Net Neutrality
-
I sincerely wish you every success with your websites. And when they do, I will claim that 'they are a utility'.
Before something can be classified as a utility, it has to meet some rules, as Internet service has already met. If my websites ever become such a basic necessity to life and a free democratic society as to qualify as a utility, I won't mind. I will be playing the piano and gardening after you take them over.
-
You're speaking, I believe, two two separate issues. An unhealthy monopoly is certainly a fair conversation to have in this context. Roads, however, are built and maintained (here in America) by tax dollars, not for-profit companies. If we want to use our taxes for Internet infrastructure, that's also a fair conversation to have, but at present it's the private and public corporations who have invested time and money building this infrastructure, which is where I start wondering about the right to take control of someone's property.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
You are forgetting that in most cases, these corporations have been given monopoly power by the government, guaranteeing them a profit. In return for this guarantee, they must accept some regulation by the government. It's not like another company can come along and put in their own infrastructure and compete with them.
-
Before something can be classified as a utility, it has to meet some rules, as Internet service has already met. If my websites ever become such a basic necessity to life and a free democratic society as to qualify as a utility, I won't mind. I will be playing the piano and gardening after you take them over.
I don't need no rules man. I'm the gubberment.
-
Squeezed out? How? If I drive at 90 mph on the motorway, does that mean you are being squeezed out when you (continue) to drive at 60? Is anybody honestly claiming that if I burn the fuel to drive at 90, I should also pay for everybody else to go that fast too? The internet is not a zero-sum game. Extra speed leads to extra routes/roads/lanes, paid for by the money these 'privileged' customers pay. Look, my boss has a Lamborghini and a £30 million house, because he built the company from nothing. Does anybody think I should automatically get a Lamborghini upgrade at zero cost, plus a mansion, simply because I drive on the same roads and live in the same county?
-
A better analogy would be airline travel. The net neutrality supporters want everyone forced to fly coach. They don’t want anyone being allowed to upgrade to better service like business or first class. After all, travel is a public right...
"After all, travel is a public right..." Quite. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Unless you'd rather pay for a flight. Oddly, overall Concorde was a commercial success. Just. But it lost money when flights were first charged at cost. People didn't like bog-standard service on a supersonic flight. It was only when BA made it a premium service with all the bells and whistles at a greatly increased price, that passenger numbers rose and money was made. Somewhat non-intuitive. :^)
-
I would be curious if Verizon owned the land upon which their networks travel or are they offered easements by the government. In this case the market would not be entirely free.
That is a particularly good question. If the government offers the telecom/power/cable companies special protection/access, then there is a question of if that creates a further societal requirement for those industries.
-
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning. So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns? Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company. It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
I see ISPs as merely a physical connection from my house to the internet, they are akin to a router or a switch. For some reason they want to be considered "content providers" ... that idea is laughable. They are more like network operators. I think most would agree, they don't want anyone doing deep packet inspections and getting between their machine and the web servers or other peers they are trying to access. This is an endpoint to endpoint issue with the least amount of interference between the bits from one end getting to the other end, and nothing more. Treat all bits equally, provide them the fastest transport possible, AND AT THE LOWEST COST (without raping anyone).:suss:
David
-
Squeezed out? How? If I drive at 90 mph on the motorway, does that mean you are being squeezed out when you (continue) to drive at 60? Is anybody honestly claiming that if I burn the fuel to drive at 90, I should also pay for everybody else to go that fast too? The internet is not a zero-sum game. Extra speed leads to extra routes/roads/lanes, paid for by the money these 'privileged' customers pay. Look, my boss has a Lamborghini and a £30 million house, because he built the company from nothing. Does anybody think I should automatically get a Lamborghini upgrade at zero cost, plus a mansion, simply because I drive on the same roads and live in the same county?
I think you got your facts wrong. A better analogy would be: Your electricity provider suddenly deciding to stop providing electricity to your freezer unless you pay a "freezer fee" because they struck a deal with the local fast food chain in delivering them more business. That's where the ruling stands, and enables verizon to do, and that's what net neutrality is trying to prevent - Unrestricted access to your desired content/destination .. over the subscribed service (at the bought speeds) As for speed, well so much for the free market here in the US. We've been paying providers premium fees for "high speed" connection which in fact are limited to cable speeds back in the 90s.. sure I might have 20Mbps down, BUT with only 700kbps for upload, this connection becomes useless for anything else than mild browsing and consuming video content. Backups are impossible for example, and online gaming becomes horrible, since you have to UPLOAD quite a lot of data to the other ends. And to why we don't have better? Well, a couple of years ago, verizon struck an exclusivity deal with the local county which bars other providers to run cooper for the next 20 years.. Even better, if you look at the NYC area, you will notice that verizon and comcast have a mutual love.. where you have verizon, comcast refuses to run cooper and vice verse.. Time Warner (the only other smaller provider) is going bankrupt for not having capacity to compete with the other two... And the others, jack up the prices as they see fit. In cases as such, government regulation is a must.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
Christopher Duncan wrote:
telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company.
And therein lies the paradox. The government (supposedly) enacts laws to protect the general population. Let's say you and I were the only makers of corn flakes (and let's assume the public needs to eat corn flakes in order to survive). Assuming a box of cereal cost $1.50 to manufacture and ship, we could privately agree to sell a box of cereal for no less than $5.50. This would ensure we rake in a very healthy profit, without incurring the wrath of the public who has no idea it really costs only $1.50 to make a box of the stuff. The FTC has laws against price fixing and collusion by manufacturers of products to prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening, ostensibly to protect the average Joe. For this reason, even though you and I may feel the government shouldn't interfere with the way we do business, we would be breaking the law. This is obviously an extremely simplistic example.
- Deregulation of services in the 80s was intended to give more freedom (and therefore theoretically increase healthy competition) between providers of services, by reducing the influence of government in overseeing pricing.
- On the flip side (and more recently), Apple has balked at the feds for appointing Mike Bromwich to investigate allegations of the company's alleged violation of anti-trust laws. Apple's management feels Bromwich is interfering with the company's day-to-day operations by requiring that he be permitted to conduct lengthy meetings with their top brass on an ongoing basis.
/ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
"Apple's management feels Bromwich is interfering with the company's day-to-day operations by requiring that he be permitted to conduct lengthy meetings with their top brass on an ongoing basis." This is a red herring. As long as there is due process a company needs to comply. I cant get out of a speeding ticket because it took time for the police officer time to write out a citation can I?
-
Ah yes.. maybe so. but do you use google? The way the net neutrality was written would prevent your browser from EVER GOING TO GOOGLE or probably bing or any other site that has a reference to a copyrighted image that could be downloaded and used in a school project by your kids - who didn't pay the copyright fee. The bill is SCARY. It should not be allowed. The copyright laws are enough. Net Neutrality will put us all in an Orwellian society (assuming you dont think that the governmnet's little project in Utah that captures EVERYTHING YOU DO ON THE ITERNET into a GIANT DATAWARHOUSE for analysis and datamining has not already done so. The thought police are living with us today and this just gives them more power than ever. Net Neutrailty is a VERY VERY SCARY thing. KILL THE BILL!
You're thinking of SOPA, not Net Neutrality. NN is pretty much the polar opposite.
-
Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the average corporation further than I can throw an obese and mildly agitated warthog. That said, this is a slippery slope. Industry a suddenly gets governed by new laws that strip it of its property rights. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not, but now we have industry A asking why every other industry isn't subjected to the same draconian practices, at which point people begin to wonder if or where it will end - should governments take over all businesses? Mostly playing devil's advocate here, but "just make it the law" is the beginning of a dangerous game.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
"now we have industry A asking why every other industry isn't subjected to the same draconian practices" The phone companies are. The oil companies are. Gas companies are. Electric companies are. Water companies are. You can't ask why other industries aren't subject to practices when other industries ARE subject to these practices. If phone companies are subjected to these "draconian practices", why aren't the other telecoms?
-
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning. So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns? Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company. It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns?
What happens if you want to create your own search engine. And google has contracted with every single provider in the country to allow cheaper access to google. So for anyone to use your search engine they will have to pay a fee every time they use it. Is that fair to the start up? Is that fair to the consumer?
-
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning. So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns? Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company. It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
-
"Apple's management feels Bromwich is interfering with the company's day-to-day operations by requiring that he be permitted to conduct lengthy meetings with their top brass on an ongoing basis." This is a red herring. As long as there is due process a company needs to comply. I cant get out of a speeding ticket because it took time for the police officer time to write out a citation can I?
