Slashdot Mirror
Dueling Network Neutrality Commentary on NPR
cube farmer writes Wednesday National Public Radio featured a commentary by telecom representative Scott Cleland in opposition to Network Neutrality legislation. Thursday Craig Newmark, the Craig behind craigslist, countered that Network Neutrality is essential for consumers. Who made the stronger case?
I feel Craig made the stronger argument - as it was plain and simple. Although I found it interesting that both referred to how the net is *now* as being what they believe it should be. Craig believes it's free now and should remain so. Scott Cleland seemed to say that it's open now, and to keep it open, close it down. Odd that..
{} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
Except I only heard the commentary from Scott Cleland. It was chock full of misinformation and outright lies. I have never been even remotely "upset" after listening to a story on NPR, and after having heard this, I was incensed and immediately wrote an angry feedback message to NPR about it.
Point and counterpoint debate is good, but they need to air them both back-to-back, lest they let the lobbyist get away with the utter crap he was spewing.
I even tuned into Morning Edition yesterday morning specifically to hear the counterpoint argument, and it didn't air at the same time of day.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
seemed to be about equally persuasive. The internet has been a level playing feild (or close to one) for a long time which is what makes it so interesting, is net neutrality going to give the gov't license to unlevel it how they see fit or will the goverment protect us from the big nasty tel-cos?
And it wasn't just that I disagreed with him over net neutrality. He couldn't make a case that letting telco's balkanize the internet was in the interests of the consumer.
The way I see it this is nothing more than pure greed from AT&T (we know how much they look out for consumer interests), Bellsouth and handful of other companies all of which got a sweet deal when the internet was privatized. But in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately corporate handout game, that history doesn't seem to matter now. There's a reason Bellsouth has a thirty person lobbying office on K Street. They spend millions on the hill and wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think there were billions waiting at the other end of this sweetheart legislation.
If internet traffic is such a burden, sell of those assets and move into another line of business. If it's such a loser, get of the business. Because I'm all a flutter over poor, poor Bellsouth not being able to set up toll booths on the net so they can charge at both ends of the pipe.
What's new and interesting to me is how special interest legislation is now connected to massive PR campaigns. The RIAA's launch to equate copyright infringement with theft, even though they are very different issues. The TV commercials touting tons of CO2 as a good thing for the environment. I'm just getting sick of corporate interests propagandizing TV and the mainstream media for political issues.
I want my government back, I want my news to be written by real journalists, not PR staff angling for a press hit, I want my privacy back and I want to own the data about me. Why is that asking so much?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Once people start thinking of making the Internet ready for VOIP 911 calls and other emergency traffic, without 'net neutrality' safeguards in place, the government will have to take on the task of architecting and enforcing standards to make sure that emergency traffic is tagged and treated right. If the telcos are uncomfortable with net neutrality legislation, I wonder how they feel about having the government telling them exactly how to do QOS/diffserv. The sheer size of such a regulatory task would easily dwarf any kind of net neutrality bill. They're actually asking to be regulated even more than under net neutrality.
Some groups are already raising the issue of whether or not the Internet should be capable of providing prioritization for emergencies
Worse still, in the end, if the telcos end up selling prioritization to content providers, those content providers, once they measure what they get, will find it poor and inconsistent anyway. QOS/diffserv pretty much needs end-to-end compliance to really make a consistent difference, especially at the ends (local ISP) where traffic loads are more variable and fanned out. Backbone setups won't matter nearly as much as last mile setups because the loads are static.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
The congresscritters claim to be examining this issue fairly on behalf of the consumer. Here's the response from my representative after signing the google petition:
Dear Mr. xxxxxx:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the issue of internet neutrality. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and the opportunity to respond to you.
Net neutrality is the philosophy that internet service providers (ISP's) should not be allowed to prioritize content and services (particularly video) that come across their "pipes". I believe there is a need to strike a balance between preventing interference with internet traffic, while allowing the ISP's to continue to invest in this nation's internet and telecom infrastructure. Ultimately, I think it is important to provide equal access for these consumers and a balanced playing field for all involved. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and will keep them in mind as legislation comes before the Senate for consideration.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator
For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at
http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm
This same argument was used to deregulate california power companies in the 90s so they would have incentives to build more power stations, it didn't work. Rolling blackouts(or in this case poor service based on your packet identity) on the internet will not 'benefit consumers'.
The government should rigorously regulate the telecoms to _ensure_ best access for _all_ consumers, as well as allowing new technologies like youtube.com a chance to grow. I'd much rather see my tax dollars subsidizating of faster routers than supporting more bloodshed in Iraq.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
BANDWAGON = RIGHT
?
I have repeatedly asked this on forums where the consensus is largely pro-net-neutral, and never get a good answer. I'll try again.
If creating a tiered internet:
1. does not worsen my connection *at all*
2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly
3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it
why should I care? It seems almost as if tiered internet could be a good thing because it would allow many applications of the internet, such as VOIP and video over IP (which were promised to us a long time ago but still not delivered in a good way) to function better.
I would appreciate a well thought out response from someone who is educated in this well enough to not start with "I think..." or "maybe this will happen..." I have, time and time again, seen people make vague claims (eg. "you can't trust the telco companies, anything they do is bad") and repeating what the corporations that will not benefit from this say (eg. google and amazon). But can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?
I disagree with your thinking and wish to unsubscribe from your mailing list.
/.er
:-)
I like making choices based on the relative merits of the options and not so much on the people/organizations/entities tied to the options. But hey, I guess I'm just not a typical knee-jerk reactionary
We can get this law thrown out too... Just point out that the only internet companies that make enough money to pay for the top speed packages are pr0n sites. Just think how much more people would pay if they could get access to their quality pr0n even faster!
That will shut the conservative majority right up!
/whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
Since when has RTFAing been a prerequisite here at Slashdot? Part of the reason I come here is to read the diverse commentary on the subject. I rarely read the articles, and I really don't care if the posters read the articles either. However with that said, my personal opinion is that the post in question is not worthy of moderation either direction because its author didn't put any effort into the post.
-
Now to get back to the topic: I did read the articles. If I had to rate the pieces as essays, I would give Cleland an A- and Newmark an D. Clealand makes a very concise point and summarizes his position, while Newmark stumbles along aimlessly and concludes with a statement of his opponents' viewpoint. If you don't read Newmark's piece carefully, you'll think he agrees with Cleland.
Personally, I think we probably need a bit of regulation, but I think it's too early to write the legislation. I really don't trust Congress to get it right, especially when we haven't yet seen anyone do the things the bill is supposed to address.
1) Who is they?
2) AFAIK, network neutrality has nothing to do with regulating the prices or how it is sold.
Are there multiple things going under the name of network neutrality? Network neutrality, as I know it, is codifying into law the existing way the internet already works. It involves no new regulations, no special agencies, nothing about prices, or sales, etc. Am I wrong? Or are these guys making up FUD to confuse the issue?
Improve things? We're just trying to keep things from getting worse!
"Damage control" describes most of my political action lately - I generally fancy myself as a progressive, bleeding heart left liberal (yes there's a bit of sarcasm in there for some of you), but lately I have found myself feeling like a bit of a short-term regressivist - I would like to turn back the political clock to September 10, 2001. Ironically, I would consider this "progress."
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
You are correct that government regulations do lead to less compitition and less consumer choice. However, there is something else in this situation that is causing the problem. Economists call this "barriers to entry". There isn't a lot of compitition because the costs to run wires to every household is really really expensive. So as a consumer your only left with two companies that have wires running into your home, the cable guys, and the telephone guys. This is why regulation is needed, and economists would agree.
If there is no rule telling the cable and telephone companies to behave there is no incentive for them to provide better or expanded service. They have a lock on the market and are willing to make larger profits off a starving market. And squeeze it they will. Do you think the internet market is something we want to starve to death?
The only hope is that wi-fi will free business from having to hook a wire up to every household.
If the carriers think they can get away charging more, let them try it.
Sure let them try charging their customers more. If I want google.com to download faster than the next guy, then charge me more. But going to google and saying that we are going to make it look like it is your company's fault for slow download speeds if you don't pay us a kickback, is not a legitamite business practice.
In fact I really don't see anything supporting this practice in the current law, so the only question I have is why the FTC and attorney generals wouldn't just prohibit it under existing laws.
I mean is it a legitamite practice for blackmailers to DoS attack a web site in order to exact extortion money? Why would the telecoms in effect doing the same thing be considered legitamite?
One of the things that the NPR broadcasts helped to underline in my mind was the fact that there is a presumption in all the commentary on this issue so far that the battle is between the telcos (really ISPs of any stripe) and the content providers. And while these interests do represent certain vested Internet players, they ignore the group that is the predominant player on the Internet: the users. The obvious answer is that the telcos and content providers each shout with a [somewhat] unified voice, they've got the money, and they are interested in the outcome.
Where is the American Automobile Association for Internet users? I know of no such organization that is the AAA's analog in the Internet community, and just like AAA has worked on issues that effect drivers in the U.S., we need the same kind of unified lobbying force on behalf of the Internet user community. Irrespective of your stance on this issue, it should be pretty obvious that without involving the users, neither side on this debate is going to come up with a solution that benefits anyone but themselves.
<epiphany>Hey, an American Computer Association [for lack of a better name] could even use the 'roadside service' type approach that AAA uses, where if you were interested, you could pay a membership fee and get technical support in return!</epiphany>
Cross-reference both of those made-for-radio essays with Bob Cringely's latest article. It all leads me to believe that the best "solution" to apply to Net Neutrality at this point is more "benign neglect" -- and on top of that, my paranoia operates at such a hair-trigger that I wonder what other intrusive regulations are going to get slid in along with whatever legislation gets put forward and will certainly not be vetoed by the smirking chimp.
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Actually, here's a very simple legal definition of good network neutrality:
That essentially sums up the net neutrality debate and solves it in one paragraph. I challange anyone to come up with a more succinct statement, or to give an example where Something Bad Happens(TM) because of that statement that couldn't otherwise happen.
They misrepresent the issue badly and it goes downhill from there. That article simply proves that academics have no clue either, and fail to apply critical thinking to the positions which are communicated to them.
How is Wharton wrong? Let's see:
- I work in DC, for a trade association, and around here it is called the Law of Unintended Consequences. It's a law because anything, including inaction, is guaranteed to have some unintended consequences. If avoiding unintended consequences was the bar for Congressional action nothing would ever get done. It is a content-free, all-purpose argument used to stall progress on any issue of your choice (witness: global warming).
- Congress has been making laws about telecommunications since at least 1934. It's a little late to argue that they shouldn't do anything. In fact the current mess is a direct result of the 1996 Telecomm Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it as announced last June. So let's not pretend that the Internet was free of regulation until now. In fact it has been heavily regulated from the very beginning, by Congress. It's a far more accurate view to say that Congress is considering unfucking Internet regulation, as opposed to saying that they are fucking it for the first time.
- One way the Internet was regulated was through the concept of "common carrier" which dates back to the 19th century and the development of the railroads. ISPs until recently were required to be neutral because their signals were all carried over telephone lines (the dial up era), which are subject to common carrier regs. The introduction of the cable modem raised the question of whether that infrastructure was common carrier, and the question of common carrier on cable networks was what the Supreme Court decided last June. They decided it does not apply, which would seem to allow cable networks to do whatever the fuck they want on their pipes.
- The current fuss is due to the ILECs (old telephone companies) demanding parity with the cable companies. They are asking Congress to re-write the 1996 Telecomm Act to give telephone companies the same freedom as cable companies. As a result anything the FCC says (their "4 assurances" included) is not worth two shits because the FCC can only implement the laws as written by Congress. They can promise you the moon today but if Congress gives it away then tough shit. DO NOT think that access to content is safe. If the cable and telephone companies get their way in the re-write, they will have the power to do whatever they want, including slow down or even block whatever content they feel like. Assurances from the FCC made now have no bearing on the issue, because the problem is in Congress, who overrides the FCC.
- The question of prioritizing new types of data, and companies like Akamai, are not related to the concept of net neutrality. Those are red herrings put up by the ISPs to distract and confuse. Net neutrality is about being content neutral not technology neutral. Net neutrality provisions, if written correctly, would allow the development of new services and routing technologies, but they would have to be based on technical factors, not content or originating IP. These proposals are out on the table but are ignored by the big ISPs in favor of manipulation, lying and distortion in an attempt to grab absolute power over what you can see and do on the Internet.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
That's the whole point of this debate. The Supreme Court decided, based on the 1996 Telecomm Act, that cable Internet service is not subject to common carrier status, and that will go into effect this August. However DSL and other telco lines still are considered common carrier. Hence the huge amount of money the telco companies are spending now, to convince Congress to rewrite the 1996 Act to free them from common carrier laws too.
BUT what Congress should do is simply rewrite the laws to re-apply common carrier to cable Internet. That would reset the bar to where it was one year ago. Tell your member of Congress.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.