Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Net Neutrality Really Needed?

Posted by samzenpus on from the six-of-one-a-half-dozen-of-the-other dept.

darrad writes "An opinion piece over at the Wall Street Journal lays out an alternate theory on why we have new regulations from the FCC on Net Neutrality. There is a lot of talk about this subject, particularly among the tech sector. Most of the talk centers around preventing companies from charging more for traffic or black holing other traffic. However, the question should be asked, is granting control over the Internet to political appointees the way to go? Regardless of your political point of view shouldn't the Internet remain free from regulation?"

15 of 705 comments (clear)

  1. Still too vague and too poorly defined by seebs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all know what we want: We want Comcast to be unable to charge Google extra for the service of letting customers access Youtube. But it's really hard to phrase this well enough and clearly enough that it lets network admins do the kinds of QoS and traffic shaping things they need to do in order to provide good service, or for that matter, block unwanted traffic entirely.

    I am not at all convinced that getting the government involved will improve my life.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's my job to say what type of traffic is unwanted. If I wanted to live in China I'd move there.
      It's difficult to decide who I trust less the government or big business; maybe that's because there isn't much difference between the two.

    2. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "block unwanted traffic entirely."

      If Comcrap defines Youtube and Hulu as "unwanted" because their video offerings conflict with Comcrap's crappy, underfilled, looks-like-crap streaming video and extortionately-priced cable tv "services", your statement makes no sense at all.

      And that's pretty much what Comcrap and TW have been setting up to do.

    3. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      you can choose

      Is that what you think? The whole point of the anti-net neutrality agenda is to make sure we can't choose.

      We've got a lot more influence over government than we do over the top two telcos.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either you trust the government : no choice of provider (that much, history should prove)
      Or you trust business : you can choose (for a little more money probably, yes, deal with it) a better provider

      ...but you are trusting them to do different things.

      I trust businesses to provide me with internet service. That's their job. The government isn't going to do it, nor should it.

      I trust the government to regulate businesses to the extent necessary to make sure there is fair competition and the free market keeps on working. That's their job. If you believe the businesses will do it themselves -- will take actions specifically designed to ensure that new competitors can emerge and take customers away from them! -- then you are a fool.

      I don't want the Internet to be regulated. It's a wonderful resource full of free speech and free information, and the government should keep its hands off it and not try to tell me which sites I can visit. But that's a different thing from wanting internet service to be regulated. I have absolutely no problem with the government telling Comcast to keep its hands off and not try to tell me which sites I can visit, either.

      tl;dr: leave the web alone, but regulate the pipes.

    5. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by TheEyes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. This is the most insightful thing I've read all day on NN.

      I'm a little annoyed by conservatives treating regulation as some sort of sin. Regulation prevents corporations from putting melanine in our milk, or floor sweepings in our sausages (both have happened in the past). Regulation (in theory) keeps companies from ripping us off left and right, and encourages competition.

      Before government regulation began with Teddy Roosevelt in the twentieth century, we lived in what was known as the Gilded Age, where massive corporations stiffed competition and milked customers for money while giving little or nothing in return... sound familiar? We've been deregulating for thirty years, so it should come as little surprise we're entering a Second Gilded Age. We should have remembered that corporations can't regulate themselves; now we'll have to learn that lesson anew, or face the consequences.

  2. False Dichotomy by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a choice: one is not "handing it over control to political appointees". It is simply saying not packet dicrimination. So yes there will be regulators but they do not have fiat control, just enforcement responsibilities.

    Thus this discussion is starting out on a false premise.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:False Dichotomy by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thus this discussion is starting out on a false premise.

      The claim that Net Neutrality is "government regulation of the Internet" is a lie perpetuated by politicians acting on behalf of the cable and telephone monopolies. The purpose of Net Neutrality is to prevent the cable and telephone monopolies from shutting out competitors (or people they don't like).

  3. Answers. by BenFenner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of your political point of view shouldn't the Internet remain free from regulation?"

    Yes.

    Should ISPs be free from regulation?
    No.

    1. Re:Answers. by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the problem with NOT having government regulation is that the monopolies fuck the consumer just as hard then.

      Look at all the places in the US where cable companies have a monopoly, simply because they managed to raise the barrier to entry high and entered into collusion agreements with other companies to pull out (my area used to have TW, Comcast, and Verizon for cable TV options, now we're stuck with Comcrap only because they ran Verizon out by running under cost and then TW "traded" us away by promising to pull out of our city if Comcrap pulled out of another city on the other side of the state).

      Now look at what precisely Comcrap has been trying to do: block off streaming video from Youtube, Hulu, and Netflix to force people in their monopoly-areas to pay more for Comcrap's crappy shitty "video on demand" cable service instead.

      No. In this case, we need government regulation. The trick is making sure it's the *right* regulation and properly enforced.

  4. ISPs don't care what their customers want by Senes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In an environment of "the customer is always right," the market can be trusted to deliver exactly what is in the customers' best interests without any form of outside interference.

    In an environment of telco monopolies, multi-year contracts, terms which the provider can change at will, and more; it becomes necessary to restrict what providers can and cannot do because the customers are left powerless other than as voters who tell the government what they want.

  5. We need some regulation... by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Net neutrality is a misnomer. What is needed is are regulations to stop ISPs from doing any or all of the following:

    Discrimating by site. Non-DDoS traffic to site "A" should not cost more than going to site "B".

    Add/modifying/deleting in flight traffic. Throttling/QoS is one thing, adding adds via Phorm, or changing people's postings to Web boards in flight is another.

    Blocking/slowing down one site, just to make another site seem faster.

    Unneeded snooping on connections. Traffic should be considered PII, stored only a few days to check for security breaches, then binned. It is not to be sold to any ad companies who want router logs.

    Expanding infrastructure. We never see Japanese ISPs wringing their hands in front of the Diet and saying how they are being driven into the ground by people in Tokyo watching TV on their phones. Nor do we see this in Korea or Singapore. ISPs build infrastructure, not just whine about people actually using their services.

    We need to address issues exactly, not bundle them under the hazy "net neutrality" topic.

  6. Why do they need to do traffic shaping? by jwietelmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they were willing to either A) deliver all of us the kind of bandwidth promised in their Unlimited*** plans, or B) charge by the megabyte instead of by the month, this should be moot. I paid for that bandwidth, and I'll use it as I see fit. If I need to prioritize my own traffic, I'll do so with my router. That way my streaming video doesn't interfere with my VOIP calls.

    But they're not talking about that, are they? They don't want my streaming video to interfere with their other customers' VOIP calls... which would seem to suggest that they don't actually have the capacity to deliver their Unlimited****** (up to) 10Mbps** that they sold to everyone in my neighborhood.

    We have this fundamental problem where these companies have oversold the bandwidth, and the only solution they're willing to consider is to invent rules that will give you less of what you paid for. Because any other solution would force them to abandon an already-misleading marketing gimmick.

    1. Re:Why do they need to do traffic shaping? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good point, the free market can sort this out. I'll just dump comcast and sign up with my local dial up. That'll show them.

      In the mean time, what does a majority of the country do - since most of us do not have multiple options for broadband?

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Why do they need to do traffic shaping? by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

      I keep hearing that "since most of us do not have multiple options for broadband" but is this true? There are 5 different places to get bandwidth in my area and I live in central Illinois.

      The government doesn't solve problems. It relishes control...

      Well, if we are playing "proof by anecdote" I live in a densely populated Southern California area and I have exactly one option for a broadband provider - Charter. No one else will provide BB service to my house. Maybe Verizon FiOS someday, but they won't make any promises.

      What are the nationwide stats?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj