Slashdot Mirror
Bloomberg Op-Ed: The Internet 'Already Lost Its Neutrality' (japantimes.co.jp)
An anonymous reader quotes a new Bloomberg opinion piece on net neutrality:
The internet will be filled today with denunciations of this move, threats of a dark future in which our access to content will be controlled by a few powerful companies. And sure, that may happen. But in fact, it may already have happened, led not by ISPs, but by the very companies that were fighting so hard for net neutrality... Our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear and read.
In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day... The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision.
In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day... The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision.
Love,
Rich Assholes with Business Interests
Only retarded idiots ever thought the Internet was neutral in terms of opinion. The fight over Net Neutrality is something completely different.
The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs
The very fact that we lost net neutrality in direct opposition to the largest public commentary campaign in the history of the world, due at least in part to bought and paid for politicians making regulations that directly benefit their own financial interests, renders this statement entirely untrue.
In the United States, your experience of the internet is far more controlled by Comcast and one or two other ISPs than it is by Google and Facebook. I can easily avoid using Google or Facebook, but in many areas, there are no practical alternatives to Comcast.
I would argue that having a very few companies controlling access to the internet is what leads to the primacy of Google and Facebook, not the other way around.
The default state of the internet was net neutrality, from the time of its inception. Giving control over to a cable company will turn the internet into cable television, and trust me, you don't want that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thank you for posting the Bloomberg piece. There are those of us who have been arguing that this is not some high-brow good v. evil debate, but a genuine disagreement on account of economics.
Tons of people here are rightly skeptical of Google, Facebook, at al, but saw nothing suspicious about those companies being the LEADING proponents of net neutrality. Why would these companies, so often duplicitous and manipulative, be coming on so strong for net neutrality? Not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yeah, Big Telecom is not your friend, but neither is Big Tech. The question is, what is more conducive to freedom? Is it allowing free competition, or is it in allowing politically-connected firms to set the agenda? I choose to side with the former, and that is why I favor repealing net neutrality. Much more needs to be done, like abolishing all these public utility laws so that smaller startups can challenge Big Telecom, but this is a step in the right direction.
Companies like Google and Facebook have Loony-tunes power: everyone uses them because everyone uses them. If tomorrow everyone starts using Bing (hey, it could happen...), Google vanishes in a puff of indifference. (kind of like the coyote who doesn't fall until he looks down).
Verizon has power because they own the poles, and the lines, and the trenches. If tomorrow everyone decides to use a different ISP...uhhh...no. You got nowhere to go. And if Verizon starts adding tracking headers to your HTTP requests, and null-routing domains that they don't like, and null-routing domains who haven't paid them enough, and forging RST packets to kill your torrents, and injecting ads into your web pages, and, and, and....you still got nowhere to go. That's backhoe power. That's why we need net neutrality.
RMS has been shouting this for a decade...
Particularly Google has a heck of a lot of control through android and gets content providers to do things they universally wouldn't otherwise want to do (AMP comes to mind). Yes, it is a prudent time to highlight shenanigans that already unreasonably shape the internet that are already happening without any sort of counter.
Of course, doubling down and also opening the flood gates for the ISPs to also lock things down doesn't help matters.
The author blames regulation for the phone experience not progressing and that deregulation paved the way for things to improve. It's a very bizarre thing to blow off the whole forced breakup of AT&T as the factor. I don't think many folks blame FCC regulations for AT&T preserving a monopoly, and certainly no one in their right mind ignores the DOJ breakup of AT&T in favor of some FCC deregulation as to triggering the end of that era. Particularly since this common carrier thing persisted the whole time, it's very strange.
In short, I fint the article to be a bizarre self-contradiction. On the one wand worrying that there already are companies with worrisome control, but also vilifying regulation at the same time..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Relating the evils of Google and Facebook with ISPs is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's not remotely an equal comparison, at most it's a different problem, and all I hear is "hey, look over there!" The debate about what these companies should be allowed to do is important, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Net Neutrality was compromised significantly in its brief existence, that is a fact, but the response should have been extreme and powerful, from the legal to the not-yet-legal. The first attempt to get around net neutrality should have seen every single anti-competitive law in the united states eliminated: any company or municipality that wishes to build out broadband cannot be opposed. If they persist, then tax money should be used to build competing services. Finally, if they do not cease and desist, their board and senior executives should be arrested and the company assets seized. That is the level of hostility that we should be insisting upon for these (and any other) monopoly. Either play nice and make some money, or go to jail.
