Net neutrality is about more than just blocking and throttling(brookings.edu)
brookings.edu
Net neutrality is about more than just blocking and throttling
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dont-be-fooled-net-neutrality-is-about-more-than-just-blocking-and-throttling/
63 comments
How can you talk about “net neutrality” and then say the government should limit what goes over the wire - ie DRMd protocols?
You’re falling right into the ISP playbook. ISPs absolutely need far more oversight, due to the fact that they have received billions in public money to subsidize their buildouts, but then complain that they should be able to operate like a private business with only free market competition to guide them.
The first time NN came up, there was a huge whataboutism campaign by them pointing at FAANG to redirect attention to them instead of the monopoly abuses from the ISPs themselves. And the misdirection worked in many case (as evidenced by your comment).
Does FAANG need to be looked at? Yes. But it’s not an NN issue, just regular anti-trust. ISPs are at a whole other level that needs regulation. They should not be able to sell all my DNS queries, monitor all my traffic, scan my internal network from their modems, or give zero ratings to their own bundled streaming apps. All of that is related to the fact that they are the sole available option for Internet service in almost all markets.
The first time NN came up, there was a huge whataboutism campaign by them pointing at FAANG to redirect attention to them instead of the monopoly abuses from the ISPs themselves. And the misdirection worked in many case (as evidenced by your comment).
Does FAANG need to be looked at? Yes. But it’s not an NN issue, just regular anti-trust. ISPs are at a whole other level that needs regulation. They should not be able to sell all my DNS queries, monitor all my traffic, scan my internal network from their modems, or give zero ratings to their own bundled streaming apps. All of that is related to the fact that they are the sole available option for Internet service in almost all markets.
> [ISPs] should not be able to sell all my DNS queries, monitor all my traffic, scan my internal network from their modems, or give zero ratings to their own bundled streaming apps
Only the last is relevant to net neutrality. From what I can tell, it’s not an issue—streaming is competitive.
Debating net neutrality seems a convenient way to avoid scrutinising the pricing and privacy problems at ISPs. In that sense, it seems more profitable—for the ISPs—to centre the debate around net neutrality versus their actual profit centres.
In summary, I’d much prefer an ISP customer bill of rights, and release of exclusivities granted to ISPs that didn’t meet their ends of the bargains, than this seemingly-performative debate about net neutrality, which is largely about increasing the scope of the FCC’s portfolio than doing anything meaningful for ordinary Americans.
Only the last is relevant to net neutrality. From what I can tell, it’s not an issue—streaming is competitive.
Debating net neutrality seems a convenient way to avoid scrutinising the pricing and privacy problems at ISPs. In that sense, it seems more profitable—for the ISPs—to centre the debate around net neutrality versus their actual profit centres.
In summary, I’d much prefer an ISP customer bill of rights, and release of exclusivities granted to ISPs that didn’t meet their ends of the bargains, than this seemingly-performative debate about net neutrality, which is largely about increasing the scope of the FCC’s portfolio than doing anything meaningful for ordinary Americans.
It's not clear that network neutrality wouldn't be much more of an issue if government and citizens hadn't shown some degree of will to protect it in name or nature since the inception of the internet. The counterargument sounds a bit like a diabetic dismissing the importance of insulin.
> I’d much prefer an ISP customer bill of rights
This relies on a wholly imaginary choice between net neutrality and the the rights you would prefer. It's not dissimilar to the argument that is made in response to gun violence for instance. For instance "I'd much prefer we focused on the root cause of mental health than potentially infringing on the rights of honest gun owners."
In fact mental health is an important issue but there is no particular reason to believe that a government with a budget in the trillions can't do you know TWO THINGS.
> I’d much prefer an ISP customer bill of rights
This relies on a wholly imaginary choice between net neutrality and the the rights you would prefer. It's not dissimilar to the argument that is made in response to gun violence for instance. For instance "I'd much prefer we focused on the root cause of mental health than potentially infringing on the rights of honest gun owners."
In fact mental health is an important issue but there is no particular reason to believe that a government with a budget in the trillions can't do you know TWO THINGS.
> relies on a wholly imaginary choice between net neutrality and the the rights you would prefer
This isn’t how politics works. Crowding out an issue with a filibuster is a valid political tactic. Net neutrality seems, to me, like that when it comes to ISP regulation.
This isn’t how politics works. Crowding out an issue with a filibuster is a valid political tactic. Net neutrality seems, to me, like that when it comes to ISP regulation.
This is how politics works. We have a maximum of 535 law makers with out 18,000 staffers. The reason there is constant discussion about net neutrality is because it is real and actual. There is no connection whatsoever abandoning the actuality of net neutrality and the fanciful notions you imagine would be virtuous. There is no reason to imagine your ideas are ever liable to be made real even if useful.
Abandoning the actual for the fanciful nets us only a loss of both.
Abandoning the actual for the fanciful nets us only a loss of both.
> they told me that if the FCC enacted a rule dealing with anything other than “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization,” they would use their authority to make my life uncomfortable. When the FCC enacted a rule creating broad regulatory authority over ISPs, they kept their promise.
This sounds like a problem…
This sounds like a problem…
It's also about the free market, and why sometimes you need regulation.
I'm of a firm belief that Net Neutrality (for Tier 2 and 3 operators) is mostly a US-specific issue that primarily stems from the extra difficulty of running lines (I mean, in addition to normal difficulty) to the customer added by market-disruptive means like lobbying (e.g. exclusivity agreements). That's a bad kind of a free market.
In other words, net neutrality is only a thing because of lack of competition. If all providers are bad, and you can't have or start a good one because of some barriers, then net neutrality becomes a topic. But it's not a solution for the core problem, it's merely a band-aid that tries to ignore the core issue. I'm not against it - it surely works for the interim, but it's important that NN is not in the focus.
I've worked for an ISP in another country, with heavy competition in early '10s, where many households had an option of at least 4+ different providers, and switching was as easy as calling a phone number (no long-term contracts or any BS small print). There and then, ISPs had to tread very carefully to not make their customers unhappy, or they'll start losing them in droves. Rate limiting and blocking was only ever employed to block malware or as emergency measure for network stability issues that would've otherwise caused worse outage.
(Later on, that country became a dictatorship, telecom became heavily regulated, competition had essentially stopped, and now ISPs do all sort of shit because they can or forced to - but that's another story.)
<conspiracy serious="no, but you never know">
It could be that Net Neutrality is a big telco distraction tactic, which they use to simultaneously banter with large services, while shifting public and government focus from stuff they don't want to lose (exclusivity agreements), towards "maybe we won't rate-limit Netflix after all, lol".
</conspiracy>
In other words, net neutrality is only a thing because of lack of competition. If all providers are bad, and you can't have or start a good one because of some barriers, then net neutrality becomes a topic. But it's not a solution for the core problem, it's merely a band-aid that tries to ignore the core issue. I'm not against it - it surely works for the interim, but it's important that NN is not in the focus.
I've worked for an ISP in another country, with heavy competition in early '10s, where many households had an option of at least 4+ different providers, and switching was as easy as calling a phone number (no long-term contracts or any BS small print). There and then, ISPs had to tread very carefully to not make their customers unhappy, or they'll start losing them in droves. Rate limiting and blocking was only ever employed to block malware or as emergency measure for network stability issues that would've otherwise caused worse outage.
(Later on, that country became a dictatorship, telecom became heavily regulated, competition had essentially stopped, and now ISPs do all sort of shit because they can or forced to - but that's another story.)
<conspiracy serious="no, but you never know">
It could be that Net Neutrality is a big telco distraction tactic, which they use to simultaneously banter with large services, while shifting public and government focus from stuff they don't want to lose (exclusivity agreements), towards "maybe we won't rate-limit Netflix after all, lol".
</conspiracy>
The US is 9,833,520 km2 much of it sparsely populated. Not only is it inherently difficult its impossible to resolve in any reasonable duration of time. If we wanted to drive a bit more competition there was a law many years ago forcing ISP to share their lines with the competition at cost. This is actually practical and able to be implemented in the short term. Another thing we can do is repeal all the local laws restricting municipal broadband.
The US is big is such a tired argument.
An individual state can often implement a lot without needing federal law changes.
> sparsely populated
Oregon is about the same size, population and geography as my country New Zealand.
Within a decade New Zealand (poorer country) has managed to roll out fibre to 85% of households using a public-private partnership model. Starlink serves rural areas.
An individual state can often implement a lot without needing federal law changes.
> sparsely populated
Oregon is about the same size, population and geography as my country New Zealand.
Within a decade New Zealand (poorer country) has managed to roll out fibre to 85% of households using a public-private partnership model. Starlink serves rural areas.
We did the same thing but the ISP just kept the money instead of actually laying fiber.
In any case Oregon is about 3 million people in the portland metro and a million people spread over 90,000 sq miles or 10 per sq mile or about 4 per sq km
Portland is already working on municipal fiber as it should but keep in mind that US government projects a bit like the Russian military a lot of money gets soaked up between budget and result.
A more competitive market is something we might if we do well achieve in the next few decades. Net Neutrality helps now and will actually still be virtuous if we can move forward in other respects.
In any case Oregon is about 3 million people in the portland metro and a million people spread over 90,000 sq miles or 10 per sq mile or about 4 per sq km
Portland is already working on municipal fiber as it should but keep in mind that US government projects a bit like the Russian military a lot of money gets soaked up between budget and result.
A more competitive market is something we might if we do well achieve in the next few decades. Net Neutrality helps now and will actually still be virtuous if we can move forward in other respects.
> In any case Oregon is about 3 million people in the portland metro and a million people spread over 90,000 sq miles or 10 per sq mile or about 4 per sq km
NZ is more closely comparible than you are suggesting. The majority of NZ is in cities with the other ~1 million[1] spread over 103,500 sq mi. Density is a distribution, and cherry picking a single density number is nearly always very misleading.
Oregon is often a fine comparison with New Zealand. Except I wouldn't want to try to compare which government is more functional (we have our serious problems too).
As a generalisation, while it is difficult to compare the whole of the USA with a specific country, it is often enlightening to find a comparible state.
[1] 3.4 million in top 20 cities or 3.7 million if including their greater urban areas, population 5.2 million.
NZ is more closely comparible than you are suggesting. The majority of NZ is in cities with the other ~1 million[1] spread over 103,500 sq mi. Density is a distribution, and cherry picking a single density number is nearly always very misleading.
Oregon is often a fine comparison with New Zealand. Except I wouldn't want to try to compare which government is more functional (we have our serious problems too).
As a generalisation, while it is difficult to compare the whole of the USA with a specific country, it is often enlightening to find a comparible state.
[1] 3.4 million in top 20 cities or 3.7 million if including their greater urban areas, population 5.2 million.
>We did the same thing but the ISP just kept the money instead of actually laying fiber.
Source? Surely the money came with strings attached?
Source? Surely the money came with strings attached?
Because, among other things, ISPs had regional monopolies, and the strings were poorly thought out.
Apparently it’s also about not having paid prioritization. What else? The article doesn’t seem to say.
The article puts it in plain terms:
> that the nation’s most important network has no public interest supervision
> that the nation’s most important network has no public interest supervision
Those are not plain terms to me. Can you describe something that ISPs are doing right now that they couldn't do under "public interest supervision"?
Comcast's router/modems routinely gather information concerning your local network. CS employees and techs alike will act stupid so you can't use your own hardware, too.
They sell DNS data, search term data, anything they can glean from your network activity in-transit.
We need data liability laws. Watch tho silos disappear overnight the moment they're responsible for damages incurred.
They sell DNS data, search term data, anything they can glean from your network activity in-transit.
We need data liability laws. Watch tho silos disappear overnight the moment they're responsible for damages incurred.
How does Comcast know your search term data over https? Yes query strings are encrypted
If it can be gleaned then it will. I recall Mozilla investing in DoH and other technologies in efforts to strengthen HTTPS because it alone isn't enough for privacy.
Correct me with real info if I'm wrong please.
Correct me with real info if I'm wrong please.
I think you are wrong, this is not how TLS works. In order to man-in-the-middle you, your ISP would have you install a certificate that makes their fake certificates for services (ie google.com) trusted on your devices.
The article mentions supervision once and “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” about half a dozen times. Is the idea to just have some bearucracy around ISPs, then? It really isn't clear what the point is.
That's abstract jargon I'm not familiar with. What sort of changes might an ISP have to make (or be prevented from making) as a result of "public interest supervision?"
In general terms I’m in favor of public interest supervision where it’s needed, but I would also be interested in knowing some details of what that supervision is going to be looking at.
Further down the page he brings up the “just and reasonable” standard from Title II. I want to know what behavior he (or the FCC) would consider unjust or unreasonable that isn’t in the realm of blocking or throttling.
Further down the page he brings up the “just and reasonable” standard from Title II. I want to know what behavior he (or the FCC) would consider unjust or unreasonable that isn’t in the realm of blocking or throttling.
this. while i agree with the claim in the article on principle, it left me wanting.
It is the conduct of the ISPs that is in question here. Because telephone companies were Title II common carriers, their behavior had to be just and reasonable. Those companies prospered under such responsibilities; as they have morphed into wired and wireless ISPs, there is no reasonable argument why they, as well as their new competitors from the cable companies, should not continue to have public interest obligations.
what were those responsibilities and obligations?
