Net Neutrality?

[GinandTonic]

I know a guy working for AOL who put it as "people arnt using our pay skype, so we are making free skype unworkable for our customers". Transparent attempt to distort the free market by creating a problem to sell a soloution for.

 

[mdwh]

I treat all regulations of these sorts as attacks on property rights. But can you elaborate upon your second statement?

I mean that it isn't socialist or anti-capitalist to have a Government which enforces rules about how companies do business.

As for property, whose property is it that all the cables get put through?

The Internet is not owned by the ISP - if they want to make their own private separate network, they have the right to do that.

Of course, the general question we must ask: is Internet access a fundamental human right?

It's not about fundamental human rights, it's about what makes a better market and a better Internet.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

I know a guy working for AOL who put it as "people arnt using our pay skype, so we are making free skype unworkable for our customers". Transparent attempt to distort the free market by creating a problem to sell a soloution for.

How despicable

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Tim Berners-Lee (y'know, the guy who invented The Internets) doesn't think much of Aphex's argument:

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA.

I blogged on net neutrality before, and so did a lot of other people. (see e.g. Danny Weitzner, SaveTheInternet.com, etc.) Since then, some telecommunications companies spent a lot of money on public relations and TV ads, and the US House seems to have wavered from the path of preserving net neutrality. There has been some misinformation spread about. So here are some clarifications. ( real video Mpegs to come)

Net neutrality is this:

If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.
That's all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.

Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.

There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.

Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.

Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.

Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.

I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.

The point is that even the free market cannot exist without government regulation.

 

[Kozmos]

Those sons of *bleeeeep*!!!

 

[Samson]

So the idea is, that if we do not have enforced NN then content providers (eg. CFC) would have to pay customers ISP's (eg. AOL) for that ISP to serve their content at all, or at a higher rate. That is a pretty dodgy buisiness model, but who would go with an ISP that restricts the sites you visit? If AOL started doing this, surely most people would abandon them and switch to a Net Neutral ISP?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

First of all, I'd like to stress here again that if ISPs thought they could make more money by lowering quality and charging extortion prices, they would have already done it. The issue is about the use of future high-speed (IPTV & other applications).

I mean that it isn't socialist or anti-capitalist to have a Government which enforces rules about how companies do business.

Regulations are fascistic in nature, but it is also socialistic when the purpose is to create "common" or "public" property.

As for property, whose property is it that all the cables get put through?

That's not relevant in this context.

The Internet is not owned by the ISP - if they want to make their own private separate network, they have the right to do that.

This still does not make it appropriate to call it public property (in the sense of government roads). There is some infrastructure built and owned by governments, but the issue here is what the ISPs are allowed to do ON THEIR OWN sections of the network. So it's not a matter of who owns the Internet as a whole, but who owns the different lines (cables, radio/satellite connections).

It's not about fundamental human rights, it's about what makes a better market and a better Internet.

It does touch upon human rights. If people don't agree with the practices of their ISPs, they could turn to the competition. If there is no competition, they may as well chose not to use the Internet.
If there is no such thing as a right to have internet access, this situation is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, if internet access is something that belongs in the UN declaration, there are two ways to go: nationalize the internet in the US and distribuite it to the people equally and freely (like free healthcare), or build parallel government infrastructure that performs the same function. But you're not talking about making internet access free. You're also not talking about making the internet equally available to everyone. Therefore, it is not a right to have internet access.

Also, if the purpose is neither equal availability of internet access, neither free service for customers, why should it be a particular problem if content providers are not treated equally?


And finally, an article by Tim Swanson:
WHO OWNS THE INTERNET

Numerous cell phone companies have created a business model that illustrates this principle in true form, the differentiation of minutes. Sure, the bits of information that are sent across the airwaves and through the network backbones are essentially the same no matter the time of day, but the amount of traffic varies. Therefore various pricing packages include variables ranging from the daytime, evening, weekends, and even roaming. Some even discriminate based upon whom you call (e.g., free calls to someone using the same phone service).

This phenomenon of adapting to supply and demand is also seen in other markets, such as sporting events. Many baseball teams now offer ticket packages that vary according to whether a game is held at night, against a specific team, or during a particular month.[15] Additionally, rates change according to the type of seat (e.g., sky-boxes), location of the seat, and group discounts.

Several commercial airline providers, most notably Northeastern-based JetBlue, have successfully used variable pricing based upon how far in advance you booked, the level of demand for a particular flight, weekdays versus weekends, and so forth.

There is no shortage of empirical examples illustrating profitable business models that embrace variable pricing. However, it is neither the job nor obligation of the taxpayer to finance, or in any manner subsidize, any business entity. The chief concern for both individuals and corporations alike has been the role of the State. If either side had their druthers, the State would intervene; it is a win-win situation for government intervention — a role whose legitimate jurisdiction has been left unquestioned.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Tim Berners-Lee (y'know, the guy who invented The Internets) doesn't think much of Aphex's argument:

Argument from authority, PP? I thought you were above that

Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.

"Freedom of connection" - would you want to elaborate? Are we making a new addition to the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.

I don't see how he would be any less free to innovate without NN.

The point is that even the free market cannot exist without government regulation.

What came first, government or the market?

The market consists of voluntary transactions between willing parties; the state, or "power," introduces compulsion into human relations, bringing about coerced outcomes that people would not voluntarily have chosen.
There seems to be some sort of problem in requiring compulsion to impose the absence thereof.

 

[warpus]

I don't see how he would be any less free to innovate without NN.

1. It wouldn't be as cheap
2. It would be easy for your competition to price you out of the market, if they had enough $

Say you develop a new and innovative web service & launch a web site with that web service on it. The word quickly spreads and you start getting hundreds of hits a day, then thousands, then millions.

But wait a second.. Microsoft notices how popular your new & innovative service is and within months put up their own product - which directly competes with yours. Since Microsoft is able to pay ISPs whatever they need to - their service becomes inherently faster (and better) than yours. People stop coming to your site - it's too low. You have been priced out of the market, since you can't afford to pay the ISPs for better service.

The end result is that people who already have money have a much better chance of making more money, while those who do not have it have a much lower chance. If you don't already have money @ your disposal, the chance that your innovation will catch on is slow... and thus there is far less incentive to fully develop your innovation & market it.

 

[GinandTonic]

I dont understand why a free-marketeer would be in favor of allowing this. It destorts the free market, lowers competition and stifles innovation. Vertical intergration never favors the consumer. Cartels never favor competion.

The isp's dont own the internet, but in many locations they have a monopoly on access to it. Monopolies are bad mmmkay? Where there is a stranglehold over a single point in a chain the regulator is forced to intervene to prevent the monopolist from exploiting their position to destort the market.

The point of NN is to maintain a free market.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

the state, or "power," introduces compulsion into human relations, bringing about coerced outcomes that people would not voluntarily have chosen.

Yeah, coerced outcomes like "don't use slave labor," "don't cheat your customers," "don't use counterfeit money," etc.

OH NOES! CREEPING FASCISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, I've dealt with more than enough Libertarians who just needed to grow up and get a job before they understood that not all regulation is Pure Eeeeevil.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Yeah, coerced outcomes like "don't use slave labor," "don't cheat your customers," "don't use counterfeit money," etc.

I was being unclear. I meant coercion in the non-aggression principle meaning: initiating aggression or threats thereof against non-initiators of aggression or those who initiate threats thereof. I prefer to use the shorthand, but it is often necessary to explicitate. Essentially, any action that interferes with the right to use property (in a non-aggressive manner) can be catalogued as coercive. Equally, any action that restricts voluntary interaction between individuals.

I dont understand why a free-marketeer would be in favor of allowing this. It destorts the free market, lowers competition and stifles innovation. Vertical intergration never favors the consumer. Cartels never favor competion.

A free-marketeer favours voluntary interaction (that's what the market is, after all) and property rights. NN seeks to restrict property rights, and is therefore against the free market.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

1. It wouldn't be as cheap
2. It would be easy for your competition to price you out of the market, if they had enough $

Say you develop a new and innovative web service & launch a web site with that web service on it. The word quickly spreads and you start getting hundreds of hits a day, then thousands, then millions.

But wait a second.. Microsoft notices how popular your new & innovative service is and within months put up their own product - which directly competes with yours. Since Microsoft is able to pay ISPs whatever they need to - their service becomes inherently faster (and better) than yours. People stop coming to your site - it's too low. You have been priced out of the market, since you can't afford to pay the ISPs for better service.

The end result is that people who already have money have a much better chance of making more money, while those who do not have it have a much lower chance. If you don't already have money @ your disposal, the chance that your innovation will catch on is slow... and thus there is far less incentive to fully develop your innovation & market it.

First of all, a smaller price is not necessarilly the goal here. Otherwise we're going down the relativistic path of utilitarianism.
By #2, do you mean practices like dumping and monopoly pricing?

Your example doesn't hold water. "Since Microsoft is able to pay ISPs whatever they need to - their service becomes inherently faster (and better) than yours." - that's true with or without NN: both you and MS are competing for a scarce resource: traffic and bandwidth. MS might have more money, but MS will still seek to make a profit (from an opportunity cost POV), so they will not bid forever. But what's wrong with MS out-bidding you? In both cases, people seek a service. If you can provide it, or MS, is quite irrelevant.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I was being unclear. I meant coercion in the non-aggression principle meaning: initiating aggression or threats thereof against non-initiators of aggression or those who initiate threats thereof. I prefer to use the shorthand, but it is often necessary to explicitate. Essentially, any action that interferes with the right to use property (in a non-aggressive manner) can be catalogued as coercive. Equally, any action that restricts voluntary interaction between individuals.

OK, amigo. Put down the Rand and tell me how throttling traffic in the expectation of, basically, bribes - is not a threat.

In both cases, people seek a service. If you can provide it, or MS, is quite irrelevant.

Except that there is absolutely no connection between the quality of service I provide and the budget I have available to bribe ISPs.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

PP, it's not a threat of aggression. Of course, the matter is different when the ISP does not provide you with the services delineated in the service contract.

What do you mean by "bribe"? Do you call it a bribe when you ask for a service in return for money?

You're also not addressing my points.

 

[GinandTonic]

A free-marketeer favours voluntary interaction (that's what the market is, after all) and property rights. NN seeks to restrict property rights, and is therefore against the free market.

It aint so jo.

A company can distort or limit the free market. Regulation then keeps the market free and competitive - eg leglislation against anti-competative practises and monopolies/ cartels. Since regulation is not necessarily the antithesis of the free market it is a necessary but not a sufficient arguement to say "NN seeks to restrict property rights, and is therefore against the free market".

 

[warpus]

Your example doesn't hold water. "Since Microsoft is able to pay ISPs whatever they need to - their service becomes inherently faster (and better) than yours." - that's true with or without NN: both you and MS are competing for a scarce resource: traffic and bandwidth. MS might have more money, but MS will still seek to make a profit (from an opportunity cost POV), so they will not bid forever. But what's wrong with MS out-bidding you? In both cases, people seek a service. If you can provide it, or MS, is quite irrelevant.

Sure, but what is the current cost for putting up a website with fast access to the net? Everyone, from you, me, to the upstart .com company, to Microsoft, has relatively cheap access to the net. (I'm talking about hosting costs here). Once you pay for your hosting & your domain, you are free to develop whatever service you please. Once your site becomes popular enough to warrant a faster connection, you will have enough traffic to both justify & afford such access.

Once you've entered the market with your service, the only thing Microsoft can do is improve their service, advertise it, or buy you out. Without NN though, they would be free to pay ISPs to ensure that their service gets priority. Your service would be slower - it would be a lot harder for you to compete with net behemoths such as MS.

In short, the removal of NN would give companies with $ a huge advantage over small & innovative upstarts. It would stifle innovation.