Instead they have bought the government and its regulation body. I look forward to people showing up to their buildings with torches and pitchforks (or the modern day equivalents) to express their "empathy".
I don't know why people keep trying to mix things up, but that's not the point of fighting for net neutrality. It's not about making Internet services more "neutral" or anything like that.
It's not about keeping the situation great (which it already isn't), it's about not making it worse.
And let's be honest here. One thing is people choosing to use Google instead of Bing, DuckDuckGo, *gasp* Yahoo and a few others that are out there (I personally use DuckDuckGo as default). One thing is people using Facebook instead of several social networks that showed up over the years or you know, none. One thing is people choosing Gmail instead of ProtonMail, a local webserver, among others. One thing is people using Facebook Messenger for convenience instead of some different service like Viber, Signal and others. There's choice. If people don't take them, that's their problem. We don't really need to discuss here on Slashdot how using these services can be bad, I think most people here knows about this. But it's still people's choice to use them, be it for convenience, familiarity, ease of use, or just because everyone around them are using it.
Yes, Google and Facebook have an effective hold in several areas that makes them close to monopolies, but there's still choice and competition. People can't deny that. For the vast majority of americans, there is NO option to one or two ISPs where they live. None. Ziltch. Nada. Nothing. The alternative is not using the Internet, and this is all Net Neutrality is about. Access to it has become a basic need, which is why there needs to be some regulation to it.
When you as a costumer don't have any choice, that's a true monopoly. And since there is no option, without any sort of regulation of course given time they will only get worse in nick and dime schemes, in tiered plans, in forcing their own brands and services to costumers while making it hard for anyone else to compete and whatnot.
Because that's exactly what they do. That's why they have been lobbying for such a long time to kill Net Neutrality once and for all.
It also doesn't mean that they didn't do this in the past, ISPs always finds a way to profit more over their clients. It just means that now they have no regulation to prevent them from doing anything, and that it'll become even easier for abusive practices to pass.
This is like arguing Amazon is non-neutral. Sure it is. It's slowly killing all alternatives. People are flocking to shop there for all sorts of reasons, and they are effectively closing down smaller competing stores and services. But it's something people are choosing for themselves. Amazon doesn't hire goons to beat you up if you go to the local market, they aren't making you sign a contract that you'll only shop there for a year if you buy one product, they aren't saying you can only use their mass storage servers in order to make an account there. There are limits as to what they can do, and this is what Net Neutrality is about. Having at least some limits on what ISPs can do. The more you give in, the worse it'll become.
Funny. Lots of families have lots of weirdos. But seriously, e-mail still works. You can always throw in a hyperlink to your non-mainstream-hosted blog or if you aren't the type to formulate long thoughts, microblog (pump.io?)
I've witnessed both the downfall of Google being a great search engine for my tastes, and duckduckgo rising to the challenge. DDG wasn't a sufficient replacement in the early days, but lately it seems quite fine to me. I only use Google on the rare occasions when I want to track down a torrent for a tv show that weather interfered with my OTA DTV linux general computer based DVR recording correctly. Just to make a political point.
Google's and Facebook's collection of eyeballs comprise an entirely different issue than ISPs being able to relegate the non-wealthy to low-bandwidth (or no-bandwidth) corners of the web.
Right now, you can choose to be Facebook and/or Google eyeballs, but there are other options of various and sundry nature out there that offer interesting content. Facebook and Google are impotent to stop that; all you have to do is find a link, and there the site will be. That link could be anywhere — while you may indeed find it on Google or Facebook, you can also find it other places.
Allowing bandwidth to be prioritized (or outright taken over) by wealthy interests can silence the other sources of information. That's a new problem, and it's not the same as, or even a version of, the old problem.
Bloomberg is being disingenuous here. Or stupid. You choose.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As much as I would love to see you win.. They have bought so many laws and courts that are in their pocket, you would not stand a chance. Unless of course you ARE working in a HUGE corporation.. It's strange. I turned off my VPN connection I leave open with my friend and the typing lag in my computer stopped. Hmm.. Guess it's true what I read. They ARE already throttling anyone with an open VPN.. Sad days :(
While cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear and read.
That is neither here nor there. This has absolutely nothing to do with how many users a Web site has. Neither Google nor Facebook has a single iota of the kind of power wielded by the corrupt (*)oply ISP's; not even a whisper of a fragment.
----
* equals Mono, Duo, Olig; as appropriate.
Internet traffic is managed by reciprocal peering agreements between network providers (i.e. you carry my traffic and I'll carry yours). Google or Facebook may provide peering with other providers, but they're only one of countless others. On the other hand, major ISPs like Comcast and ATT are also major network peering providers. So they CAN influence the cost and amount of traffic they carry. Hence the need for regulation. The reference poses a false analogy about a website whose content was so vile that no one wanted to carry it. That's carry Web content, not Internet traffic. That's primarily a function of advertisement and revenue generation. If you carry vile content, companies are not going to want to run ads next to it to avoid the association.
Funny. Lots of families have lots of weirdos. But seriously, e-mail still works. You can always throw in a hyperlink to your non-mainstream-hosted blog or if you aren't the type to formulate long thoughts, microblog (pump.io?)
I've witnessed both the downfall of Google being a great search engine for my tastes, and duckduckgo rising to the challenge. DDG wasn't a sufficient replacement in the early days, but lately it seems quite fine to me. I only use Google on the rare occasions when I want to track down a torrent for a tv show that weather interfered with my OTA DTV linux general computer based DVR recording correctly. Just to make a political point.
Would that I had OTA signal where I live in a fairly large city! My isp is my cable co and I do have the choice of either satellite, cable or even the phone company for tv. Though telus tv at 1 mile from the fiber hub through twisted pairs is not necessarily what they advertise and continually try to sell us. I cut their twisted pairs years ago and am at the mercy of the cable company because the jerks at Telus were way out of line with dsl pricing. The wife likes her nutflakes so we have cable dsl but she also insists on tv so the costs of media consumption for us are greater than our other utility bills combined!
My point is that if net neutrality is not observed by our current isp then our provider will be able to abuse the monopoly upon digital communications to an even greater extent than they already do. Question here for all the wifi tech gurus here on Splashdog? Could wifi mesh networks eventually replace the assholes on the poles and put an end to the problems with digital communication media? Would it not be fantastic if the only lines coming into your house were power? Ma bell or Belus as I call it here in Canada and cable tv has had it far too good for far too long and if subscription wifi mesh can become a replacement for these jerks then they deserve to be blindsided. As it is they by and large control all the cell towers, it would be even worse to allow them to dominate wifi mesh networking which our current ISP/cable company/telco/mediaprovider, Shaw, is experimenting with locally.
Bloomberg has a tainted perspective letting the current isps begin to control where and how users access content even more than they currently do is a huge mistake and would be as sensible as having to set Shaw at Home or Telus or Bing as my home page to get access to the internet. Which I am sure is a wet dream for them as it was a wet dream for Microsoft until Google ate them all for breakfast in search.
The point is if net neutrality is broken then it is entirely possible that providers will be able to redirect their customers away from their choice to whom ever pays them the most which will most likely be Microsoft. Certainly not the same thing as Firefux with a difficult to remove Yahoo search but in ways similar.
Break net neutrality and the providers will be able to freely restrict access routes on the internet, the already have the monopolies in place to screw their customers even more than they currently do. They are just waiting for the green light from both the FCC and the CRTC. Remember the old heady days of Win95 when you installed it and if you did not know how to use Trumpet Winsock the OS installed defaults were to local AOL phone numbers and an Iternut Exploiter AOL home page? NOW just imagine ISP created apps that allow you to access a point restricted internet that must be installed before you can have service the same way that cell phones are locked down. Frightening as hell but this is what the asshole republicans in the States and the telcos and cable company lobby in Washington are up to. Getting high tech advice from Bloomberg is as sensible as investing in Enron or falling for a Berni Madoff scam the way many who read Bloomberg when it first came out did! Beware the sheep in wolves clothing.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Completely wrong on McArdle's background. She started out as a technology consultant before deciding it wasn't fulfilling for her, got a business degree and became an economic policy journalist.
(The link goes into some of her background of building servers and whatnot and is a fairly compassionate take on the James Damore brouhaha.)
Beware of gaslighting with this op-ed. The article reads to me as if to say, you haven't had net neutrality for a while now so don't complain when it officially goes away and you can't miss what you've lived without. So please quit pressuring Congress to intervene; you'll never notice a change when net neutrality disappears.
As others have pointed out, the article isn't really about something net neutrality will address. The problems with Facebook, Google, spying, and computer control via proprietary software are real problems that need to be dealt with. But net neutrality is about a different issue. Net neutrality is a necessary but insufficient (in itself) quality of network service. I don't want an ISP discriminating for me what other computers my computers are allowed to trade packets with, nor will the absence of net neutrality be fixed by charging me more for an Internet connection. I understand that ISPs in their power and rent-seeking will see this situation differently, but it's critical not to give businesses primacy. People need power to speak freely and be heard, not routed into yet another class system.
Digital Citizen
Indeed, comparing ISPs to Google (unless you are one of the few people with Google as ISP) or Facebook is disingenuous at best.
Google and Facebook and information service providers. ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc., are common telecommunications carriers. Amalgamating both is wrong, though it is exactly what Pai and his masters want to do.
Consider those excerpts from the article:
- The reclassification of ISPs as common carriers “forced ISPs into an 80-year-old framework designed for the telephone monopolies of a much different era.”
That’s hollow speak. First, the telecommunications act is old, so what? Should we dismiss the constitution also, on the grounds that it’s old? More to the point, the telecommunications act of 1934 (which was revised a couple times, by the way, but the author forgets to mention that) is remarkably broad, readable and relevant today. It defines a common carrier as someone that broadly sells the service of transporting communications or energy by wire or radio; and an information service provider as someone that publishes or processes (storage, transformation, exploitation, etc.) information, including those publishing information via telecommunications, but expressly excluding the operation of the transport infrastructure (i.e., network). Common carriers are expected to meet certain obligations and forbidden to engage in certain practices, for example to “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services (...) or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person”. What’s so “1934” in that?
- ”Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers.”
Bloomberg’s journalist is, once again, confusing hosting with the ability to publish. Refusing to host content is entirely different from refusing to transmit communications. Nothing stopped those guys from setting up their own server and publish their rotten stuff on their own. That’s the beauty of the Internet. Actually, all they needed is a neutral ISP, and that was a given, thanks to the current law. Of course, the typical residential ISP somehow gets away prohibiting its customers from running a server (how can this be compatible with the telecommunications act, I have to wonder). But, even so, all they need to do is purchase a business account.
So, is the author that ignorant? Or is she trying to knowingly deceive readers? Given the length of the article and the time she must have spent on it, I find it hard to give her the benefit the doubt.
What choices do you have to stay in touch with friends and family online? Honestly. Either you be the weird guy, or use facebook.
E-mail. It works just fine.
It should also be noted that Facebook is the new kid on the block: they beat out Friendster and MySpace.
What choices do you have for fulltext search? Duckduckgo? Get real.
Actually, yes. Or Bing.
Compared to those monopolies (which are far more ingrained, because they have a true technological and first to market edge), AT&T and Comcast are fairly banal thing to fix as stuff they do, basically anyone can do with no complex know-how. Can happen either through competetive market (think ISPs in places like india or romania) which emerges with wild-west Laissez-faire approach, or *effectively* regulated state granted monopolies, which favors consumers (korea or even china).
Except that in many place (in the US), there is no market. Your choice is either the local telco or carrier pigeon. And further the FCC is making grumbles of preventing states from stepping in. If things were regulated it wouldn't be as bad, but since the 1990s the US has basically had a "free non-market".
Go to this page and set the minimum and maximum to 1, and see how many counties have only one option:
* https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers
Now go to a rough equivalent in Canada, where the CRTC (FCC-equivalent) has mandated that the incumbents (both telco and cableco) must provide open access to their last-mile networks:
* http://canadianisp.ca
Even Cardiff, Ontario, Canada, population 3,400, has a choice of 49 ISPs: