that choice. Simply "abandoning" one provider isn't going to do anything.

We need enforced net neutrality IMO.

[Vladimir]

We need to *allow* it to happen. One reason for the cable/ISP monopoly is technology. Let those fools at the cable company charge an arm and a leg. Let technology develop that gives consumers a choice. Step on the neck of the cable company if they attempt to stifle this development.

Easier said than done, I know.

[Subotan]

It's a series of tubes!

I've known about that meme for ages, but that's a great video

I don't really know much about net neutrality, so I don't have an opinion on it. I think this is one of those issues where everyone says they're out for the common man's interest, when they're all actually out for Numero Uno.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We need net neutrality to be enforced immediately. In the past 5 years companies have finally adapted to the times and are now recognizing the power of the internet in furthering their goals, example: television channels finally putting their shows online in 2008 through Hulu.

The "free market" that the internet has been so called, has not been a free market but an ignored market and now that the companies have an interest in it, like in all markets there will be a need for government to put limits and restrictions on the companies that are now attempting to manipulate the market.

In many regions there are lots of people who have access to only one internet service provider, which makes it a monopoly, allowing the company to easily control the speed and degree of access to the internet its consumers have.

The best example of such manipulation of the market occurring is with the MPAA and RIAA attempting to force ISP's to cut and/or investigate the bandwidth being used by someone they feel is pirating music. These attempts by the music and movie industries to act as your judge, jury and executioner is completely unacceptable and serve as only a warning of coming times if we do not get government to simply set guidelines and consumer protection laws.

That is what net neutrality comes down to, consumer protection, not punishing companies, or stiffing innovation but making sure that a company does not have the ability to demand your ISP to hand over your internet information without your or the courts consent.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay.

Yes, they pay for some more servers. They don't pay for any of the cable connections or bandwidth or infrastructure beyond that.

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

Yes, and they were slapped down without any net neutrality rule. And the new FCC rule? It allows ISPs to throttle access to 'combat piracy' - AKA it would seem to allow the one and only example of a company doing something the neutrality supporters said needed to be prevented.

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

Oftentimes these cartels are set up by the government. The smart thing to do is force the government to allow more competitors, not enforce more regulation.

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies.

See the above.

Oh, and the cable companies will start charging more. Streaming video and services like Hulu are going to take up more and more bandwidth. With neutrality, ISPs will be unable to prevent overuse of those services from affecting and slowing their entire network. And why would they be encouraged to build more bandwidth if the high bandwidth sites are going to immediately use it all?

We need net neutrality to be enforced immediately. In the past 5 years companies have finally adapted to the times and are now recognizing the power of the internet in furthering their goals, example: television channels finally putting their shows online in 2008 through Hulu.

The "free market" that the internet has been so called, has not been a free market but an ignored market and now that the companies have an interest in it, like in all markets there will be a need for government to put limits and restrictions on the companies that are now attempting to manipulate the market.

Why, WHY? There's no real reason for it. There is no problem like what neutrality people say will happen, but even they concede has not happened yet. How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet? Tell me, one of you neutrality supporters, what company is currently managing bandwidth to certain sites?

The internet as we know it, that wonderful thing of communication and commerce, came about without any government regulation, and thank God for that. Government interference would have undoubtedly resulted in a less useful internet. Regulations and diktats would have skewed the economic incentives behind the internet to favor some special group or crack down on what some congressman didn't like.

And thank goodness the internet has been an ignored market, which is often the same thing as a free market. It has been the free market that has allowed for such spectacular innovation in the internet. And now you want to regulate it? You want government restrictions to start on what the internet can and cannot do? My goodness, that's like crying out for the internet to be chained to an iron ball!

If this rule passes it will only be the start of regulation. Every two-bit congressman will see it as a chance to pass some law or regulation to help or hurt some special cause of his, like not selling booze online on Sundays, or prohibiting out of state companies from selling certain items in order to protect some in state company.

The ISPs aren't attempting to manipulate anything - they are attempting to ensure that their limited bandwidth is able to serve all their customers. That's a normal business practice.

Net neutrality would take away from ISPs being able to run their businesses efficiently, because of an imagined problem. Good grief, people, government regulation of this type will stifle innovation because it will limit how ISPs can run their business.

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me - I would not want to have an internet where the government limits what a business can do! It is because of the freedom of the internet that it is so useful today. If you limit the ability of companies to do what's best for their networks, you will limit the entire future of the internet!

CR

[Xiahou]

I've known about that meme for ages, but that's a great video

I've always liked this one best.

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies. The odds are you will have at most two to three cable providers for an area, usually it's just one. Your alternative is DishTV or Dishnet. Phone is similar but different. You will have one ILEC that owns and is responsible for all of the service to the area. You CAN opt to have other CLECs, but they still 'rent' from the main ILEC and it will invariably cost more, even though the fees and costs are regulated to ensure competition.

You say most everyone has only once choice for Internet access and then go on to list at least 3 that most people have available. Cable, DSL, and satellite. In larger metro areas, you're likely to have even more options- like wireless ect.

I've often described net neutrality as a solution looking for a problem- there's no need for it.

edit:

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me

Amen.

[Lemur]

Well, Glenn Beck says net neutrality is a Marxist plot, so you know it's probably a good idea.

Beck has been warning his viewers about net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.

"So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are believers in net neutrality" to "control content," the outspoken Beck said Tuesday night.

Art Brodsky, the communications director at pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge, said Beck is actually arguing against his own interests.

"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."

[Xiahou]

"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."

Yeah, and Rush Limbaugh should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine because liberal talk radio might crowd him off the air without it.

[Lemur]

Yeah, and Rush Limbaugh should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine [...]

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So what's your position on net neutrality Lemur?

CR

[Xiahou]

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

I suppose I should have just called your post an attempt at guilt by association and left it that that.

Well, Glenn Beck says net neutrality is a Marxist plot, so you know it's probably a good idea.

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad.

[drone]

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

[Vladimir]

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

Too late, quoted.

CR

[Lemur]

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad.

Waitaminnit, you mean to tell me that the Enigma Machine was opensauce? TORVALDS! DARN YOU ALL TO HECK!

That does it. I've changed my mind. If I pay for my connection to the net, and YouTube pays for its bandwidth, it only makes sense that any company that controls the pipes between me and YouTube should have the right to slow down or block the signal. That's only fair.

-edit-

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try a hypothetical and see if it makes more sense:

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.