warpus
In pork I trust
How can you have one? A priori reasoning depends on experience, and we've only ever had a single tiered internet - NEVER a multi tiered one.
Google Goes Against Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Yakinator
- Start date
How can you have one? A priori reasoning depends on experience, and we've only ever had a single tiered internet - NEVER a multi tiered one.
Mise
isle of lucy
You're thinking of a posteriori. A priori reasoning is deductive. There's no reason why Bad Things would necessarily happen; I'm open to economic arguments for Bad Things to happen, but I can't see them myself. Not with the level of competition we have in the UK, anyway. And if your argument is that you don't have enough competition for looser net neutrality laws, then your problem isn't net neutrality, it's a lack of competition among ISPs.
warpus
In pork I trust
Perhaps I did get those mixed up.. quit speaking with your fancy british talk!
But do you understand that a multi-tiered internet would be bad for innovation? especially coming from start-ups?
The level of competition between the already established players is not an issue.
Mise
isle of lucy
Well I don't think it would be as terrible as people here think... People seem happy with the iPhone, for example, favouring almost exclusively Apple's various platforms. Well, iPhone users seem happy at least, and for the rest of us, there are ample alternatives.
It might actually encourage innovation, since it would mean that there is more incentive for companies to innovate -- if they produce the next Google, they'll be handsomely rewarded with some premium deals with ISPs.
It might actually encourage innovation, since it would mean that there is more incentive for companies to innovate -- if they produce the next Google, they'll be handsomely rewarded with some premium deals with ISPs.
warpus
In pork I trust
Comparing cellphone networks to the internet is not really a good comparison... The internet is thriving right now because it is such an open and competitive place. Cell phone networks are an entirely different beast.
But.. you wouldn't be rewarded with anything - you'd have to PAY to have your content delivered via the higher tiers of the internet as opposed to the regular/lower tier. Because of that less people could compete, and less competition means less innovation.
Reading what you wrote above I am not so convinced you fully understand the concept of net neutrality.
I think we're looking at this from radically different perspectives, because it sounds like we exist in radically different markets. Your post says the UK has 40 or so ISP providers that operate nationally which is totally different from the typical US market. Here, any given area, even the home of the fabled Silicon Valley (the San Francisco Bay Area) you have maybe 4-5 ISP's, and 1 or 2 of these completely dominate the market and the other guys are really niche players. For instance in SF I have three choices, basically: AT&T, Comcast (cable provider) or some small company I have never heard of. This kind of market is probably the same in most areas of the country, if not worse. If those three players could restrict access, I guarantee they would jack up the price for "100% neutral" internet, if they even decided to offer it. Why would they want to do this if it meant they couldn't make more money?
There is also the problem of who actually controls the lines. Anyone in San Francisco, for instance, who wants to offer DSL service has to use AT&T's phone lines, and AT&T gets a cut of that service. So right there everyone is at a disadvantage. This is why Google is partnering with Verizon--Verizon is, if I remember correctly, an offshoot of one of the "baby bells" that was created when AT&T was broken up in the 80's. They own a substantial network across the country and therefore they are a legitimate "owner" of the internet, i.e. they control everyone else's access, even if it's a different ISP.
In other words, no matter how many ISP's there are, everyone is piggybacking on the same lines, and they are owned by a handful of major players: AT&T, Verizon, one of the Bells (if they still exist) and the handful of cable companies in the country, such as Cablevision and Comcast. And in any one given area, your choice is either using one of the major Telco lines (DSL) or the Cable provider. I.e. there are two entities, no matter how many ISP companies exist capable of dictating access.
It might be different in the UK but here, we have a legitimate fear of net neutrality being lost because it's not like some small new company could come in and offer 100% access on their own, because they would be getting that access from one of the big guys anyway.
EnglishEdward
Deity
It is not really different in the UK in terms of ISPs.
Most ISPs here are piggy backed off or are resellers or are niche players.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,253
You could just say: because the current big internet businesses can grantee that they'd become monopolies, capable of paying to strange any new competitor, and doing so with only a tiny fraction of their future monopoly rents. It's no wonder that Google is changing sides.
And illram has a very good point: even where there are many ISPs, most of those are only resellers. Though sometimes the physical infrastructure is indeed duplicated, and/or has competing technologies (telephone/fiber/coaxial/etc). Ultimately there are few players at each location.
Anyway, b3ecause the internet is international in both its supply and its demand, should net neutrality cease to be enforced I expect that a single huge corporation would soon emerge to coordinate local oligopolies. It would be a huge business, and there's one company which is very well positioned to do it because they are already slurping every piece of data they can about internet use: Google.
Mise
isle of lucy
Thanks for explaining that, Illram, it makes a lot more sense now.
In the UK, the companies they piggy back off are regulated in the same way as utilities; the owners of the infrastructure are correctly regulated as utilities, like the owner of physical water pipes or electricity cables. I can understand, in the USA's case, that net neutrality laws should apply between the cable/telephone line operators and the ISPs that the end user has a contract with. That seems to be a basic competition/monopoly regulation that I'm somewhat surprised hasn't made it into law in the US yet. I guess that's why this seems like such a big deal in the US, whereas it's rather unheard of in the UK.
Incidentally, some ISPs in the UK throttle things like P2P filesharing and video streaming, while others apply "fair usage" policies, but there are sufficient alternatives that this isn't much of a problem. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of "net neutrality" is little more than one of competition; which is to say, if your competition laws are up to scratch, then you don't need specific net neutrality laws.
In the UK, the companies they piggy back off are regulated in the same way as utilities; the owners of the infrastructure are correctly regulated as utilities, like the owner of physical water pipes or electricity cables. I can understand, in the USA's case, that net neutrality laws should apply between the cable/telephone line operators and the ISPs that the end user has a contract with. That seems to be a basic competition/monopoly regulation that I'm somewhat surprised hasn't made it into law in the US yet. I guess that's why this seems like such a big deal in the US, whereas it's rather unheard of in the UK.
Incidentally, some ISPs in the UK throttle things like P2P filesharing and video streaming, while others apply "fair usage" policies, but there are sufficient alternatives that this isn't much of a problem. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of "net neutrality" is little more than one of competition; which is to say, if your competition laws are up to scratch, then you don't need specific net neutrality laws.
And competition is the problem. We don't have the set-up to foster adequate competition in the US, I think, when it comes to controlling access of the physical data lines, such that people will have adequate & fairly priced choices for full 100% net neutral access.
Not to mention issues with wireless data; a handful of players completely dominate that part too.
Not to mention issues with wireless data; a handful of players completely dominate that part too.
Um, are you suggesting the premium tiers of cable do not innovate? HBO, Showtime, etc? They frequently win awards for quality programming.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I agree that competition is a key issue. We we have the Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries (OfCom).
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/
There is also the question of privacy of contract. If a big player wants to pay its ISP a premium so that its services are provided with as few (router) hops from the international internet exchanges as possible, I have no problem with that.
But third parties have no right to tell my ISP about prioritising traffic between me
and my ISP and me and the other parties.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/
There is also the question of privacy of contract. If a big player wants to pay its ISP a premium so that its services are provided with as few (router) hops from the international internet exchanges as possible, I have no problem with that.
But third parties have no right to tell my ISP about prioritising traffic between me
and my ISP and me and the other parties.
But I live in one of the most developed parts of the US. And my choices are the phone company or the cable company.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,616
I was going to say Google is going to be the next Microsoft, but now that I think about it Google is going to be a much larger threat to humanity than Microsoft can even dream of.
warpus
In pork I trust
When`s the last time you heard of an average guy in his parents`basement not only producing a hit tv show with 2 of his friends, but also releasing it on his own network, and it making millions?
Cause that`s the comparison and it doesn`t make much sense. You`re saying that the already established players can innovate - I`m not disputing that. I`m saying that people not yet in the market wouldn`t be able to get in, without a hefty investment. That`s the issue here.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Why should I support neutrality? I think the Communists should be supported by everyone.
Mise
isle of lucy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/09/neutrality_new_net_hypergiants/
This was an interesting article, although I don't really understand what's going on now. Can someone simplify the article? Is it saying that, irrespective of whether Verizon charge users different rates, there already exists a 2-tier internet, because Verizon users are plugged into teh Googles directly, and so new websites trying to compete with Google would be at a performance disadvantage, limiting their ability to reach potential new customers on Verizon's network? And that all of this is already going on right now? TBH it seems fairly benign - a natural consequence of the internets being a giant network of interconnected public networks, and a laudable testament to the massive amount of investment in network infrastructure made by Google, Amazon, and other big players.
Here is a picture:
It would explain, as the article says, why Google have been campaigning in favour of Net Neutrality laws, even though they would ostensibly have a great deal to gain from deals with Verizon. The truth is, there is already a de facto 2-tier internets in operation, with the incumbents on a much higher plane.
This was an interesting article, although I don't really understand what's going on now. Can someone simplify the article? Is it saying that, irrespective of whether Verizon charge users different rates, there already exists a 2-tier internet, because Verizon users are plugged into teh Googles directly, and so new websites trying to compete with Google would be at a performance disadvantage, limiting their ability to reach potential new customers on Verizon's network? And that all of this is already going on right now? TBH it seems fairly benign - a natural consequence of the internets being a giant network of interconnected public networks, and a laudable testament to the massive amount of investment in network infrastructure made by Google, Amazon, and other big players.
Here is a picture:
It would explain, as the article says, why Google have been campaigning in favour of Net Neutrality laws, even though they would ostensibly have a great deal to gain from deals with Verizon. The truth is, there is already a de facto 2-tier internets in operation, with the incumbents on a much higher plane.
Till
Adventurer
The gist is that google has build its own private internet infrastructure and connects directly to the ISPs who control the "last mile" to the users. This allows them to avoid having their traffic routed through the public backbones, with all their performance bottlenecks.
Very few competitors can afford the sort of investments necessary for that, so they will always lag behind google in performance. If net neutrality were abolished, they could pay to have their traffic prioritized, bridging that gap somewhat.
Very few competitors can afford the sort of investments necessary for that, so they will always lag behind google in performance. If net neutrality were abolished, they could pay to have their traffic prioritized, bridging that gap somewhat.
Mise
isle of lucy
Aha! Thanks Till - that last sentence is what I missed from the article! The plot thickens....
