Great Article on Net Neutrality
By Ajax Posted in User Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I came across this and thought I should put it up here. Longtime lurker, firsttime poster.
From The Conservative Voice
"What the Misguided Have Missed Regarding Network Neutrality"
by Craig Fields
The concept of Network Neutrality has unfortunately been misunderstood by many conservatives, libertarians, and other champions of the free market. That,s too bad, because the free market essence of the Internet
is exactly what would be lost without Network Neutrality.
The large telecoms, some politicians and a number of conservative pundits have characterized the push for Network Neutrality as a left-wing attempt to stifle innovation and put government bureaucrats in control of the Internet. Well, it,s not. Through my work with Gun Owners of America, I am demonstratively a lot further to the right than they are.
It is true that the largest member of the coalition looking to regain Network Neutrality is MoveOn.org ^ and they are usually my political enemies. But Gun Owners and groups like Brent Bozell,s Parents Television Council have done did what many on the right don,t seem to have: our homework.
The real problem is that we are under a distorted market from the get-go. Government is setting the rules. The result has been a government-supported oligopoly. We are lucky that those controlling physical access to the Internet have been forced to give every purchaser of bandwidth equal access ^ it doesn,t matter whether Gun Owners or the Brady Center is purchasing a T-1: all T-1 purchasers pay the same for the same level of service. And moreover, the phone company has to tough it if they don,t like what is being done with that bandwidth (such as this column).
In a truly free market, Network Neutrality would not be necessary, as good old American competition would drive the very best service up the ladder of success. But as long as government is setting the rules for a handful of companies, the rules have to include statutory Network Neutrality to ensure those companies can,t unilaterally shut down what the innovators are doing. If they had any choice, telephone companies would not have allowed Instant Messaging or Voice over Internet ^ those things directly compete with their largest
moneymaking service!
It,s a funny way to have to think of it, true, but as long as Congress is making the rules for a handful of major companies in providing the infrastructure, it has to make certain those companies give equal access to all comers. That,s the way it has been for the very lifetime of the free and open Internet we're all interested in maintaining.
I don't post here much because I'm on the other side and this is you guys house but I feel this issue is one where there is a lot of common ground to be found. Josh Marshall has been all over this issue. One of his posts is pretty good. Here
An excerpt, comparing the internet to a delivery service:
What shipping speed do you think TPM will get? Kos? Redstate? Figure 6 day ground. And how about CNN and Fox? One way or another they'll get guaranteed overnight. Or maybe Bellsouth partners with Fox, so the Fox site downloads faster in Georgia and CNN goes faster out west.
It's a pretty good analogy. There is another good article from TNR here
Marshall makes another good point here
This shouldn't be or at least doesn't have to be a partisan issue. It's more like a monopolists versus open access issue.Nor is it corporations versus consumer groups, though virtually every consumer-oriented group is on the Net Neutrality side. In industry terms, the division is actually quite clear: it's content providers versus the owners of the network pipes -- so, Google versus ATT and Microsoft versus Verizon.
Sorry to bring Josh into your house, but he's a pretty smart fella. Everybody's voice deserves to be heard equally on the internet. Do we really want service providers deciding what loads fast and what doesn't?
Anyway, i enjoy the site here even though I disagree on a lot of things. It's interesting to read opposing viewpoints.
The amount of innovation over the last 10-15 years has been incredible. File under "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I work with the coalition Hands Off the Internet and we oppose legislation that would mandate net neutrality and place unecessary regulations on the internet.
The above article is misguided and the telecos don't want to block access to any content. Here is another interesting article from today's USA Today, written by their technology reporter,Andrew Kantor, who used to support net neutrality,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-06-15-net-neutrali
ty-revisited_x.htm
"Not too long ago, I was very much on their side. "Imagine you make a phone call to a friend," I wrote then, "but instead of hearing it ring, you get a recording: We're sorry, but the person you are calling has not paid Verizon to carry his or her conversations.
But I was wrong.
I did what's easy to do: I blew things out of proportion and borrowed trouble. As I learn more, I realize that Net neutrality -- at least the way it's being touted today -- is a bad idea.
It pains me to say it, because many organizations I respect are fighting for a law. But I'm not.
First off, network providers aren't going to be cutting off content. The FCC already made that clear in an August 2005 policy statement when it outlined four principles ensuring that you'll be able to access any (legal) content you want, period.
Despite this, the folks at It's Our Net wrote, "If you are a consumer ... you will have a degraded slower Internet experience with certain websites. Some websites will even be unavailable unless additional fees are paid."
That's just not true. Content isn't going to be closed off tomorrow any more than it is today -- and we don't have a Net neutrality law now."
I suspect that the network providers have something planned, or else they wouldn't be expending this kind of effort on this issue. They have lavished extraordinary amounts of lobbyist money to members of Congress.
My guess is that they have come to realize that they are a commodity market, one that is stagnant and looking at a declining customer base. One way to feed their bottom line is to find another source of revenue. In this case, it would be from the content providers in the form of delivery extortion. "Pay up or your content gets delivered more slowly than your competitor's content."
In the end, getting rid of network neutrality (which is the goal of the network providers) would damage the competitive marketplace, making it harder for small start-ups to compete with moneyed corporations.
The best approach is to keep the Internet nuetral.
"That's just not true. Content isn't going to be closed off tomorrow any more than it is today -- and we don't have a Net neutrality law now."
Yes and the reason for that is because "In August 2005, the FCC put the largest phone companies under a year-long moratorium that prohibits them from violating Net Neutrality. This FCC ruling will lift at the end of this summer. Without Congress taking action to make Net Neutrality the law, the path will open for rampant discrimination." source
First off, network providers aren't going to be cutting off content. The FCC already made that clear in an August 2005 policy statement when it outlined four principles ensuring that you'll be able to access any (legal) content you want, period.
Access sure. But what we're focusing on is speed of access.
Despite this, the folks at It's Our Net wrote, "If you are a consumer ... you will have a degraded slower Internet experience with certain websites. Some websites will even be unavailable unless additional fees are paid... That's just not true."
Who says? You? Here is an article from the Washington Post. Excerpts:
"A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users""William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc."
Sounds like I will have a degraded slower internet experience to me. Say I choose to use a site that isn't paying up these extortion (let's call it what it is) fees, my experience on the site will be slower. Duh! Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Considering you opened an account here so you could respond to this thread I'm gonna go out on a limb here and accuse you of being a paid shill who probably runs around the internet pimping their crap and gets paid for it. I would be surprised if you even made it back to this thread.
Another wrong argument made by the misguided is that the leftists are trying to institute price controls, forcing companies to charge the same for high bandwidth video as for quick-flying e-mail. Or as one writer put it, charge the same for a golf ball and a marble being sent through garden hoses. Nope. That bigger, more expensive hose required to deliver the golf ball? Network Neutrality merely means that all who buy that particular hose get the same hose at the same price and can,t be denied the chance to lawfully use it.
Seems to make sense to me.
In the first sentence I stated that I work with Hands Off the Internet and I made no attmept to hide that fact. Sorry, I should have used block quotes but I just want to make sure you know the comments following the link were all from Andrew Kantor of USA Today, not me.
You can say what you want about me, I'm merely trying to present some information from the other side. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, but this is an important issue for everyone and worthy of discussion.
Let's be clear that all of your citiations are from Save the Internet, the organization on the other side, so now we everyone is aware that we have biased positions.
Take a look at Kevin Martin's comments from last week when he said that additional net neutrality regulation are unecessary. Under the bill that passed the House the FCC has the authority to enforce the four net neutrality provisions and address any possible misconduct by ISPs.
I am confused by how many conservatives oppose the idea of Network Neutrality. I understand that they oppose government interference and additional regulation; that part makes sense to me.
What I don't understand is how a free-market proponent can look at Access Tiering and think that it is good for competition.
If ISP's allocate bandwidth for private use by their partners then that creates an artificial advantage for the partner and serves as disincentive for competition. It's basic free market economics.
If there are technical reasons why certain internet traffic needs to have priority over standard internet traffic then it should be the internet community itself coming up with a method of prioritization; not the telcos.
From a free market prospective the ISP's job should be to provide as fat as a pipe as possible. That's it. The market itself should be able to best determine how to allocate that bandwidth. Short of that we are exchanging government interference with interference from the ISP. Neither is good for the free market.
Government interference is bad and no conservative or libertarian would want it. But the idea of Net Neutrality is pure free-market stuff.
If you are anti-legislation and pro free market then I recommend this as a course of action: Investors should be the ones bringing pressure on the telcos to respect the tenets of Net Neutrality. Fund managers with holdings in telcos and content providers should see Access Tiering as bad for the long term outlook of their investments; therefore they should speak up at dog and pony shows and at stockholder meetings to express their displeasure with Tiering.
I don't think a conservative things we should have laws against certain kinds of service plans SOLELY because we don't LIKE those service plans.
I think the only way a conservative can support net neutrality laws, is because they serve as a correction to other, more intrusive regulations already in place.
Which is why the House instead passed a bill that sets national standards for franchise agreements (or something like that), in an attempt to fix the problem by reducing regulation overall.
I'm not saying conservatives should or would support regulation or net neutrality laws.
I'm saying that the "Idea" of net neutrality should be one that conservatives are in favor of.
