Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?

[CAC1001]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So according to this, tomorrow the FCC begins expanding regulations over the Internet in the name of protecting Internet freedom. I can understand the arguments by the proponents of Net Neutrality who say we need to make sure that the big broadband providers do not limit access, but being a libertarian-minded person, I am also very skeptical of the idea that regulation of something like the Internet will somehow keep it "fair" or maintain freedom because many times regulations on an industry meant to accomplish these have resulted in the opposite.

I also agree with the NN opponents who point out that the arguments for NN have been being made since 2003 and the Internet still remains very free and open.

The other thing that gets me is that a lot of the supporters of Net Neutrality seem to be very left-leaning Progressive types (usually these types like to regulate things a lot). For example, the website http://www.freepress.net" is a big supporter of Net Neutrality, but Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney, who is a far-left leaning guy and a socialist.

One can also see this in terms of the political parties, Democrats are for NN, Republicans against it.

I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this?? I think it will be a bad thing, but I don't know for sure.

 

[Evo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So according to this, tomorrow the FCC begins expanding regulations over the Internet in the name of protecting Internet freedom. I can understand the arguments by the proponents of Net Neutrality who say we need to make sure that the big broadband providers do not limit access, but being a libertarian-minded person, I am also very skeptical of the idea that regulation of something like the Internet will somehow keep it "fair" or maintain freedom because many times regulations on an industry meant to accomplish these have resulted in the opposite.

I also agree with the NN opponents who point out that the arguments for NN have been being made since 2003 and the Internet still remains very free and open.

The other thing that gets me is that a lot of the supporters of Net Neutrality seem to be very left-leaning Progressive types (usually these types like to regulate things a lot). For example, the website http://www.freepress.net" is a big supporter of Net Neutrality, but Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney, who is a far-left leaning guy and a socialist.

One can also see this in terms of the political parties, Democrats are for NN, Republicans against it.

I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this?? I think it will be a bad thing, but I don't know for sure.

People don't know what they're talking about when they throw around Net Neutrality.

The internet is not a "thing" It is thousands of independant companies (or governments in the case where the government owns the telecomm). Paying more for more bandwidth and QoS has always been the case. There will not be any shut out of websites.

Ah, your link says the same "Net Neutrality is bad' leave the internet alone. I agree.

I've been explaining to people for a few years here that "Net Neutrality" was unnecessary and dumb. Looks like I was listened to.

'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

ISPs look to charge per website visited. Disturbing.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wireless-carriers-openly-considering-charging-per-service/

 

[nismaratwork]

ISPs look to charge per website visited. Disturbing.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wireless-carriers-openly-considering-charging-per-service/

I would think companies wouldn't want to turn their currently successful websites and such into targets for a new kind of piracy. ISPs float a LOT of sinister ideas that just... fail terribly. Remember Comcast and Sandvine?... right.

These measures are "armor", but which dominates warfare, armor or armor piercing? With the possible exception of the Abrahms tank, it's piercing that's usually ahead of the game. With a world full of people, a bunch of whom work obsessively and for FREE to undo what those paid workers did, and they get older... and a new generation takes their place.

I have to say, I agree completely with Evo on this. Websites and the WWW are one thing, but the actual NET?... there's no controlling it. You might be able to destroy it, but not control it.

 

[CAC1001]

I hope you are all right, as the FCC it seems is going to seek to control it via regulations.

 

[mugaliens]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So according to this, tomorrow the FCC begins expanding regulations over the Internet in the name of protecting Internet freedom.

Their idea is rubbish. The only way to maintain net neutrality is for them to keep their hands off.

 

[Jack21222]

Paying more for more bandwidth and QoS has always been the case. There will not be any shut out of websites.

1) Net Neutrality isn't about paying more for bandwidth. It's about paying more for *content*.

2) You seem very certain there will not be any shut out websites. What do you base that on?

 

[Evo]

1) Net Neutrality isn't about paying more for bandwidth. It's about paying more for *content*.

