Slashdot Mirror
The Case Against Net Neutrality
jeek writes "While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that Net Neutrality may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates net neutrality, policies for internet access are set by one entity: the FCC. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the FCC’s policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
What other service provider?
I like the government model better, since there isn't really much competition and there probably won't be, given the cost of infrastructure.
If you don't like your internet service provider's policies, you can simply switch to another one.
Assuming, of course, you actually do have a choice, the market works, the providers do not collude on anything and the big players don't dictate de factor policies.
Or, in other words: In the ideal dreamworld of the free market fanatics, there's always this "competition" solution that solves every problem and gives the best answer to every question. In the real world, things are quite a bit more complicated.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Aggregates your two DSL ISPs and 2 cable modem ISPs so you can get to youtube , hulu, netflix AND facebook through one easy Ethernet connection! Eliminate that pesky unplugging and cable mess!
In our region of the US, there are roughly two choices of ISP. Cable based, and DSL based. Sure you can go wireless, and get lousy speed. Maybe you have more choices on the coastal cities, but for a large population, there are too few choices to make this model work.
If you don't like the FCC regulations, write your congressperson, get them changed.
You must be new here...
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
... regulating work conditions. If you don't LIKE how the government runs the coal mines of the great british empire, your only choice is to leave for th ecountry and haul manure on a farm. If the coal industry self-regulates, you're free to go work at another coal mine if you don't like the labor conditions there. This is the case against government interference in the great industrial age.
You really trust big corporations to act solely in your personal best interest and not the interest of their shareholders?
If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one.
Hahahahaha! That's a good one. And here I thought I was already tolerating ISP abuse, crappy upload speeds, poorly maintained infrastructure, and false service tech. arrival times because I just felt it was the right thing to do. Now that I know I have a choice to work with an ISP that will treat me with respect and dignity well, gosh darn, I'll just hop on over this month.
Oh wait.
I don't know if this article was written by someone in another country or what, but like most of our shitty national industries (cell phones, auto insurance, medical services, political parties, etc.) we in the U.S. don't have any choice in what services are provided to us by our ISP. We might have the illusion of choice in one area or another, depending on how badly your local branch wants to maintain reputation, but real choice? Nah, this is the freedom lovin' US of A. We don't do that sort of thing here.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
How about the model in which it is illegal for a company to both own the pipes and have any interests in the IP that may be flowing through it? The model in which their would be huge fines (more than what they actually earned to make it an actual penalty) when it is shown that they had any deals to profit on the IP flowing through them?
Cuz, I don't know... maybe the worst possibility is one in which the vastly huge amount of choices I have in ISP providers will limit, or aggressively manage, the content I can access because it conflicts with their goal to monetize their own copyright catalogues?
Hmmm... this line of thought sounds familiar for some reason.
If the government regulates [mortgages], policies for [mortgages] are set by one entity: the [FTC]. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don't like the [FTC]'s policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don't like your [mortgage banker]'s policies, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?
-Glires
Stop over-subscribing the lines and actually invest in infrastructure. Verizon was for a while but it seems their FIOS rollout is over, sadly it never reached me.
1) Net neutrality extends further than your ISP. You only have "control" over who provides you the last leg.
2) Control in #1 is quoted, because you may only have one viable option. Lucky if you have two. Very lucky if you have more than 2.
3) Most smaller DSL providers, fixed wireless, etc are backended onto one of the few major telcos. They are often at the mercy of these back end providers, and in turn the end user has no control either.
Regulatory oversight is needed when an industry is a monopoly or oligopoly (few participants, high barriers to entry, etc). Telecom is such an industry. The FCC may not be perfect, but it is necessary.
OK, I doubt that many slashdotters, who are typically Libertarian-leaning, will be able to hear what I'm saying. But here is is anyway: free-market fundamentalism is foolish and greedy. It's what got us into trouble with the current economic meltdown. Repeating the mantra "the free market will solve everything" is really very similar to belief in the second coming of Jesus, fairies, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sadly, we cannot trust government to do the right thing (whatever that is), but neither can we trust the free market. And by "free market," I mean obnoxiously large and powerful corporations. I would rather take my chances with the government; at least there's a tiny bit of accountability there. They've done some good things in the past, such as abolishing slavery and setting minimum wages. Without government intervention, the sacred "free market" would still use the blood of slaves to oil the engines of industry. Now it's just overseas wage slavery, which is something of an improvement, I guess.
...than policies set by monopolists or duopolists.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Thus what we need is network transparency: ISPs must disclose what their policies are: how they shape and manipulate traffic in ways that may benefit or may damage users. And we need active verification of such policies, because although most ISPs will be honest, some won't be.
I have one choice for highspeed internet.
Transparency will not help me if my ISP decides to implement shitty policies.
All things being equal, government regulation is less of a burden to me and millions of other Americans than boxing up our lives and moving.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I mean, really, why should there be laws against fraud? I mean, someone rips you off, you just go do business with someone else (who also rips you off, because it's legal). False advertising? I mean, if companies use false advertising, it'll catch up to them and you'll do business with someone else. Your roof caves in on your family's heads because the contractor cut corners on material or workmanship, and didn't build the supporting structures right? Do business with a different contractor next time. Airlines don't maintain their planes right, and kill or disable passengers? Well, people will just do business with other airlines, right?
Maybe your employer should be free to expose you to hazardous materials or unsafe working conditions? I mean, you can always quit and go work for someone else, right?
I'm sorry, but there's some business practices which businesses should never be free to do. I'm sure there is room for disagreement on whether Net non-neutrality rises to that standard, but my point is, just saying that people can take their business elsewhere is A) not always true - as others have mentioned, in some localities, there is basically a monopoly on broadband Internet, and B) dodges the issue of whether anybody should ever be allowed to implement such network management policies, to begin with.
Net non-neutrality will, over time, seriously degrade what the Internet is for many customers. It will lead to a lot of anti-competitive behaviors wherein ISPs disadvantage some content providers over other content providers (or their own in-house content). It will do so in such a way that customers will have *no idea* that their ISP is to blame (in some cases), and will wrongly blame the content provider, or in some other cases (prohibitively small/overpriced bandwidth caps, for example, where it would be more expensive to upgrade to a useful 'tier' of bandwidth allotment so they could use Netflix, Hulu, or something similar to get TV programming and movies, instead of subscribing/upgrading to the ISPs own cable-TV packages for the same or similar content), the customers might know the ISP is to blame, but not have much or any recourse to correct the problem.
I'll just change out a few words a see how it sounds.."
"While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that environmental control may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates environmental control, policies for environmental impact are set by one entity: the EPA. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the EPA's policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your oil/chemical/waste/paper mill/ environmental impact, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
See for me, a purpose for government is to stop (or slow) the wanton behavior of business since its goal is profit, not societal responsibility. Until everyone in this country had multiple choices for internet access we absolutely need a power that can step in between the consumer and business and say to business "you need to play nice now".
Before I moved I had two providers, Charter or DSL via AT&T for home broadband. Now because I went more rural I only have one (dsl and satellite for TV). In no way does that provide me the power to speak with my pocket book unless I turn off tune out and read books. The Government is not evil or incompetent in most ways and overall the FCC has performed a good balancing act between public interest and private interest. The last entity I want deciding access to what I consider a utility today is a corporate CEO who's focus is on his pocket, not mine. Try this with water or electric and people would scream bloody murder.
For fun, if NN is removed, I'd like to see taxes adjusted such that providers that throttle or tier access pay a higher tax vs providers that keep one tier, no limits, but adjust package costs by bandwidth (like now).
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
under some definitions of network neutrality, various useful traffic shaping
QoS falls under no one's definition of network neutrality. Those who conflate QoS with network neutrality are engaging in FUD. They are deliberately confusing the nomenclature in order to scare people away from true network neutrality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Network neutrality is the status quo. The unintended consequences from maintaining an acceptable status quo are likely to be acceptable.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Government regulation also creates an economic 'level playing field'. Typically, one of the biggest problems of the laissez faire model of the free market is that, once someone figures out a way to get an economic advantage by business practices which are harmful, but save money or increase revenue, it will eventually force most other players in the market to adopt the same practices - because either the ones getting the advantage from the harmful practices are able to undercut the competition on price, substantially, or because they make enough money that they start cornering the market on resources that are necessary to stay in business (think of very large successful companies cornering the market on commodities, oil fields, skilled labor, equipment, etc - there's many ways for companies, outside of regulation, to make it extremely difficult or impossible for other companies to compete with them, and it all starts with inflating profits enough to have the capital to begin those types of strategies).
Yes, many of those strategies are illegal, but if we followed the logic of the guy quoted in the article, that's right where we'd be.
What other service provider?
Just like picking between cellular providers or big banks. Unregulated markets tend to function more like a cartel than a true open market. Limiting choices and competition instead of enhancing it.
We've been listening to the government is bad tripe for 40 years. What we got back for it were environmental disasters, economic train wrecks, the concentration of wealth, higher prices, less competition and corporate rule.
There's nothing free about the market we have today.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Let the phone and cable companies decide who goes on the network, and they'll get as close as they can to a walled garden full of their business partners.
Let the net remain an open playing field, and you get true competition.
Maintaining competition in the marketplace is an accepted function of government.
Over the last couple of decades, the Nethead way has brought us Google. The Bellhead way has brought us ringtones. You decide.
this may be the new motto for our 'new world order'. basically a revision on 'trust but verify'. or, more plainly stated, nothing and no one can be implicitly trusted.
your argument is that given a choice between trusting the government and trusting big business, you'll go with the gov. that seems like a fallacy of false choice; why does it have to be a trust of one OR the other? why can't it be equal mistrust in all entities?
by design, the US constitution assumed that governments would naturally grow large and powerful; and for every example they saw, back then, it didn't work out well. they wanted to change that and limit the power governments (and those *in* power) had. and it worked. for a while.
but now, I'm not sure that the system works anymore. governments are totally out of control and out of touch with what people want and need. governments and big business are too well-entangled and neither serves 'regular people' anymore. choosing one over the other to 'govern us' isn't any kind of choice at all!
I believe that if the framers of the constitution were alive today and living in this world, they'd include limits on *corporate power* as well as governmental power. we'd have a much better system and it would take into account our new (last few hundred years) worth of experience and lessons we learned.
we should not willingly give more power to *either*. I guess that's my point. fire or frying pan is no choice for me.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If you don’t like the FCC’s policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States....
What? You mean it's impossible to vote for a congress that will regulate the FCC?? Just because we won't doesn't mean we can't... Idiot article!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Yep, the government has a monopoly on governing. How dare they! What revolutionary war gave THEM the right? (...oh, right...)
US capitalism seems to breed oligopolies. AFAIK it's been a while since the Sherman Antitrust Act was actually used - and even longer since it was used effectively. I doubt governing internet megapowers less is going to give the public more choices. The idea is flawed, at face value. The concept of the argument seems only naively pallapable (or worse).
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Net Neutrality is only an issue because the government is already interfering with the ISP market. The government grants all kinds of franchise contracts and emminent domain (redistribution of private property) to telcos and ISPs, which distorts the market by creating the very monopolies that we all hate. Once the ISPs have comfortable monopolies, the services go to shit. I don't understand why anyone thinks that additional government intervention will have any other effect than to make things worse.
Abandon net neutrality legislation. Forbid municipalities from selling franchise monopolies. Do away with emminent domain. Then any number of solutions will appear on the market - ISPs will compete to lease land from property owners to run infrastructure, neighborhoods and housing associations will cooperate to run their own wires and contract with ISPs to hook into their networks. Multiple ISPs in the same region will actually compete with each other, much like we are seeing with Comcast and Verizon where FiOS is being introduced. And the notion of having the government tell the ISPs and telcos how to carry traffic will disappear.
You really don't understand that the two are completely linked? That the shareholder's bottom line is determined by profits that are generated by customers that choose to turn money over for a product or a service?
for keeping our electricity rates down.
Verizon doesn't offer FIOS or DSL in your building?
Suppose they did. The user then has a choice between Filter Package A and Filter Package B. The free-market hand waving, implied by this article, that suggests that Unfiltered Option C will magically appear is total rubbish.
And when all the ISPs adopt the exact same policy that allows them to make the most money while screwing over their customers, then exactly who do you choose as an ISP (provided you even have a choice in your area)???
I know, First Amendment and all, but sometimes stupid people just need to keep their mouths shut, both for their own good and the good of anyone within earshot.
OK, I doubt that many slashdotters, who are typically Libertarian-leaning, will be able to hear what I'm saying.
They hear you! At the time I write this, there are 16 comments above this one rated +5. Of those 16, 16 are in favor of government intervention to protect Net neutrality.
Please, stop the mantra that Slashdotters are Libertarian-leaning. They aren't.
The difference is that I actually trust big corporations to honor their contractual obligations.
At least if a corporation violates them, I can sue for breach of contract. My personal risk is minimal, and is limited to monetary damages. If Congress violates my rights, my option is to break the new law and take my chances with the courts eventually overturning the bad law. My personal risk is physical incarceration. I can support someone else who breaks the bad law in a public fashion (and I do donate to the EFF), but that's cowardly, slow, and almost always ineffective.
Sure, the contract can be filled with weasel words, traps, arbitration agreements, contradictory clauses, etc. But the prisons are filled with weasels, shivs, be-my-bitch agreements, demented Santa Clauses, etc. One of these options is much worse than the other.
