Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Net Neutrality is one of those wonky issues that just begs to be skipped over. In a world of limited mental bandwidth, some things are just kicked to the side so that we can spend time thinking and reading about important stuff, like taxes and illegal immigration and mosques in downtown Manhattan and Tiger Woods' divorce.
Here's the nutshell version: should internet service providers be required to carry all data -- no matter whose -- for the same rate? Meaning, should they be prohibited from charging, say, Facebook traffic or Hulu videos less -- or more -- than some New Internet Startup to carry their packets of data?
My answer: no. I'm against regulating ISPs. If they want to charge more for some data and less for another kind, my view is, let them. If their customers don't like it, they'll walk. If there aren't enough ISPs in a region to foster useful competition, then attack the problem that way, by creating ISP competition, not by regulating (or, really, pre-regulating businesses before there's even a problem to address). There's a cogent argument against Net Neutrality here.
Other people answer a different way. Some think web innovation and entrepreneurial zeal will suffer if big companies (like Google and Verizon) get together to make data transportation prohibitively expensive for smaller startups. Some think that the web needs to be divided into two bright categories: companies that move and deliver data, and companies that create the data to be transported. There's a cogent -- and conservative -- argument for Net Neutrality here.
The best -- and clearest -- explanation of both positions can be heard on NPR's "Planet Money" podcast, which is really excellent.
Meanwhile, the debate has made for some strange bedfellows. From The Hill:
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.
The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a "neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank" and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.
GOA was one of the charter members of Save the Internet, but a spokesman for the gun rights group said times have changed.
"Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues," said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.
"The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that," Pratt said.
Save The Internet had long pointed to the support of gun owners as evidence that net neutrality is a nonpartisan issue....
Save The Internet views net neutrality as a free speech issue rather than a liberal or conservative one. He noted the group’s membership still includes a number of conservative groups, including the socially conservative Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition.
Anything that all of those groups agree on has got to be wrong, somehow.
But I love the idea of those furious, paranoid MoveOn-ers sitting next to SEIU thugs, sitting next to uptight Christian Coalition guys in blue suits, sitting next to heavyset ACORN ladies, sitting next to permanently scandalized Parents Television Council, all waiting outside the FCC hearing room to testify for Net Neutrality. Maybe after that they all go for a hilariously tense lunch together. Maybe to a local Chipotle or something. (Do they have those in DC?) The lunch ends badly when the Christian Coalition guy reaches out to hold the hands of the SEIU thug and the MoveOn-er to offer a little blessing before they all dig in. And he's too late, anyway, because the ACORN lady is already into the communal chips.
Wait. What were we talking about?
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
I am perplexed by the urge to regulate anything that moves.It affects pretty much everyone but hard-core libertarians. Actually, I exaggerate, it's pretty simple. It is rent-seeking in its classic form - each interest rushing to shape the environment to their favor.
But can;t somebody in public life stand up and say (to quote Mr. Robinson) "Balderdash!!!!!!".
Maybe if we argue that leaving things alone helps them to grow in a truly organic fashion? Maybe that could bring the greenies on board?
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Rob Long: Net Neutrality Here's the nutshell version: should internet service providers be required to carry all data -- no matter whose -- for the same rate?
Obviously not.
I think I can even frame the "why not" in acceptably left-friendly terms. Suppose I'm a biochemistry professor in a department that can't afford a supercomputer, and I'm studying protein-folding, which is very hard without a supercomputer. So I've done what many scientist have done these days, and that is pooled my computer's downtime with the downtime of my like-minded colleagues' computers, to create a diffused supercomputer across the web.
Now we're "poor academics", but not so poor that we couldn't afford the extra fee that would allow our data to have higher priority if we lived in a world where such variation is allowed.
But let's say it's been forbidden -- we're all net-neutral now -- and every time Lady Gaga dons an absurd new outfit or Tiger Woods' mistresses make another stunning revelation, traffic goes up and our protein-folding program goes down. Science has lost out to the Enquirer.
Is this what we want?
Jul '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Actually, that previous bit reminds me that for all their protest otherwise, nobody is less "natural" or less "organic" than so-called progressives. They simply cannot bear the tough that something, anything might happen without the firm hand of well-educated intellectual progressive management. Scares the bejeebers out of them.
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Well, I've been having a really interesting email debate with our own Busy System Admin, and he's offered some excellent counterarguments.
Busy System Admin? Dive in!
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 8:12pmMay '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
This is typical. Private entities build the infrastructure with billions of their own money and then a bunch of busybodies and governmental policy wonks want to tell them how to use it.
I certainly don't have to tell Peter and Rob that the business of this business hasn't settled on a working model yet. While Ricochet charges the user the cost of Frappa-whappa-mocha-lingering-latte, ESPN charges the ISP a subscription fee for its ESPN3.com content. But until the market decides how this thing is going to work I want the government to keep it's filthy little hands off of it.
Feb '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Here's my original comment on this, via Drudge: Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN
So let me get this straight: Just because a conservative group is on the same side as some leftist groups on one particular issue (which gets support from across the political spectrum, by the way), that is enough to discredit them, scare them and intimidate them into changing their position? Guilt by association-- and a very loose kind of association at that. I hate this kind of tactic.
I have to comment on this issue, because as a techie I've been following it for a long time, and I understand the technical side of it. It's only recently become this politicized, and mainly by people who have their own commercial or political agendas.
What is Net Neutrality really about? Is it some kind of neo-Fairness Doctrine, as some seem to think? Is it designed to make sure "everyone gets equal time" by forcing a balance of opinions on the Internet via government intervention and oversight? As conservatives well know, the Fairness Doctrine actually results in censorship of views seen to be too "extreme" or out of balance.
Net Neutrality is really quite the opposite, and conservatives (and independents and liberals) who care about freedom ought to be all for preserving the principle of Net Neutrality, which has been in place since the beginning of the Internet.
This principle is basically that network providers should not be able to block any kind of legal data traffic between two paying customers, or slow it down or discriminate against it by favoring other traffic. In other words, Net Neutrality is a principle ensuring the network is NOT censored. It is NOT a principle to ensure equal representation of views, that all opinion on the Internet should be balanced out to be made "neutral"!
Behind the scenes, it's also (supposedly) a disagreement about who pays for new Internet infrastructure. The argument is that "big corporations" like Google don't want to help pay for all the bandwidth they use, and want to stick the bill with the telco and cable companies and their customers. First, it looks suspicious for conservatives to be against certain "big corporations" and not others. Second, the customer will ultimately pay either way-- that's a fact from Econ 101 that conservatives are supposed to understand.
A lot of what is being said about this issue is intentionally vague or misleading, particularly by the now-apparently-defunct astroturf group "Hands Off The Internet" (a name probably chosen to preempt the arguments of the other side; if you saw their ads, they were quite fluent in doublespeak). See"No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle" at the Washington Post for a good dissection of the misrepresentations on both sides. A reasonable background on the issue can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality. I tend to agree with the Network Neutrality side of the argument.
But what really drives me crazy about this is how professional lobbyists and politicians have twisted this into a political issue, and also how many pundits and commentators seem to be taking up this issue without fully understanding it, and playing into their hands. The lobbyists want to inflame public opinion for the commercial advantage of their clients. The politicians want to use this as a wedge issue. I really doubt many of these people even care about the openness of the Internet. They only seem to want to create misunderstandings to gain political or commercial advantage. Certain groups go so far as to charge that net neutrality may violate the First Amendment. What?!? How did they get to that twisted conclusion? Sure, some of them may be on "our side" or whatever, but this kind of misrepresentation is sickening and wrong.
When we see political operatives and lobbyists cynically playing an issue just for political points, we should stop them in the name of truth. It may lead to short-term gains but most likely to long-term loss of credibility. Why do you think much of the Tea Party hates the GOP's guts?
Sick.
We ought to be on guard against being cynically manipulated by people with their own agendas, merely wrapping them in high-sounding conservative principles while misrepresenting the issue.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 8:25pmJul '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
As long as they don't mess with my Cat-Attacks-Warthog and Guy-on-Bike does-Awesome-Face-plant videos, I'm hunky-dory.
The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, anticipated the peril that a tyrannical government might deny our rights to watch "Fat Girl Dances and Her Top Falls Off".
That's why they wrote the Second Amendment.
May '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
There is a certain level of "regulation" that everyone, including libertarians, finds beneficial. Government's have long acted to assure a "fair market" or "even playing field", along with stable currency and meaningful contracts. In this country establishing the groundwork for profitable trade was among the first acts of the new government.When the mail system plays favorites, much mischief ensues.
This issue resembles some of the railroad legislation of earlier centuries, or perhaps banking regulation that provides for fair access to credit. We tend to believe that an open and evenly applied system is ultimately "good for business" even if it gets in the way of a few powerful economic powers.
But to put it into perspective, imagine that after a Ricochet posting critical of the telecom industry, you find that the site becomes very hard to reach. Or perhaps that a political candidate's sites and emails are all blocked due to "objectionable content". (Which already does happens today)
May '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
I have to agree with Admin. To me it seems the ISPs are trying to sell the same bandwidth to two different users; data providers and data users. They have already sold that bandwidth to me and you and it is no longer theirs to sell. I pay every month for access to a certain amount of data and it should not matter what the source of that data is. If they want to change how and what data gets to me then they need to deal with me. Its probably a bad analogy but its like they sold me a car and then tell me which roads I get to drive on. They can either sell me the bandwidth or sell the data providers the bandwidth but not both of us. Once they sell it then it is not theirs anymore.
Feb '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Imagine this: your local toll road operator suddenly decides to charge you $2 instead of $1 because you drive a Toyota, and the toll road is partially owned by Ford. Or, they decided to ask you where you were going, and if they found out you were going to the strip club (or your local church or mosque) they would charge you more for going to discouraged locations.
Net Neutrality, as I understand it, allows the toll road owner to charge you a flat rate per vehicle, or to charge you by the axle, but it should not charge more, or block access, based on who you are, what kind of vehicle you drive, or where you are coming from or going to. Internet service providers should be able to charge you different amounts based on your usage, based on your bandwidth, etc., or they can choose to offer unlimited service at a flat fee. But they shouldn't be allowed to give their partners preferential treatment, block things they don't like, and so on.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 9:00pmAug '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Busy System Admin:
This principle is basically that network providers should not be able to block any kind of legal data traffic between two paying customers, or slow it down or discriminate against it by favoring other traffic.
For some people, paying extra to have their data get higher priority is worth it. For others, the discount you'd get for accepting a lower priority for your data is worth it, too.
Not everyone needs the same traffic priority. My husband does scientific computing using his office network. For that, it might be worth it to pay extra for higher priority. My parents only use the internet for e-mail and a tiny amount of browsing. Their computer is too messed-up itself to handle more. Why should they be denied a discount for being willing to accept the crappy service that is all they can really handle, anyhow?
I, too, believe companies should not block legal traffic between users, and I know that slow enough traffic is effectively blocked. But I'd bet a company that indulged in this practice without more than making up for it in some other way would lose customers quickly in a free market.
Feb '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
I'm in complete agreement-- except we don't have a totally free market.
In my neighborhood, there are really only two viable choices: cable internet or AT&T internet. There are several technical reasons I can't use cable internet, so I'm restricted to AT&T. Where is the free market in this case? A duopoly is some competition, but because of bundling of other services, it's a lot less competition than the market really needs. And that is a problem in itself.
Net neutrality really is just a safeguard in this kind of situation. In 2005, one telco decided to block its customers from using Voice-over-IP traffic (think Skype or the internet telephone services available today). Probably they were afraid customers might stop buying telephone service, but they were stifling innovation! The FCC made them back down, fortunately, and this is exactly the kind of situation Net Neutrality addresses.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 9:33pmJul '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
As I understand it, this is exactly it. Once you allow companies to discriminate between content, the question becomes: what standard is being used to determine the hierarchy of importance? I'm not at all comfortable with an outside entity subjectively categorizing my activities' importance, especially when I've paid for access to their bandwidth. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
There's a difference between discriminating between two flows of data based on what company originates them, and discriminating based on the type of data. People seem primarily to be offended by the idea that an ISP like Time Warner could discriminate against data from a competitor like Verizon, or vice versa. But is it so objectionable for an ISP to charge more for, or otherwise limit, real-time video streaming over other forms of data, because of the burdens it places on the infrastructure, as long as they don't exempt their own video streaming?
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
We've been through this before with the phone company, haven't we? If they start charging different rates, the ISPs will rape a lot of people, until some ISP begins charging everyone the same price and the rest have to fall in line because of the competition.
I used to pay the phone company "long distance rates" with "long distance" starting right in the same county where I work. It got more expensive the further away I called.
Is there anyone today who pays for long distance? Hasn't competition made every plan one rate for the whole of the US?
My phone bill dropped from about $700.00 monthly to the $39.00 flat rate per month. I'm sure all those years I was paying $700.00, they were screwing me.
Same thing here. The only question is how long will they get away with sticking it to us before competition pulls them back?
Feb '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
The "burden on infrastructure" is largely a red herring-- there's actually a lot more bandwidth than they let on.
But under Net Neutrality, they are free to charge more for greater volume of data, which video streaming entails. Some already do. They can also charge more for "special services" that they provide, under certain circumstances. They just wouldn't be able to block applications and traffic they didn't like or prioritize partners' or their own traffic over competitors', or block specific applications of the bandwidth or charge more based solely on the application.
In the real-life case in 2005, a telco restricted Voice-over-IP traffic to protect their existing phone business. Comcast was caught restricting BitTorrent traffic-- I believe it was because videos being downloaded would compete with their cable business, not because it was such a horrible load on their network. But BitTorrent can be used for legitimate purposes, not just piracy. I download Linux frequently using BitTorrent.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 10:42pmAug '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Busy System Admin
I'm in complete agreement-- except we don't have a totally free market.
In my neighborhood, there are really only two viable choices: cable internet or AT&T internet. There are several technical reasons I can't use cable internet, so I'm restricted to AT&T. Where is the free market in this case? A duopoly is some competition, but because of bundling of other services, it's a lot less competition than the market really needs. And that is a problem in itself.
Yes, it is a problem in itself, and my instinct, though it might be too idealistic, is to fix that problem first. Cable is not necessarily a natural local monopoly, but it has been artificially granted that privilege in most states and cities. Even with net neutrality, we'll still have all the other problems that come from municipal governments granting some companies monopoly privileges while denying access to the competition.
Feb '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
The four general principles that Net Neutrality proponents usually agree upon are these (taken from http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm):
May '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
Nothing is more irritating than video that won't stream because of bandwidth problems. How can startup internet video services hope to deliver decent service if they can't work out prioritized delivery?
May '10
Re: Net Neutrality: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Facebook Friend
I agree with Midge that the real problem is the monopoly access provided to local cable. (I have to pay for the signal and then pay again and again for each device in my house that decodes the same signal?!) What they seem to want to do as best I can tell is roll Internet back to fit their highly-lucrative cable television business...
HOWEVER, until that gets worked out, these four principals actually seem sensible, and straightforward and a simple price for having the monopoly in the first place. You've won a convert Busy.
P.S. And now since I agree with you, can I please have that cool extendo-word-limit super-power too?
Edited on August 25, 2010 at 1:54am