The Man Who Invented the Web on Net Neutrality

[Xiahou]

I wonder if Tim's actually read what's being proposed? Notice how he also cites exactly 0 examples of unfair practices by ISPs that would be covered by this.

It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing. We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio. But we each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.

It seems that here he's supporting tiered pricing for things such a streaming video, audio, ect. Again, it makes me wonder if he knows what the proponents of net neutrality are after....

The way the communications giants want to set things up is to have different levels of charges and fees for the businesses they provide lines. If they don't pay the fees then they lose good connectivity with their customers. The communications giants will be able to steer end users, like us, to those web sites which pay the higher fees. Would you visit a forum site like this, which can't afford to pay the kinds of fees they're discussing, if the pages loaded even slower than they do now? Multiply that across the internet. Better connectivity will be available to those who pay the fees, and the business partners of the communications giants. So you'll be able to get to Time-Warner affiliated web sites much easier than some web site hosted by a smaller ISP.

How is that any different than it is now? Or even any different than it has pretty much always been?

Remember a few months back when one of the major ISP's had a little tiff with Level 3 communications? Anyone trying to access web sites which resided on servers hosted by that ISP and it's affiliates were unable to access them at all if their internet routing went through Level 3 backbone. It went on for a few days. Affected sites, which people who had to go through Level 3 connections were unable to access, included Wikipedia, the entire University of California system - including Los Alamos of all places, and more. Those web sites were entirely unavailable to anyone whose packets were routed through Level 3. Level 3 routers simply stopped recognizing those blocks of ISPs as valid.

That was all about peering. Big Internet backbone companies allow each other access to their backbones free of charge. In this case (I believe) Level3 decided Cogent wasn't a big enough fish to give free access to anymore- they sorted it out and everything is peachy now. Regardless, I dont see what this has to do with net neutrality.


Finally, let me quote everyone's favorite libertarians- the Cato Institute:

Such rhetoric and calls for preemptive regulation are unjustified. There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all, and no one has any idea what the future market will look like with so many new technologies and operators entering the picture. In the absence of clear harm, government typically doesn't regulate in a preemptive, prophylactic fashion as CBUI members are requesting.

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.

[Aenlic]

How can you say that, knowing about the Cogent/Level3 tiff? That is exactly what it is all about.

There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace;

No evidence? That's a crock! Level3 communications exercised exactly that kind of bottleneck control when they denied access to any IP's within Cogent's block, and access out by any IP's in that block. That' exactly the kind of bottleneck control we're talking about. Cogent wasn't paying what Level3 wanted for peering and so Level3 shut down a large portion of the internet, not just for Cogent users but for anyone else who was attempting to access Cogent site. It wasn't just some small thing. The reason it got resolved so quickly was it created a firestorm of protests. Uiniv of California web sites down. Seti@Home down. Wikipedia down. And many more. Any of you ever played WWII online? It was down as well. I'm not a customer of Level3 or Cogent, but because my ISP - Time-Warner - uses Level3 for backbone access, I was unable to acces sites which I use every day. all because Level3 was trying to hold Cogent hostage.

There isn't a free market at the backbone level. That's why regulation is required. When companies like Level3 pull stunts like that, the average user doesn't have the choice of switching who their backbone provider is. That's done at a higher level, sometimes 2 or 3 businesses up the chain. The average user doesn't have the freedom of choice; and that's the antithesis of a free market, isn't it?

If there were a free market at the backbone level, then it would be different. But there isn't. And there won't ever be. I guarantee you that if the large telecoms and backbone providers who are behind some of the bills working their way through Congress get their way, then you'll see many more incidents like the Level3 problem. Web sites will be unavailable because their ISP's or the ISP's parent providers or someone higher up the line isn't in the "preferred" network. And it won't just be the users of the blacklisted IP's that suffer; it'll be anyone else who tried to access those sites. Exactly like what happened with Level3.

It'll be the business equivalent of the Chinese restricting access to various sites for political reasons. But the access will be restricted because some idiot executives are having a hissy, or because one network provides services to the competitor of a customer of another provider. It'll be a mess. Don't kid yourselves otherwise. Frankly, I'm surprised such free market fans as yourselves would fall for this kind of bad reasoning. I thought you were all about free markets, not monopolistic practices and corporate blackmail of the average customer.

[Xiahou]

Again, the Cogent/Level3 peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. These companies are and have to be free to negotiate contracts as to how and with who their throughput will be given to- otherwise you'd have every local ISP and cable co. demanding free peer-level access to the Internet backbone. When it's in both companies interests, they grant peer access.... However, if a small company with a tiny network wants access to a backbone they have to pay for it.

Regardless, you yourself point out that public outcry along with other factors helped settle the dispute. So then, why do we need new beauocratic regulation for a problem that doesnt exist? The problem was quickly resolved without government meddling. Level 3 quickly discovered that Cogent had resources attached to its network that were a valuable asset and worthy of peering.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He's talking about the simple principle that I can connect to any public site from my computer, regardless of my connection.

I pay more for a faster connection but thats all I'm paying for, speed.

Level 3 actually stopped people accessing parts of the web. The fact that they didn't get away with it this time is mainly down to the fact that no-one else is doing it. What if the industry closes ranks? What will you do then?

The fact that it happened once and can/will happen again is reason enough for a law against it.

[Lemur]

I think we can all agree that bad regulation is much worse than no regulation at all. However, as Mr. Berners-Lee said, a good market depends on some ground rules. I think his definition of net neutrality is spot-on: "If I pay to connect to the net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."

If we need legislation to guarantee that, fine. If the market will sustain that without any intervention, even better. But while I have faith in the power of markets, I have little for individual companies. For the majority of Americans, if their two local high-speed internet providers decide to play games, they have no other broadband resource.

Don't even suggest that people move back to dial-up. That way madness lies.

[Xiahou]

Level 3 actually stopped people accessing parts of the web. The fact that they didn't get away with it this time is mainly down to the fact that no-one else is doing it. What if the industry closes ranks? What will you do then?

If the industry closes ranks and what? Fracture the Internet and run themselves completely out of business? Sounds plausible.....

If we need legislation to guarantee that, fine. If the market will sustain that without any intervention, even better. But while I have faith in the power of markets, I have little for individual companies. For the majority of Americans, if their two local high-speed internet providers decide to play games, they have no other broadband resource.

Don't even suggest that people move back to dial-up. That way madness lies.

So why do you support 'net neutrality' legislation despite the total lack of problems that would warrant it? The point of Internet access is that you can get to virtually any resource as long as your connected. If some hare-brained ISP decides to restrict what it's customers can access, they'd be completely removing value from their service. Whats the point of an "Internet" connection when you cant use it to get to the Internet? No one would use such a service from even a value standpoint- let alone the enormous PR backlash they'd generate.

Why on earth would an ISP even do that? It'd ruin them. Again, show me a real problem before you start trying to make me sign on to far-reaching solutions.

[Lemur]

Again, show me a real problem before you start trying to make me sign on to far-reaching solutions.

Who's trying to make you sign on with anything? You are a rock on this issue, Xiahou, and far be it from me to move you in any direction at all.

I would certainly be more comfortable if the average American had more options for high-speed internet access. I trust we'll see some developments on that front over the next ten years or so. These local duopolies make me nervous.

[Aenlic]

The problem isn't at the level of customer to ISP access. It's higher up at the mid-level and backbone level. That's where the Level3 stunt becomes a case in point. They tried to use average internet customers, most of whom were not even customers of Cogent, as tools to force another company, Cogent, to play by their rules.

And government interference was exactly what led to the end of the stunt, Xiahou. The University of California was one of the affected Cogent customers. Do you know who has the contract to run Los Alamos, Xiahou? Care to guess why the Level3 stunt ended so quickly, with Level3 losing the argument?

There is no free market at the backbone level. There are no free market forces. There is little to no competition even at the mid-level. But way down at the end-user connection level, there is very little in the way of a free market. Many people don't even have the choice of broadband, being limited to dial-up through a variety of small, barely profitable providers who all use the same limited backbone. For broadband, many people don't even have a choice between cable or DSL, limiting them to one and only one broadband provider. Those that do have a choice, usually have only two from which to choose - and they're mortal enemies - the telecoms and the cable companies. A very lucky few have a few more choices. What free market?