John
The rules against collusion simply set up a even playing field that enhance the free market, by setting an initial state from which to compete.
Yeah, if it weren't for that pesky human element, the free market would be wonderful. It reminds me of an old quote. "In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s the other way around." The magical "free market" is no better than the other two at getting rid of flaws in human nature (it really is just a subset of capitalism), and is as willfully ignorant of the nature of human greed as communism is, just in the other direction.
I like the ideal of the free market as much as I like the ideal of anarchy. They both work so well - except for all those jerks out there, [sarcasm]of which I am clearly not one[/sarcasm].
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Competition or government-funded service ? In one case you have to trust them to provide a good service and in the other you have to trust them to prevent vendors lock-in. Competition is not automatically good, sometimes it create many abusive local monopolies. If there must be a monopoly somewhere, I prefer it to be run by the government.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
What's that quote from Chomsky?
They want the people to hate and fear the government, because democratic government has a dangerous flaw -- it actually has the slight chance of becoming truly democratic. You see, corporations are perfect -- perfect tyrannies.
http://www.ebook3000.com/politics/Noam-Chomsky---Class-War---Audiobook_49792.html
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Everyone on his blog already pointed out that the vast majority of consumers don't have choice when it comes to ISPs, so you actually have greater influence by voting over the FCC than you do the threat of switching providers.
He also fails to address another aspect of Net Neutrality: The big entities like Google make deals, while the small entities get screwed. The absence of Net Neutrality is a lock in for large entities and a barrier to entry for upstarts and challengers. The absence of Net Neutrality actually favours entrenched interests, making the overall marketplace less competitive.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The FCC, in theory at least, serves "the people"
The companies, well they serve only their own shareholders. Their customers' interest are only indirectly at heart.
I'd rather see the FCC regulating this. Assuming, of course, they haven't been bribed/corrupted into a total corporate shill.
Ironically, we have a existing example in history using pretty much the same companies that are involved in ISP's. Back in the day there was a single phone monopoly in this country and the government pretty much let them do their thing. That huge monopoly owned every piece of the phone system, including the handset -in your house-. It also meant there was absolutely zero competition. As such you paid the phone company for EVERYTHING. Calling to another town? That costs. Calling another state? Boom, even higher prices!
Time passed, that monopoly got themselves broken up, and amongst other things we got some FCC controls in that formed competitors. Now WE owned our phones. In the process phone technologies leapt forward and the costs to use them tanked such that I can now call my father in Europe for pennies per minute instead of dollars per minute, and calling anywhere in the country? Just part of the basic package.
Now slowly but surely what was that monopoly has re-merged and re-formed into a couple of huge companies, and since they lost control of the phone, now they want control over your Internet. But as history has shown that is an incredibly bad and expensive idea for the consumer. That is why for all intents and purposes in most areas, you only have ONE choice for high speed Internet (if you even have one, I once lived 50 feet from fiber bundles from every major telecom, and about 150 yards from the central office for the area.... Couldn't get even basic high speed internet there. Why? The telecom and the owners of the apartment complex were at odds over a local office building both were trying to buy, so the telecom simply refused to add the equipment needed to provide DSL to that complex.) So SOMEONE has to control these telecoms and force competition on them. Look at how often local cities and townships have tried to install Internet access for their town and have had it blocked by a telecom in the courts. This SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. If it -was- a free market these companies would HAVE to compete. Communications though are NOT a free market. Above and beyond the expense of trying to start a telecom from the ground up there are simply too many under-the-table agreements in place to work around. That is why we need the FCC to be able to have the power to enforce net neutrality onto these companies. Because unlike so many things (What device in my house I watch a legally purchased DVD on?) that the government should NOT be involved with, communications like power, water, roadways, etc... are exactly WHY we have governments in the first place. These things need to be available effectively %100 of the time.