Content=bandwidth.

2) You seem very certain there will not be any shut out websites. What do you base that on?

The old "scare" was that ISP's would not offer access to small websites or make it too expensive. If you know how the internet works and the hierachy of backbone providers down to little Billy hosting websites out of his bedroom, then it would be clear.

 

[Evo]

ISPs look to charge per website visited. Disturbing.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wireless-carriers-openly-considering-charging-per-service/

Although this concerns wireless apps, the concept to charge is something that Verizon has been pushing very hard for years, AT&T also jumped on the bandwagon. A few years ago I got involved with a client that started a company that wanted to offer multicasting. He had gotten all of the proper approvals to do it. I set up his network, and within a few weeks Verizon filed suit with the FCC saying that it was unfair use of their network. He was paying my company for the bandwidth to host the multicast site, but a lot of the viewers were Verizon's end users and Verizon deemed it unfair, and felt that they should get paid for hits above what they considered fair use. At this point you need to understand the agreements between carriers for handing off traffic. Verizon won, the FCC ordered his site shut down, destroyed him financially and he ended up hospitalized from the stress. Good ol' Verizon.

 

[Jack21222]

Content=bandwidth.

Not even close. Bandwidth is the rate at which data is transferred. Content is what the data actually *is.*

Edit by Evo, Jack I accidently messed up the rest of your post, can you repost it?

 

[NeoDevin]

The old "scare" was that ISP's would not offer access to small websites or make it too expensive. If you know how the internet works and the hierachy of backbone providers down to little Billy hosting websites out of his bedroom, then it would be clear.

No. The "scare" is that ISPs like Comcast would charge more or block access to things like video streaming services or P2P networks simply because they compete with their cable TV offerings.

Net neutrality is not about preventing charging more for increased bandwidth (either instantaneous bandwidth or total data uploads/downloads) but about preventing them for charging different amounts for different content using the same bandwidth. If they want to charge $400/GB, that's their prerogative. (Or maybe not, is the pricing of bandwidth regulated in the US? Either way, that's not what net neutrality is about.) What net neutrality seeks to prevent is them being able to charge $400/GB for video streaming and $40/GB for Physics Forums.

Net neutrality says that if you want to be an ISP, you sell bandwidth, you don't get to dictate what your users can use that bandwidth for.

 

[Evo]

Content=bandwidth.

Not even close. Bandwidth is the rate at which data is transferred. Content is what the data actually *is.*

Content creates bandwidth use. You have a lot of graphics on a webpage, it is going to require more bandwidth. That is what we consider "content". The more content on a web page, the more bandwidth it requires.

Web content is the textual, visual or aural content that is encountered as part of the user experience on websites. It may include, among other things: text, images, sounds, videos and animations.

In "Information Architecture for the World Wide Web" (second edition, page 219), Lou Rosenfeld and Peter Morville write, "We define content broadly as 'the stuff in your Web site.' This may include documents, data, applications, e-services, images, audio and video files, personal Web pages, archived e-mail messages, and more. And we include future stuff as well as present stuff."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content

 

[Evo]

Net neutrality says that if you want to be an ISP, you sell bandwidth, you don't get to dictate what your users can use that bandwidth for.

We actually don't know what is proposed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46546.html

 

[JaredJames]

I haven't read the full reports, but there is a difference between restricting bandwidth and restricting content.

Bandwidth restrictions mean you limit how much people can use, for example Virgin Media in the UK have a restriction where if you download more than 1500mb between 9am to 2pm they cut your speed under the guise of fair use.

Content restrictions mean you limit what people can access, for example games, video, music and the current UK attempt is porn.

The two are distinct in that bandwidth restrictions don't restrict what you can look (although they can effectively become that if they are particularly severe), whereas content restrictions stop you viewing a specific type of material / site, but don't limit how much of other types you can use.

 

[NobodySpecial]

What net neutrality seeks to prevent is them being able to charge $400/GB for video streaming and $40/GB for Physics Forums.

That's perfectly reasonable - if I want streaming video with a QoS that guarantees bandwidth and latency then I reasonably pay more. Just like I pay more to ship the same package overnight express than I do to ship it ground.

What the net neutrality bill seeks to prevent is the ISP using the same mechanism to bill you like a cable company. So 'basic networking' would get you Google/Facebook/twitter etc, then extra packages would get you MSFT or wikipedia and a super premium unlimited package would get you PF (since PF doesn't have any power with theISP).
This already happens with cell phones where it is allowed, many of the cheaper data packages are limited to Facebook/twitter/Google

The reason damn lefties (translation=anyone who doesn't work for Fox) object to this is that it's an easy way for corporate control. eg. if your ISP is owned by Fox then would the unlimited package give access to the BBC? How much would a package cost/Mb that let you view wikileaks?

 

[xxChrisxx]

I hate packet shaping, it winds me up so much. Not entirely relevant, but a valid rant.

 

[Jack21222]

Edit by Evo, Jack I accidently messed up the rest of your post, can you repost it?

Gah, I can't remember exactly what I had posted, but the gist of the rest of the post is that under current regulations and according to some proposals, internet service providers can restrict access to certain websites because they're not part of your subscription package, in the same way that cable television providers block access to channels based on your subscription.

"We're sorry, this website is not part of your package. To subscribe to Facebook, please call us at 1-800-555-5555."

Another problem is many internet providers have a monopoly in the area in which they operate. If not a monopoly, there might be two or three providers. If they all do the same thing, the customer won't have a choice for internet.

Monopolies needs to be regulated. One such regulation on an internet service provider monopoly should be that all data is treated equally, regardless of the content.

 

[Al68]

Gah, I can't remember exactly what I had posted, but the gist of the rest of the post is that under current regulations and according to some proposals, internet service providers can restrict access to certain websites because they're not part of your subscription package, in the same way that cable television providers block access to channels based on your subscription.

"We're sorry, this website is not part of your package. To subscribe to Facebook, please call us at 1-800-555-5555."

Are you talking about Facebook itself wanting to charge customers (through the ISP), like the case with premium cable channels? Or the ISP charging extra for Facebook access against the will of Facebook?

If the former, websites have always been free to restrict access to their own site, or any part of it, any way they like.

If the latter, I've only heard of ISP's restricting specific sites at the request of their customers, such as parental or workplace controls. Websites "not being part of your package" just doesn't make any sense. Unlike cable TV, there is no "package" of websites, and there logically can't be. Can you be more specific about what you're referring to?

 

[NeoDevin]

Are you talking about Facebook itself wanting to charge customers (through the ISP), like the case with premium cable channels? Or the ISP charging extra for Facebook access against the will of Facebook?

The latter. If you read previous posts, you will see some examples already posted.

 

[Jack21222]

Are you talking about Facebook itself wanting to charge customers (through the ISP), like the case with premium cable channels? Or the ISP charging extra for Facebook access against the will of Facebook?

If the former, websites have always been free to restrict access to their own site, or any part of it, any way they like.

If the latter, I've only heard of ISP's restricting specific sites at the request of their customers, such as parental or workplace controls. Websites "not being part of your package" just doesn't make any sense. Unlike cable TV, there is no "package" of websites, and there logically can't be. Can you be more specific about what you're referring to?

I am referring to the legal ability for ISPs to arbitrarily block access to whatever website they want. I don't know how I can be more specific.

 

[Al68]

I am referring to the legal ability for ISPs to arbitrarily block access to whatever website they want. I don't know how I can be more specific.

OK, you threw me off with the cable TV analogy, which is a completely different concept.

As far as ISPs themselves charging extra for Facebook access, I just don't see it happening that way. People would just switch ISPs. And I think an ISP having anything close to a monopoly anywhere is a thing of the past. There are several wireless ISPs that are available almost everywhere already, in addition to cable internet, dial up, hardline, satellite, etc.

As long as there is competition and freedom from regulation, customers will decide this, not ISPs. It will be like restaurants: McDonalds has complete power over their own menu, but no power over what I can eat.

 

[Jack21222]

OK, you threw me off with the cable TV analogy, which is a completely different concept.

As far as ISPs themselves charging extra for Facebook access, I just don't see it happening that way. People would just switch ISPs. And I think an ISP having anything close to a monopoly anywhere is a thing of the past. There are several wireless ISPs that are available almost everywhere already, in addition to cable internet, dial up, hardline, satellite, etc.

As long as there is competition and freedom from regulation, customers will decide this, not ISPs. It will be like restaurants: McDonalds has complete power over their own menu, but no power over what I can eat.

My options for broadband internet are Comcast and Verizon. That's it. If Comcast and Verizon both have the same policy about charging based on content access, I have nowhere to switch to. It is NOTHING like restaurants, which, by the way, are heavily regulated.

 

[nismaratwork]

My options for broadband internet are Comcast and Verizon. That's it. If Comcast and Verizon both have the same policy about charging based on content access, I have nowhere to switch to. It is NOTHING like restaurants, which, by the way, are heavily regulated.

Right, but you could use a tunneling proxy to make the inquiry for you, and the data is displayed for you on your screen. AGAIN... ISPs can control volume of traffic, and snoop, but without legal recourse that work they have little or no means to control content.

Hell, look at the lack of success the WORLD has had stamping out communication, but also piracy, legal and illegal pornography... hell, that's all growing. What on Earth makes people think they can control an even wider range of content? The government would need to hunt people down to make this stick, and that would die in the first legal challenge if the material in question isn't something sick like pedophilic pornography or meth recipes.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Websites "not being part of your package" just doesn't make any sense.

It does if it increases the ISPs profits, or in the case of ISPs owned by cable companies, increases the profits of other divisions.

there logically can't be

Yes there can and there are financial/political/economic reasons to do it.
An ISPs big costs are peering arrangements where it has to pay for the traffic from PF to you that isn't on it's network - so visiting 'foreign' sites cost it money.
By having major sites (Google/FB/etc) mirrored on it's own servers it saves these costs - if FB/etc are prepared to pay you for carrying them (which they do with cellphone social networking packages) you make even more money.

 

[nismaratwork]

It does if it increases the ISPs profits, or in the case of ISPs owned by cable companies, increases the profits of other divisions.Yes there can and there are financial/political/economic reasons to do it.
An ISPs big costs are peering arrangements where it has to pay for the traffic from PF to you that isn't on it's network - so visiting 'foreign' sites cost it money.
By having major sites (Google/FB/etc) mirrored on it's own servers it saves these costs - if FB/etc are prepared to pay you for carrying them (which they do with cellphone social networking packages) you make even more money.

...

And what about MS Live?
What about YouTube?
...
and SO many more?

Anyone who doesn't play the game can't make money unless they pay more?... Yeah, that would just make the content providers seek new outlets because they'd need to REALLY milk a smaller pool of users to do what something like google ads on these now blocked sites would do. This would be the best way to actually have new telecoms backed by content providers in a consortium sue the old ones.And I'll say it again... look at the history and fate of Sandvine.

 

[NobodySpecial]

...And what about MS Live?

Would no doubt be carried if your ISP had a deal with MSFT

What about YouTube?

Yes if you are on a Google affiliate ISP - probably not if your ISP is owned by a movie studio - or owns a movie studio. Do you think News corp (ie 20C fox) wants to pay to ship pirate copies of it's products to you?

This would be the best way to actually have new telecoms backed by content providers in a consortium sue the old ones.

Like the way you can always go to some new telecoms provider to get cable coverage of your local sports team that your cable company doesn't carry?

