Why 'Net neutrality' means more federal regulation

[Voegelin]

CNET
By Jim DeMint
June 27, 2006

. . . Supporters of Net neutrality generally fall into three main categories. Some advocacy groups, like the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org, worry that without explicit prohibitions in place, network owners could get away with blocking or degrading Web sites based on their religious or political content. Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their businesses might require for advanced services in the future. A third group believes the Internet should be managed with heavy-handed public utility-style regulation or government price controls . . .

http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6088253.html?part=rss&tag=6088253&subj=news

 

[Vylo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ&eurl=

 

[Voegelin]

Typical. Ed Markey must be laughing--at those who believe he is protecting "freedom".

 

[Harpuia]

You have to remember that no net neutrality is a two-way street.

As much as Christian net services can get rid of the left-wing/"sinful" sites, mainstream services could have the right to block right-wing/Christian sites too.

 

[variant]

CNET
By Jim DeMint
June 27, 2006

. . . Supporters of Net neutrality generally fall into three main categories. Some advocacy groups, like the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org, worry that without explicit prohibitions in place, network owners could get away with blocking or degrading Web sites based on their religious or political content. Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their businesses might require for advanced services in the future. A third group believes the Internet should be managed with heavy-handed public utility-style regulation or government price controls . . .

http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6088253.html?part=rss&tag=6088253&subj=news

Ridiculous, net neutrality is about whether people and internet sights can be billed by telecommunication companies based upon how good a service they get. It really doesn’t have anything to do with anything you’re quoting.

It's about destroying what made the web so good and doing so that telecommunications companies can make a lot more money with tiered access for broadband users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Or you could read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200497,00.html

 

[DieHappy]

or this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008566

 

[variant]

or this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008566

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece thinks that tiered internet access is a great idea.

Surprising.

Seriously I quoted a Fox News piece, and you go for the Wall Street Journal?

 

[Alarum]

or this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008566

This piece is the stupidest thing I've read since... uh... the last opinion journal piece I read. Gah. I used to read that junk daily, to see what the other side's arguements were, until I realized that they were so poorly argued that there was no real point (rest of the paper is great though, dunno what they have their opinion page for).

Somehow they have the brilliant idea that consumers will pay more with net neutrality. News flash! You already pay for your internet. You already pay to recieve that information. The sites sending that information? They get charged too.

What Net Neutrality would ensure is that companies couldn't leverage their near-monopoly status in certain areas (many places have no more than 1-2 broadband providers) in order to shakedown money from customers.

To put this in context, imagine you're in a store, and you buy something. Lets say a loaf of bread. Now this store is in a city. Net Neutrality is saying the mayor of the city doesn't have the right to go into the store, slap the customer's wallet out of his hands, jump up and down on the tables, block the lines, and harass the store owner (unless, of course, the store owner pays him a large sum of money).

 

[momalle1]

You have to remember that no net neutrality is a two-way street.

As much as Christian net services can get rid of the left-wing/"sinful" sites, mainstream services could have the right to block right-wing/Christian sites too.

While this is very true, the core of net neutrality is money, plain and simple. It seems telecom companies feel they aren't making enough money. To be fair, it seems the stock market doesn't feel they are making enough money too.

 

[pantsman52]

While this is very true, the core of net neutrality is money, plain and simple. It seems telecom companies feel they aren't making enough money. To be fair, it seems the stock market doesn't feel they are making enough money too.

There is a picture that illustrates this perfectly but I can't find it. It's from The Simpsons and shows a parking garage named "Pay 'n Park 'n Pay".

 

[DieHappy]

Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom
By Alex Epstein
America's leading Internet service providers (ISPs) have spent many years and billions upgrading their transcontinental networks, which constitute the backbone of the Internet. Now they are eager to profit by offering new, compelling services. One plan is to give certain websites high priority on their data, so as to guarantee "quality of service"--the speed, frequency, and reliability with which data is delivered. This would enable content providers to offer high-quality live TV and videoconferencing or advanced remote medical monitoring, without the delays and unreliability that plague the Internet today. Unfortunately, data prioritization is fiercely opposed by advocates of "Net Neutrality," who claim paradoxically that freedom and innovation demand that companies not be free to make this innovation.
Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; their networks must be "neutral" among all the data they carry. Net-neutrality supporters claim that if ISPs are free to give preferential treatment to certain websites' data, they might drastically slow down un-favored or less-wealthy websites, diminishing their ability to offer content and make innovations. A prominent net-neutrality coalition cautions: "If you are an aspiring entrepreneur, you may be impeded from providing the 'next big thing' on the Internet."
But such scenarios are nonsensical. For any of the nation's competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide. As for innovation, websites are free to continue using standard, non-prioritized Internet service. The fact that this would be slower than premium service does not mean that it would be slow, just as UPS's decision to offer overnight delivery did not lead them to suddenly degrade their Ground shipping. Premium Internet services would enable, not stifle, innovation, by giving websites creative options they did not have before.
The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled "equal access." As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: "It's our Net."
But it isn't.
The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity--or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.
The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others--but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.
It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks--in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.
The widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies--including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon--is short-sighted and contemptible. These companies, which have benefited greatly from the unimpeded freedom of the Internet, are now trying to deny the same freedom to innovative ISPs and ambitious competitors under the egalitarian banner of "equal access." This is an invitation for any clever moocher to demand "equal access" to their hard-earned resources; indeed, Google is already being sued because its proprietary search engine allegedly gives "unfair" rankings to certain companies.
The Internet is one of the great bastions of freedom and innovation in our civilization. Let us keep it that way by rejecting "net neutrality."
Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Without net neutrality, we'll end up seeing the corporatization of the internet where the little guy can't afford to have a good website and all the big high traffic websites will be pushed by big companies just like television is today.

 

[seebs]

I don't like the notion of legislated network neutrality. I do not think the government is competent to tell me what my network should route.

Consider what happens when the first spammer sues on the grounds that his packets are getting dropped while others go through...

I'm just plain not worried. The "little guy" doesn't need the huge bandwidth the big guys does, and I expect it'll remain possible to buy smallish bandwidth guarantees cheaply.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

You do realize that little guys have started up websites that have ended up huge. In the future they may not be able to afford this.

 

[Alarum]

Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom
By Alex Epstein
America's leading Internet service providers (ISPs) have spent many years and billions upgrading their transcontinental networks, which constitute the backbone of the Internet. Now they are eager to profit by offering new, compelling services. One plan is to give certain websites high priority on their data, so as to guarantee "quality of service"--the speed, frequency, and reliability with which data is delivered. This would enable content providers to offer high-quality live TV and videoconferencing or advanced remote medical monitoring, without the delays and unreliability that plague the Internet today. Unfortunately, data prioritization is fiercely opposed by advocates of "Net Neutrality," who claim paradoxically that freedom and innovation demand that companies not be free to make this innovation.
Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; their networks must be "neutral" among all the data they carry. Net-neutrality supporters claim that if ISPs are free to give preferential treatment to certain websites' data, they might drastically slow down un-favored or less-wealthy websites, diminishing their ability to offer content and make innovations. A prominent net-neutrality coalition cautions: "If you are an aspiring entrepreneur, you may be impeded from providing the 'next big thing' on the Internet."
But such scenarios are nonsensical. For any of the nation's competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide. As for innovation, websites are free to continue using standard, non-prioritized Internet service. The fact that this would be slower than premium service does not mean that it would be slow, just as UPS's decision to offer overnight delivery did not lead them to suddenly degrade their Ground shipping. Premium Internet services would enable, not stifle, innovation, by giving websites creative options they did not have before.
The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled "equal access." As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: "It's our Net."
But it isn't.
The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity--or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.
The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others--but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.
It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks--in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.
The widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies--including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon--is short-sighted and contemptible. These companies, which have benefited greatly from the unimpeded freedom of the Internet, are now trying to deny the same freedom to innovative ISPs and ambitious competitors under the egalitarian banner of "equal access." This is an invitation for any clever moocher to demand "equal access" to their hard-earned resources; indeed, Google is already being sued because its proprietary search engine allegedly gives "unfair" rankings to certain companies.
The Internet is one of the great bastions of freedom and innovation in our civilization. Let us keep it that way by rejecting "net neutrality."
Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA.

Ah, Ayn Rand's miracle philosophy - the market can deal with anything, government regulation is never needed. Yeah, places with no government? They work out real well.

Net Neutrality isn't about 'premium service' whatever this shmuck thinks. It's about tier 1 web providers leveraging their near-monopoly status to charge websites for recieving exactly the same service they always have. Better service earns higher prices, but the same service shouldn't cost one person more then the other. Of course the Ayn Rand institute probably thinks its perfectly fine if the person who owns half the apartments in a city charges black people twice as much, because 'we don't need their kind 'round here.' They can always move to a different city, right?

 

[peanutbutter12]

I don't like the notion of legislated network neutrality. I do not think the government is competent to tell me what my network should route.

Consider what happens when the first spammer sues on the grounds that his packets are getting dropped while others go through...

I'm just plain not worried. The "little guy" doesn't need the huge bandwidth the big guys does, and I expect it'll remain possible to buy smallish bandwidth guarantees cheaply.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwith. Obviously you've not read much concerning the idea. If we lose net neutrality, companies that provide your internet will be the ones who determine what sites you go to and what sites you do not.

Put it this way, suppose you are a regular shopper at amazon.com. Well, Adelphia internet feels that it's in their best interest to make their own shop with higher prices, and kill your connection to amazon and every other online shop so that you can only access AdelphiaShop and spend your money with them. This is what the internet will turn into if it's handed over to the telecommunications companies. THEY will be the ones who decide what sites you go to, and what you will not as it will be their legal right to do so.

With net neutrality, they are prevented from blocking us from any sites.

For more info on it, I suggest looking at www.savetheinternet.com

CJ

 

[seebs]

Net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwith. Obviously you've not read much concerning the idea. If we lose net neutrality, companies that provide your internet will be the ones who determine what sites you go to and what sites you do not.

Er, no.

Sounds like you're picking up the media sensationalistic reporting, not the actual debate.

Put it this way, suppose you are a regular shopper at amazon.com. Well, Adelphia internet feels that it's in their best interest to make their own shop with higher prices, and kill your connection to amazon and every other online shop so that you can only access AdelphiaShop and spend your money with them. This is what the internet will turn into if it's handed over to the telecommunications companies. THEY will be the ones who decide what sites you go to, and what you will not as it will be their legal right to do so.

No.

That's not what's on the table.

Please learn more about the subject.

For more info on it, I suggest looking at www.savetheinternet.com

Uh, ... No.

How about I trust the opinions of the sysadmins who've been in the business since before it was called "the internet", rather than the political activists.

That would be a cool thing.

 

[seebs]

You do realize that little guys have started up websites that have ended up huge. In the future they may not be able to afford this.

If they're getting big, they will be able to afford the bandwidth guarantees.

*sigh*

Okay, who here has a full T1 in his basement? Anyone?

Who here has ever read a peering agreement? Anyone?

This is a real issue, but the soundbites don't even scratch the surface.

The underlying question is to what extent you are allowed to show preference to packets based on who's sending them. Right now, there are no rules on this, and we have historically done fine without any. If you want to drop all packets from uunet, you can. If you want to drop all packets from Amazon, you can. You can do whatever you want.

Neutrality is a great policy if you actually have as much bandwidth as you need, and there's sound economic reasons to prefer it in general.

The comcast people, like many, are paying through the nose for bandwidth that is used mostly to serve the pages of a few high-bandwidth sites. Their idea, which is stupid, is to charge those sites for access to their network. It's economic suicide, but everyone has to learn that sooner or later.

However, proposed solutions of enforced neutrality create whole new problems.

You're afraid of your ISP shutting off access to a given site? What happens when the site they shut off access to is the Atriks spam farm, which is responsible for about 30% of your spam... And he is able to sue them and force them to accept his junk, because some idiot legislator just mandated an absolute policy of neutrality, rejecting any attempt to filter based on origin?

Current bandwidth pricing models are essentially incoherent, and most of them reflect the juvenile fantasies of some sales reps at MCI Worldcom in the 1990s.

However, what's at issue here is not some ISP charging you $1,000 before you can have a website. Competition kills that, and kills it hard and fast. No one could make that stick.

What's at issue is that most companies currently oversell their bandwidth by a factor of five or ten, and have no real way to meet those service commitments. Everything else follows from that.