Ideally the backbone providers should be exactly that. Backbone providers. They should provide a connection (wired, or wireless, think of your cell phone here too) that carries data. They really shouldn't know, nor care what that data is. It certainly shouldn't effect the price! Others (you, your mom, a company aiming to be a local ISP, Google, Apple, Slashdot, whoever) should simply be able to buy a connection and pay to send their data across. This may mean it's a business providing a web site, your connection to access said website, or your local ISP to provide services, such as e-mail, web space, or whatnot. Now obviously the backbone providers themselves won't run fiber straight to your doorstep, but that's not an issue. Because local companies (or global companies, or whoever) could buy the bandwidth from the up stream provider and split it up for lower groups. Now in theory this IS how the Internet works, but the net neutrality fight is about the fact that those backbone providers want to provide all the content as well, and want to charge MORE to carry data that isn't THEIR content. Now it's exactly that attitude that caused companies like AOL to fail, trying to put their personal content at the forefront and prevent access to others content. It's why up until the iPhone (Love it or hate it, it -did- change cellular controls in the US) you couldn't get a
While on the surface the argument has merit.. the problem is that Congress has already passed legislature to ensure that free market rules wont apply. Congress legislates monopolies all the time. First we have the 1994 telecom act that says 'since you claim there is no money in local service, we will let you into the LD markets if you open up all lines of local business at wholesale rates to your competitors'. Since that time the competition has proven there IS viable profit in local services (unlike LD that is getting cheaper all the time). So little by little, piece by piece, Congress carves out exclusions to the 1994 telecom act (FIOSS service, fiber networks, etc). With congress in such a hurry to give the entire telecom over to ATT, Verizon, and Comcast theres no chance that you can just go to a different service provider if you dont like their policies. Eventually there's just going to be 3 options and they will all conspire together to price fix and policy fix. Its just like what happened with the oil companies getting legislated into a super oil company, the banks getting legislated into super banks (now deemed too big to be allowed to fail), and up and coming telecoms merging into super-telecoms.
The FCC isn't setting limits on us (at least not for bandwidth and price).
It's setting limits on companies that want to set limits on us, in an industry where those companies get their main resource - right of way on public infrastructure like power poles, digging up streets, easements through people's property, etc. - from us essentially for free.
Breaking net neutrality creates a public internet that will get the short end of every resource stick, and a non-public internet that will get full value from any limited public resources used to deliver the signal.
We're giving up our resources to them and getting essentially nothing in return unless we pay a premium price for it.
And where does this article's author live that he can just up and change providers? Where is this promised land of choice he speaks of?
Certainly none of the handful of major metropolitan areas I live/lived in. It's a nice strawman argument, at best, but has nothing to do with reality.
Many airlines offers passengers who pay for a "first class" ticket improved service for extra money. This extra service for those willing to pay more. In addition to covering the costs of providing the extra service, this revenue helps the airlines lower fares for the other passengers, so its existance helps them as well.
Yeah, that's why Ryan air and other low cost airlines have large first class sections to subsidize their economy section. Companies price according to the Laffer curve. You're delusional if you think a company will take profits from one part of a company to reduce prices in another part for the benefit of the customer.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Great, because I really want the responsibility of running a tiny ISP.
"If you don't like your internet service provider's policies, you can simply switch to another one." In the land of make-believe it might be that easy. In reality, there is only one cable internet provider per town. The ISP receives municipal subsidies for land and equipment. Therefore, the ISPs are a monopolies. If you want another cable ISP, you have to move. As for other broadband technologies...they all have serious faults and disadvantages compared to cable ISP. DSL => must be within 3 miles of CO. Verizon FIOS => limited availability by region. Satellite => requires an unobstructed view of the southern sky, performance severely affected by weather. Mobile => got dead zones? I worked in the telecommunications industry for 15 years and this Lee Sharpe hasn't got a clue.
Once they figure out that there's money to be made from jiggering the Internet traffic flow through their networks, there won't be anything to keep all of the ISPs from doing the same thing.
The problem is that as concepts go, Net Neutrality is pretty abstract: if some of us even have colleagues who don't understand what's at stake, we can be sure that the overwhelming majority of ISP customers don't know or care. So, if it's not enforced by law, to expect any individual ISP to voluntarily treat all of its Internet traffic the same would be similar to expecting there to be some large theaters that would be be willing to play movies without showing advertisements. Of course, all those theaters will tell you that if they did that, their prices would have to go up, and that's true. However, the fact is that they never give us that choice, because A) they know that most movie goers don't care anyway and B) they know that the advertisers would not like the viewers to be given that choice -- better to keep things simple!
Yes, really small theaters often don't bother with ads, but that's because they don't sell enough tickets. Advertisers are only willing to pay theaters significant amounts of money if they can be convinced that the ticket sales are high enough. Below a certain threshold there's not enough money in showing ads, so theater owners will often try to increase their ticket sales by advertising that they don't show any advertisements.
In the same way, only small ISPs would advertise Net Neutrality because A) they aren't big enough to convince any significant content providers to make deals with them and B) they can't afford the necessary equipment anyway. On the other hand, in this case there's nothing to prevent a small ISP's upstream service provider from jiggering the traffic. And for that matter, if Net Neutrality were not required by law, where would the ever jiggering stop for sure?