Quite true. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Yes, that's a free market and capitalism. But it's not always that simple. We (in the U.S.) have state laws that prevent gasoline from being sold too cheaply so other mom-and-pop stations can compete with the big boys. In many states it's illegal to sell items below cost in stores. This effectively prevents Wal-Mart from undercutting everyone in town until they are the only ones left. We see lawsuits against price fixing in books taken against Apple. There are dozens of examples like this. My point is that state and federal governments have many rules in place on what type of services can be provided, what must be included in those services, and also the price those services can cost. I see no reason they should not do the same to the Internet providers. That's just my $0.02.
-
Sounds like your market isn't free. Here in the UK it's somewhat different; up until the 1980's the landline network was guberment owned, but when they privatised it, they enforced a policy of allowing other companies to use the hardware. A better example would be mobile. Mobile started in the 80's without legacy regulation pretty much. We ended up with at least 5 independent hardware bases, offering actual competition everywhere. Things slowed up a little after the 3G band auction, due to the large amounts bid, but now they're racing each other to provide 4G. Locally, I only get 2G or Edge, but I don't have to pay anything towards 4G unless it reaches me and I upgrade. How is this harming me? It isn't. I 'have' a 3G contract, but by mixing and matching rural land-based hotspots, I can get around 3G scarcity by factoring in no-cost WiFi links. This is for all mobile devices. Fixed internet is going to become very much a supporting technology in the next few years, as conventional ISP's who attempt to control the flow will be totally outflanked by mobile.
Your analogies are poor. And your comment about mobile is flat out wrong. First mobile will never be as fast. Nor does it have the bandwidth. Second, and more importantly, you are ignoring entirely how your mobile traffic actually flows. Despite marketing claims mobile traffic, moves over the same hardware as land lines. It isn't magic.
-
And I guess the root of that issue is whether or not ISPs and underlying infrastructure are considered a public service company or just a regular for-profit concern.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
Christopher Duncan wrote:
And I guess the root of that issue is whether or not ISPs and underlying infrastructure are considered a public service company
Someone certainly thinks that it is a basic commodity. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23169208/colorado-looks-regulate-broadband-like-phone-service-rural[^]
-
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning. So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns? Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company. It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living with Your Creativity The Career Programmer
This guy explains it all: Ask a Ninja about Net Neutrality
-
Squeezed out? How? If I drive at 90 mph on the motorway, does that mean you are being squeezed out when you (continue) to drive at 60? Is anybody honestly claiming that if I burn the fuel to drive at 90, I should also pay for everybody else to go that fast too? The internet is not a zero-sum game. Extra speed leads to extra routes/roads/lanes, paid for by the money these 'privileged' customers pay. Look, my boss has a Lamborghini and a £30 million house, because he built the company from nothing. Does anybody think I should automatically get a Lamborghini upgrade at zero cost, plus a mansion, simply because I drive on the same roads and live in the same county?
Very poor analogy. More like the boss pays for the toll road which is paved and you have to drive on the gravel road 'cause you can't afford the toll. Like roads, the communications infrastructure is vital to everyone, and that is why there should be regulations in place so that those who haven't had the good luck to be in the right place at the right time to make lots of money are not the only ones to benefit from vital infrastructure...
-
The problem is that Internet carriers are very close to a monopoly in most places. In large cities, there may be two or even three carriers, but they are so large and so much in control of so many types of communications in so many places, that they will inevitably establish similar restrictive rules that gives the consumer or the start-up no real choice at all. The free market is not always free. And that is why regulations are needed.
Who, exactly, do you think creates the monopolistic situation to begin with? Governments are most frequently the unholy partner in alliance with business to create the situation in the first place. This precisely describes the situation that led to the Robber Baron's in the late 19th and early 20th century. Regulation, in and of itself is no barrier to monopolies and big business. Some laws are indeed required to keep the field fair.. but over-reliance on government (also made up of fallible/greedy people) is also not a good choice. Ideally you want a situation where barrier to entry in a marketplace is low so that competition is maintained. That is NOT what the internet is right now. Its still only a few really large carriers that own a ton of wire. I think that is to be expected given the frightful amount of capital required to build out a network (in this way the telecoms resemble the railroads I refer to above), but we should not lose sight of how government magnifies the problem where monopolies are concerned.