Slashdot Mirror
Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate
ygslash writes Michael Wolff at USA Today has a long list of the many stakeholders in the net neutrality debate, and what each has to gain or lose. The net neutrality issue has made its way into the mainstream consciousness, thanks to grassroots activism and some help from John Oliver on HBO. But it's not as simple as just net neutrality idealists versus the cable companies or versus the FCC. One important factor that has raised the stakes in net neutrality is the emergence ("unanticipated" by Wolff, but not by all of us) of the Internet as the primary medium for distribution of video content. And conversely, the emergence of video content in general and Netflix in particular as by far the most significant consumers of Internet bandwidth. So anyone involved in the distribution of video content has a lot to gain or lose by the outcome of the net neutrality struggle.
Is slavery wrong?
Is the First Amendment a good idea?
Is the Second Amendment a good idea?
Are civil/gay/religious rights a good idea?
Etc. etc. Important things matter and people care about them. That's why we call them 'important'.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And yet, only one side should matter; the people.
And no, corporations aren't people and each person counts as one, regardless of their bank account and army of lobbyists.
Who are the stakeholders? Well, let's see:
Only one of these "stakeholders" have opinions that actually matter, and that stakeholder sent "a groundswell of 3 million citizen comments, most of them, presumably, against the FCC's approach" [and in support of regulating ISPs as Common Carriers].
I think we're done here.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If streaming video is a problem for ANY one then it should be a problem for EVERY one. That's the basic idea of equality being fought about here. A natural monopoly should not be able to abuse it's position to sabotage competitors in different markets. This is also basic anti-trust.
The entire issue only exists because we tolerate (if not actively encourage) monopolies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As with most mainstream articles on this topic, it just simply doesn't get what network neutrality really is. The problems start with the first sentence.
Net neutrality, the FCC's effort to govern broadband providers who supply Internet access, enters a new chapter as
Net neutrality is not the name of an FCC plan. It is the principle upon which the internet was created. They make this out to be some new regulatory effort, rather than something that has been around for decades.
There's the pro-business side, reflecting the interests of the companies that have paid for the broadband — cable operators and telcos. They naturally want to be able to charge bigger users higher prices
So now the author implies that net neutrality means that they can't charge bigger users higher prices. Bigger users do pay higher prices! They always have, that makes perfect sense. Then it says:
That's the logical growth area of their businesses —charging the distributors of data as well as the consumers (you and me).
Distributors and consumers do pay for their data.
The article is trying to be "nice" to everyone: identify each player in this topic and paint them out to have a reasonable interest. But to do that, the article must omit the core issue which is that cable and telecom monopolies want to double-charge distributors who have already paid. But if you mention that, it is kinda tough to make it look like each side has a fair and balanced interest in this. The article paints out 5 different interested parties, but there are really only two: the greedy monopolies who want to make more money without having to invest in infrastructure, versus everyone-else.
I am loathe to read the article linked within this one titled "RELATED: A Q&A about net neutrality" because I fear yet more inaccuracy.
In the case of Time Warner Cable/Comcast and other ISPs who also provide TV services, this is by design. The last thing they want is for you to realize that you don't need to pay them $100+ a month for a thousand channels - only four of which ever have anything decent on. They don't want you to decide that you'd rather stream videos from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon VOD, etc. The speeds they give you are "good enough" for normal web browsing. Any faster risks their monopoly Internet service provider business hurting their non-monopoly TV business and that can't be tolerated.
And just to make sure that Internet video doesn't supplant cable TV, they'll institute caps and "fast lanes" to kill off Internet Video, and keep charging you hundreds of dollars every month. Cable TV service - as it stands now - is going to be dying business a generation from now. The cable providers see this too and are working as hard as possible, short of actually innovating with their service (e.g. IP Television service or ala carte), to stave off the death for awhile longer.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It creates the impression that everyone is a "stakeholder" with reasonable motivations and roughly equal claims. This seems false, since the cable/telco positions aren't transparent at all about what their "stakes" are and their position isn't about some "fair" outcome but about achieving an UNFAIR outcome where they are in a position to approve/disapprove and charge rents over circuits already paid for by their own customers.
It totally ignores the business Comcast, et al is trying to defend against competition -- video distribution, as well as their underinvestment in networks which have left whatever legitimate claims they may have -- oversubscription of their last mile networks leading to congestion and problems.
From the outset, it seems biased in Cable's favor -- "There's the pro-business side, reflecting the interests of the companies that have paid for the broadband â" cable operators and telcos." You're fucking kidding, right? They "paid" for nothing -- we, the consumers, purchasers of their services, have paid for the broadband. Underinvesting in your network and then wanting to squelch service until you get paid again is what's happening.
Is currently ONLY happening in the USA.
And ONLY on ISPs which are both effective monopolies and where what's coming off the 'net competes with something they offer themselves as a core business.
If there was effective competition in the USA, this wouldn't be happening. Handwaving about "Net Neutrality" is a dog-and-pony show to try and distract from the elephant in the room - which is for the vast majority of affected americans, the ISPs in question are the ONLY game in town for broadband connectivity.
"As much as 70% of Internet-distributed data is now video, 50% of it from Netflix. This new video industry — growing exponentially and transforming the nature of entertainment — is getting a free ride on the cable and telco investment in broadband. Arguably, this is unsustainable free distribution, overtaxing networks and slowing the Internet for everyone."
I just gag on "free ride". 11M Netflix subscribers pay Verizon/Comcast/etc $50 * 12 * 11m = $6.6 billion a year for this "free" ride. Margins on Internet services at Verizon/Comcast are believe to be in the 90% profit range.
I can help the FCC solve this. Require that ISPs provide at least one settlement free peering point for each customer in their network with no peering point providing access to less that 10,000 customers. 10K because after all they are ISPs and they should do something for that $50/mth (i'm sure Verizon would immediately declare this settlement free peering point to be the customer's wifi node without this rule).