Small Cable Groups Seek To Break Net Neutrality

saikou writes "CNet's News.com has a story on the first cable companies openly going against Net Neutrality. As usual, request for equal treatment is labeled as 'special favors', and Google is used as an example of company that should pay for a fast connection to the end user." From the article: "'I think what the phone industry's saying and what we're saying is we've made an investment, and I don't think the government should be coming and telling us how we can work that infrastructure, simple as that,' Commisso said during a panel discussion about issues faced by companies like his, adding, 'Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'"

Comments

Umm...

[grub]

Google, et al. already pay for their bandwidth! This is just extortion to get their traffic in a higher priority QoS queue.

Re:Umm...

[grub]

Sadly this is just another example of some companies trying to nickel and dime people to death in order to maximize revenue at all costs.

Really, I don't view the cableco's ideas as being far off from "Hey Google... accidents happen... packets get lost... connections get unexpectedly closed... it'd be a shame for something to happen to your traffic..."

Re:Umm...

[SnowZero]

Well, the back story is that various internet companies have to eventually transfer data that didn't come from their associate ISP. Since these companies have been unable to work our peering agreements where they pay each other for bandwidth, they've decided to go after the (richest) end users.

Of course, in other technologies such as telephone and physical mail, companies have shown that's its possible to establish international peering agreements where all the parties get paid their share. Amazingly, all the cost shows up in the end-user price, just like what us "Net Neutrality" people are asking for.

I wonder if mail-order businesses such as NewEgg should pay extra for all that shipping "bandwidth" they are using.

Re:Umm...

[Chanc_Gorkon]

If net nutrality starts to slip away, then it's NOT just Google that they will go after. Next will be Microsoft or Yahoo. Next?? Podshow?? It's one of them there slippery slope things....once we start to go down it, we will continue to pay more and more until it's just not feasible to do business on the internet. Net Nutrality is needed....for the good of ALL companies....even AT&T....

This may or may not be true, but personally, I think this may all stem from AT&T being pissed that Google does not buy bandwidth from them.

Re:Umm...

[LordKazan]

Don't get me wrong, I am a major fan of free markets and capitalism... something we really don't have in this area in large part because of government regulations and municipal/regional monopolies that do much to lock out competition.

This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of capitalism. Capitalism is not "laissez-faire", capitalism collapses into cartels and monopolies in a laissez-faire environment. Capitalism only works when the transactions are fair, that's why you have government regulations, some things are more costly to the public than their worth (polution) and hence should also be restricted. Furthermore in situations of a power inequity between the two parties involved in the transaction (say: on life-criticial services like electricity, water, heating gas) the stronger party [the seller in these cases] can force unfair terms upon the customer - yet another situation in which the government must step in to ensure a fair transaction.

If you do not ensure fair transactions capitalism does not function. Adam Smith, father of capitalism, recognized this himself.

Municipal/regional monopolies on infrastructure services (gas, power, data, water) are not necessarily bad- however how they are managed here is terribly bad - they get away with screwing over the customer left and right because they greasy the palms of corrupt politicians of all stripes.

Re:Umm...

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I had a similar idea but without paying for any trial.

Surely Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc can identify trafic originating from that ISP via IP addresses. When anyone trys to access your page from one of those ISP, redirect them to a page explaining that the ISP is holding back bandwidth to this site so your expierence may be slower than it should be. Then provide information about competing ISPs in the area which don't do this as well as contact information to the ISP to complain. Then after 5 seconds or something you are redirected to the actual page.

Yes, this will probably annoy users but I think that annoyance will mostly be focused toward the ISP. Then the market can sort out if its worth it to implement this.

Re:Umm...

[loners]

Just display a page with a message saying "XYZ isp is making you wait N seconds before accessing Google".
Using the end user's ISP named and N being the average from that ISPs throttling. Include a link to a page explaining what the ISP is actually doing - slowing down the users connection to try to make someone else pay them money. In other words the users service was reduced intentionally (without notifying them). Just use simple words because most users don't have a clue about computers.

Re:Umm...

[SnowZero]

You forget that in both of those cases, the "end user" winds up paying more for the use of certain infrastructure, like transoceanic cables, satellite time, or airmail.

No I did not forget. In fact, the price paid was exactly my point. If an ISP wanted to start charging more for longer distance bandwidth, then it would be a similar situation, and one I'd be willing to accept. However that's not what the telcos are asking for at all. They want to tax profitable companies that use their service, and NOT do it through negotiation with the hosting ISP of said company.

If I call Bulgaria, it may cost more, but I still get a bill from AT&T, not from a Bulgarian company. I certainly don't get a bill from "FranceTelecom", or some other intermediary who happened to carry the call. The reason for this is that those companies have worked out profitable peering agreements between themselves. I also do not get charged extra if my call happened to earn me money because it was for business purposes.

How about another analogy: I buy a truck from a car salesman (as an individual). Then I use said truck as part of my contracting business, which turns out to be profitable. Then the car salesman comes back and tells me I owe him more for the truck, as additional fees apply when I make a profit with the truck he sold me. Nothing stating this is in the original sales agreement.

This is exactly what the telcos are now doing. They want to charge extra for bandwidth that is already being paid for, simply for the fact that companies are making a profit off the bandwidth they paid for. If level3 wants more money, they should take it up with their peering ISPs, not the customers. The Entire Cost Should be in the Original Price Paid.

P.S. Large sites already do pay a price based on bandwidth used. It is usually some combination of peak usage and total GB transferred. Individuals are paying mainly for overhead and the last mile infrastructure, which is where most of the investment is anyway (hence the flat fees for most home ISPs).

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed his point. A fair transaction isn't just "mutually beneficial", it is also between entities of similar bargaining power, or in the absence of this level playing field, the transaction is fair if it would have been made the same way between equal players. Conclusively, fair transactions cannot occur in monopoly situations where the other side doesn't have the option not to buy and the monopolistic player seeks maximum gain.

Let's say you own an oasis in the middle of the desert. If you charge a million bucks for a glas of water, that isn't a fair transaction, even though buying a glass at that price would still be beneficial to someone who's about to die of thirst. A fair price would be whatever you could charge if the thirsty stranger had other options of quenching his thirst (and you had more thirsty strangers to sell to). But that is hard to determine, so usually cost plus some reasonable surcharge for your effort would be seen as a fair price.

Because it's ours

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'

Because the citizens paid for the telecom infrastructure.

Re:Because it's ours

[Khammurabi]

Because the citizens paid for the telecom infrastructure.

And there-in lies the rub. We built it initially, but I'm pretty sure the telcos maintain it (at least I tend to see their vans near construction sites and not federal marked vans). Unfortunately this gives them a valid point in which to make a ruckus. Since the internet is not regulated like a utility, market forces are free to come up with whatever assinine system they can to make money off of it. We shouldn't be surprised to see this happening.

Telecom companies are having a tougher time making their shareholders happy. The Telcos haven't found a way to increase profits at the same pace that internet companies have done, yet these same companies are profiting off of the delivery path maintained by said telcos. (AKA: Chokepoint) Every telco executive is going to latch on to this as a way to make thier company more profitable, and won't stop until some legal force smacks them down.

Begin Outlandish Analogy

Let's say all road maintenance in my state is performed by Company A. This company charges each driver a fee based on the top speed of their automobile. However, unlike traditional road repair, Company A's maintenance costs are only higher if there are more roads (not if there is increased traffic on the same roads).

Now then, let's suppose an executive at Company A finally notices that all roads leading to Smallville are packed with end to end traffic. There are two ways he can choose to profit off of this observation. The first method is to charge the customer more (via toll roads) to reach Smallville. The second method is to charge the city of Smallville a fee based on what speed limit the roads leading into the city are at. The first method upsets the drivers, who are already paying for the use of the roads. The second method upsets the city (and equates to extortion), who promptly begs the state to pass a law preventing the questionable behavior.

End Outlandish Analogy

Make no mistake, the only way to prevent a tiered internet from forming in this market driven economy is through state / federal intervention. The telcos are collectively "losing" money, and not a single one of them is going to be against a tiered internet strategy. Their stockholders demand it. So unless Google teams up with other powerful websites, Uncle Sam is the only one who's going to stop this from happening.

Singing two tunes

[ConversantShogun]

Butt out, government, and stop regulating our industry (except when we want you to prevent people from building their own infrastructures, like community- and municipality-based WiFi networks.)

Re:Singing two tunes

[Qzukk]

The best option would be for me to cut the line running under my lawn and keep cutting it until they pay me or move the line somewhere else.

Bad Analogy

[MECC]

"Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?"

While the government doesn't really say what exactly to charge for gas, they do insist that prices are at least fair , just as net access should be. Besides, didn't the federal government give huge amounts to cable companies when they pledged to "build fiber optic to the home" back in the nineties? Or was that the telcos? I didn't get a reference to that, but I remember reading about it.

Is it just me, or does the title 'CEO' these days somehow imply criminal in addition to stupid?

Of course

[hey!]

we've made an investment, and I don't think the government should be coming and telling us how we can work that infrastructure, simple as that

Of course. And making the investment means you own the results. If the public wanted a say in the Internet, then they should have come up with the investment money to make it possible, instead of leaving it to the private sector.

Oh, wait.

Of lines and government easements....

[jjh37997]

Sure.... the phone and cable companies put a lot of money into installing their lines and normally I'd say they should be free to do whatever they like with them. However, lets look where most of these lines are. Do the phone and cable companies own all of the land where their lines run? Hell no! They got an easements from the government and that gives the government some say in how these lines are used. If the cable and phone companies don't like that they can damn well buy all of the bloody land that their lines run through!

Re:Simple solution

[Nurseman]

switch off googles for cox and see what happens

Not to be a troll, just Devils Advocate. What do you think would happen if Cox "blocked" Google. Do you think the vast majority of Cox users would care enough to switch ? Do you think they have the ability to switch ?

To me this is scarier than any MS monolopy. With MS I have alternatives. I have no other choice for highspeed other than RoadRunner. I cannot get DSL, and have only one provider. What happens tomorrow if they decide to throttle back Gmail, and throttle up Hotmail ??

This is something that needs more press.

Bad analogy

[ktappe]

Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'

Because there are a myriad of oil companies and filling stations in my neighborhood. However, there's only one monopoly ISP. Second, that's a bad analogy because the government isn't trying to tell the ISPs what to charge, just what type of service to provide (that is, equal service for all packets). The government most certainly does tell oil companies what quality of gas they must provide.

-Kurt

Why the public has the right to net neutrality

[sourcery]

The government (DARPA) invented the internet--using public funds.

Federal law protects common carriers. In exchange for that legal protection, the public has every right to require "net neutrality." If the communications companies want to run their networks their own way, then they must give up all the legal protections they currently enjoy. They must become directly and fully responsible for the content of every message sent accross their networks. The RIAA is drooling.

Huh?

[MrZaius]

I work for a small cable company, and I'd get skinned alive by my customers if I aggressively lowered the QoS of google et al. That said, I don't understand what this whole debate is about. It's only the peer-to-peer and big-file-http traffic that causes any sort of spike in our traffic. If we were to charge Google for their traffic, it wouldn't amount to anything next to, say, iFilm/YouTube/planet(quake/halflife/etc) or local companies' ftpds and httpds that their employees connect to from home. Presumably the former couldn't pay for a reliable connection, and assuredly the latter would jump ship.

Anyone who actually implements anything other than net neutrality is shooting themselves in the foot.

No Net Neutrality = No Cable Franchise For You

[tlabetti]

If you support Net Neutrality then you should be making your case locally. If your existing cable company's cable franchise is up for renewal or if AT&T or Verizon are applying to operate a cable TV franchise in your town then you should be asking them about Net Neutrality.

If they won't address the issue then you should press your local officials to reject their application.

If the local cable application goes away then we need to make Net Neutrality part of the discussion when state or national franchise applications take place.

If your town disagrees with a company's business practice then you shouldn't do business with them.

I'm pushing these issues locally. You can see how at: http://www.redbanktv.org/

Don't we already have tiered service?

[maillemaker]

Content providers are already paying for some level of bandwidth on their end.

Consumers are already paying for some level of bandwidth on their end.

Bandwidth purchasers should be able to use what they are paying for - period.

If the pipeline owners are not making enough money because people are using what they are paying for, then they need to raise their prices.

I don't have a problem with different tiers of service offerings. I have this already at home - there are two or three levels of speed I could pay my ISP for. I imagine Google has similar options.

The inconsistency here is that the pipeline owners charge for tiers of service, but they don't guarantee any level of service - it's "best effort". If they want to start charging for specific levels of service and holding people's feet to the fire, then it better go both ways. If I'm paying for the "gold" level of service I better get it.

Steve

MOD PARENT UP!

[mrchaotica]

If the ISPs get to decide what to do with "their" infrastructure even if it was originally paid for by taxes, then we should get to decide what to do with our property, even if it's on the "right of way"!

The Cash Cow says "Moooooch."

[Kadin2048]

What more is there to this?

Billions of dollars a year in extortion--I mean, revenue--for the telecommunications companies?

That's really all there is to it. They've figured out that they can't maintain the sort of growth that they've had over the past decade or so (because there's nowhere to expand to), so now they're trying to figure out ways to squeeze more money out of their existing customers. Because even if you don't realize it, everyone using the Internet is an indirect customer of the backbone providers. You pay your ISP, your ISP maybe pays another ISP, that ISP pays for a connection to the backbone. They get their tithe, it just goes via your local provider first.

And there's really no way to rake in the dough like making people pay for something twice. Here's what the backbone providers want: the source of the packets pays for access (a portion of which makes its way up the chain to them), the destination of the packets pays for access (also trickles up to them), and the source and the destination both pay directly for increased QoS if they don't want said packets to spend a few seconds in the purgatorial "low-rent buffer" on their way across the network.

It's just a protection racket, but without any of that messy kneecap-smashing business.

Re:The Cash Cow says "Moooooch."

[BRSQUIRRL]

And there's really no way to rake in the dough like making people pay for something twice. Here's what the backbone providers want: the source of the packets pays for access (a portion of which makes its way up the chain to them), the destination of the packets pays for access (also trickles up to them), and the source and the destination both pay directly for increased QoS if they don't want said packets to spend a few seconds in the purgatorial "low-rent buffer" on their way across the network.

I would go one step further. To understand what they REALLY want, I think you have to get a bit psychological:

Your average corporate executive types, with their business degrees and business experience, have gotten to where they are by using their understanding of capitalistic concepts like control of supply, scarcity, and material goods. This is especially true of those in the content business (the "traditional" cable and media industries).

The internet, at its most fundamental level, simply doesn't work that way. Sure, you can use the internet to sell advertising, or you can sell access to the infrastructure itself, but the internet is ultimately a free medium: anyone can put anything onto it, and anyone can retrieve anything from it. As someone here once wrote, "trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." It is the great equalizer; no one "controls" it...and the corporations who utilize it to do business are ultimately just users like the rest of us. And I think because of this (and despite the fact that these corporations themselves benefit from the internet) they subconsciously DESPISE the way it works, because they can't control it.

What do they really want the internet to be? Cable television. They control what is broadcast and distributed and they also control what you can access: "I'm sorry, but 'www.google.com' is not available as part of your current access package. You must upgrade to our Premium Package to access that site."

What they seem to forget...

[robertjw]

These cable companies are being a bit shortsighted. This greed is going to come back to bite them in the ass. If they give up their Net Neutrality, all of the sudden they are going to have a responsibility for the traffic that goes across their network. This means the MPAA and RIAA will be lining up to sue them, they will have to put a stop to 'pirate' traffic and customers will leave them in droves. Many of the people I know only pay for high speed Internet because of 'illegal' activities.

Parents will start suing because little Johnny was looking at porn, terrorist victims will be suing because al-qaeda used the network, joe six-pack will sue because he got screwed on the time machine he bought on ebay, Grandma Johnson will sue because she sent all her money to Nigeria.

People do a lot of stupid stuff on the Internet. Giving up Common Carrier status could very well result in ISP's losing immunity for third party content and open Pandora's Box.