Broadcast TV is finished, the cable companies are not about to say "oh well it was a nice $Bn business while it lasted - let's all retire", they are gopign to try and apply the same business practices to the new medium.
It takes along time for monopolies to give up their power - that's why restrictive steam ship laws still stop you flying Air Singapore from NYC to LA.

 

[nismaratwork]

Would no doubt be carried if your ISP had a deal with MSFT


Yes if you are on a Google affiliate ISP - probably not if your ISP is owned by a movie studio - or owns a movie studio. Do you think News corp (ie 20C fox) wants to pay to ship pirate copies of it's products to you?


Like the way you can always go to some new telecoms provider to get cable coverage of your local sports team that your cable company doesn't carry?

Broadcast TV is finished, the cable companies are not about to say "oh well it was a nice $Bn business while it lasted - let's all retire", they are gopign to try and apply the same business practices to the new medium.
It takes along time for monopolies to give up their power - that's why restrictive steam ship laws still stop you flying Air Singapore from NYC to LA.

They can certainly try, but MS has no interest in who actually carries their content, nor does Sony, or Google or other massive companies. They make the most money when they reach the MOST PEOPLE, and this doesn't help them save money because the mechanisms for piracy circumvent this. It may be that Comcast is a monster monopoly, but so is MS, and Google and Sony aren't exactly tiny little waifs. When you add all of the companies, large and small with lobbies, which stand only to be harmed here then this is dead.

You can be awed by cable and telecoms all you like, but they just don't have as much control over content as you seem to think.

 

[WhoWee]

The "scare" is the timing - in the midst of the Wikileaks event. Common sense and standard practices seem to go out the window whenever there is a crisis. This is a political opportunity for a power grab.

 

[Evo]

My options for broadband internet are Comcast and Verizon. That's it. If Comcast and Verizon both have the same policy about charging based on content access, I have nowhere to switch to. It is NOTHING like restaurants, which, by the way, are heavily regulated.

If you did some research you would probably find a dozen different ISP's in your area unless you live in some really remote area. You're just not aware of them.

 

[Jack21222]

If you did some research you would probably find a dozen different ISP's in your area unless you live in some really remote area. You're just not aware of them.

Dial-up perhaps, but I specified broadband. And I'm not counting the plug-in air cards for laptops.

The "scare" is the timing - in the midst of the Wikileaks event. Common sense and standard practices seem to go out the window whenever there is a crisis. This is a political opportunity for a power grab.

This has absolutely nothing to to with wikileaks, and there is no crisis.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you did some research you would probably find a dozen different ISP's in your area unless you live in some really remote area. You're just not aware of them.

I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.

 

[nismaratwork]

I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.

To be fair, the midwest is at once one of the major hubs for trunk-lines... and poorly serviced at the homeowner level where the USA is concerned. Population density... it's a cruel thing, you'll catch up.

 

[Evo]

I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.

You don't have any local ISP's? Your local phone company doesn't offer internet? Can you get wireless broadband?

Just 2 years ago I had a dial up account, DSL, and wirless broadband all at the same time. Now I just have two accounts with two different providers for redundancy, cable & wireless broadband, I canceled the others to save money.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dial-up perhaps, but I specified broadband. And I'm not counting the plug-in air cards for laptops.



This has absolutely nothing to to with wikileaks, and there is no crisis.

You could use a cheap dial-up account as a kind of personal shell account and make it your proxy for packets related to inquiries to and from "banned" sites. Use your primary broadband as the actual funnel for the data. That's a crude do-it-yourself that anyone could use... never mind actual proxy services.

I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content... UNLESS your government is willing to really prosecute people on the supply side. Piracy has already shown that isn't going to happen, so... fin.

 

[Jack21222]

I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content...

I'll say it again... yes... you... can.

Just because there are illegal ways to get around it doesn't mean the content wasn't blocked in the first place. If an ISP doesn't want to deliver packets from a website to you, you're not getting the packets without resorting to piracy.