One of my citations is from the website you mention, citing a fact about the FCC moratorium. The other is from a Washington Post article quoting executives saying they should be allowed to do what you say they don't want to do. Which is backcharge content providers for premium access, thereby slowing down certain sites in relation to others and thus making my experience on that site slower.
You say this is not what they want to do but it's clear (to me) that it is.
your argument that net neutrality (however one defines it as I have seen numerous variaitions) should be set my the market and not Congress.
However, what the term "discrimination" really means is the ISPs recognizing the difference between packets of information. For example, the difference between VOIP, interent TV (eventually), and an email. The faster pipes would be used to ensure there are no inteeruptions in your TV or VOIP service so you don't have a fuzzy picture or a dropped call. An email can afford to run slightly slower and recognizing the differecne between these services will make the internet more efficient.
Yes, this is an ad from Hands Off the Internet, but it provides a visualization of prioritizing packets of information,
From a free market prospective there is nothing wrong with giving priority to some internet traffic.
When a free market guy should cringe is the idea of the telcos being the ones who set the priority.
Why isn't anyone talking about the internet community setting prioritization standards?
That's my rub; and I think it should irk anyone with a business degree, whether control is held by the government or by government-like telcos giving control to any singular body is bad for competition.
As and aside, does anyone else feel like we are being talked down to when companies set up front groups like "save the internet" or "internet of the future". The Googles and the AT&T's of the world have lots of very smart people working for them; why they feel they need to turn to PR firms to spin their positions is beyond me.
they are trying to masquerade as a grassroots organization probably.
nobody that is part of Hands Off the Internet has ever tried to deny our affiliation or masquerade as a grassroots organization or anything else. However, I can't speak for other groups out there.
You can take a look at our website for more information.
but getting there may take MUCH longer, in other words--Speed.
Much faster access to bigger players.
If there wasn't some huge incentive (ka-ching!)for the telcoms--they wouldn't be spending all the time and money they are NOW to getting what they want.
Net nuetrality keeps the playing field even for all.
Can be just as bad as being cut off for some applications, and yes, there have been instances of providers completely cutting off access to certain competitors sites. They also regularly block ports so you cannot use an outside mail server, for instance, but have to use them for the service.
Hands off. I hope you think this is a fair question, and I apologize to the thread author for taking this a bit off topic. Can you give me your opinion of why Google and AT&T set up these front entities at all? Is it just because Washington seems to react most to lobby type groups?
I personally would rather see the companies represent their own views in public; I think that would have helped keep the NN discussion from going off track.
You can look at this thread here as an example. Invariably, every Net Neutrality discussion seems to get sidetracked by who's representing whom. (before you start type, yes I know you clearly stated who you represent)
Is a monopoly in a lot of areas. Monopolies are almost completely unresponsive to consumers. They don't have to be responsive. That's the nice thing about having a monopoly. I have as much choice in broadband providers as I do in electric companies. Zero. At least my electric company can't disable any appliances I didn't buy through them or whose manufacturers haven't paid them protection to make sure they work on their power grid.
I agree that there really is no choice when it comes to broadband; especially when you have a fiber-to-the-home provider in your market, FTTH changes the whole game. However; that is not what I was talking about in my original post.
The point of my original post is that free market proponents should see Access Tiering as a threat to free market dynamics; thus conservatives should be in support of the "idea" of Net Neutrality.
I was responding to HandsOff, who said the market should determine policy on this and not Congress.
State and local governments shouldn'd hand market power over to select ISPs, either, effectively letting THEM, rather than the market, dictate industry standard policies.
OTOH, the issue you have with rural areas is not interference from local governments, but just the practicality of rolling out infrastructure. In rural areas all you typically have are (non-DSLable) phone lines and electric lines. No cable TV infrastructure at all. You are never going to have a lot of players in rural areas, so the ones that are there (such as the electric company, once broadband over electric is a reality) will pretty much be able to dictate their terms.
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
From Save the Internet. Seems like you still have some explaining to do.
The areas with few customers by definition give little leverage to monopolists in the area.
It's the big urban areas that give an ISP enough clout to start the shakedowns that the pro-net neutrality people are afraid of.
Solve that, and the problem should go away.
There's nothing to stop big players from being involved in rural access. Sprint, for instance, does a ton of rural local telephone service. If you cover enough area, the numbers add up and then you do have the leverage to extort from content providers. Hughes would be an example of someone who is probably already in that position with their (ugh, horrible) satellite service.
Google decides to roll out nationwide free WiMax to hear the screams of the tecos and cable companies. It is coming and I really hope that our congress critters and state governments really do allow the marketplace to determine service and not the monopolies.
But I think that it's fair to give the House idea a shot first: eliminate local government distortions of the national Internet market, and see if that helps the threat go away.