It is the conduct of the ISPs that is in question here. Because telephone companies were Title II common carriers, their behavior had to be just and reasonable. Those companies prospered under such responsibilities; as they have morphed into wired and wireless ISPs, there is no reasonable argument why they, as well as their new competitors from the cable companies, should not continue to have public interest obligations.
what were those responsibilities and obligations?
Net neutrality is largely about blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Treatment of Internet access and transit services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is about much more than that, and potentially dangerously so, because Title II gives the FCC vast powers over telecommunications, and there is a history of a heavy handed regulatory approaches authorized by laws like that making things worse rather than better in many respects, especially cost and flexibility.
What can be worse than the major ISPs in the US? They offer last decades technology (cable) at extremely high prices (compared to other western countries), have frequent outages, questionable business practices (have you gotten your internet security package surcharge yet?) and generally make you want to move somewhere where Fiber is available. I have no doubt that they would want to make me pay even more money for being able to watch Netflix in 4k (vs their cable TV offering) if they legally could.
The cable ISPs are exactly the kind of companies that could use a little regulation under Title II, they are horrible.
My point is that government regulation is likely to make costs go up, not down, and cause a certain amount of technological lock-in as well. The history of Title II regulation of the circuit switched telephone network is an excellent example of this, and is why the FCC promises to exercise a "light touch" here.
My point is that government regulation is likely to make costs go up, not down, and cause a certain amount of technological lock-in as well. The history of Title II regulation of the circuit switched telephone network is an excellent example of this, and is why the FCC promises to exercise a "light touch" here.
> have no doubt that they would want to make me pay even more money for being able to watch Netflix in 4k (vs their cable TV offering) if they legally could
They legally could. For years. They didn’t.
They legally could. For years. They didn’t.
Could you please be more specific which vast powers and heavy handed regulatory approaches you are referring to?
The last two times net neutrality was in the news (during the initial reclassification, and then the repeal), the main claim then was that it would/did reduce investments and innovation, and that was a lie[0][1][2][3]. So, knowing this, what are the actual risks you see today in treating ISPs as common carriers?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/sorry-fcc-charte...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/attverizon-lobby...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-crip...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/insights/does-net-neutrality-st...
The last two times net neutrality was in the news (during the initial reclassification, and then the repeal), the main claim then was that it would/did reduce investments and innovation, and that was a lie[0][1][2][3]. So, knowing this, what are the actual risks you see today in treating ISPs as common carriers?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/sorry-fcc-charte...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/attverizon-lobby...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-crip...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/insights/does-net-neutrality-st...
Do you think splitting internet services into separate private commercial and public utility markets might decrease costs, improve quality, and expand access?
As an example, as long as a customer has access to a public option for comparable internet service, private companies would be exempt from "net neutrality" regulation and penalties.
As an example, as long as a customer has access to a public option for comparable internet service, private companies would be exempt from "net neutrality" regulation and penalties.
The blocking / throttling is the most important part because of the lack of competition. A server can burn through available ISPs if they don't like your site for whatever reasons. If a client's ISP doesn't like your site they can block it and prevent them from connecting. There are many clients who may only have 1 or 2 options for an ISP and switching over a single blocked site is not a big enough reason to switch. In cases like this I just use Tor and hope the exit node has an ISP that doesn't block the site.
Allowing ISPs to all have their own standards on who they block can be frustrating for both end users and site operators.
Allowing ISPs to all have their own standards on who they block can be frustrating for both end users and site operators.
They ought to be treated like utilities. They have no moral right to tell us who we can connect to.
At first the government came right out and asked for an internet kill switch. Then they got smart and called it net neutrality.
What are you going on about? How is a neutral net an internet kill switch?
Did you read the brookings essay?
There's no mention of a kill switch. Where are you and the OP coming from?
[deleted]
If it's not, how would they possibly enforce it?
That's an absurd question. Do speed limits on the highway mean there's a kill switch for transportation?
Does having a blade guard on a lawnmower mean there's a kill switch in agriculture?
Does having copywrite length codified in law mean there's a kill switch for books?
Does having a blade guard on a lawnmower mean there's a kill switch in agriculture?
Does having copywrite length codified in law mean there's a kill switch for books?
There are killswitches in this, in the form of licensure. Speed enough times, and you don't get to travel alone.
Coppright length is somewhat of a red herring here since it's unfair to begin with. No work deserves protection for life plus 75 years.
Coppright length is somewhat of a red herring here since it's unfair to begin with. No work deserves protection for life plus 75 years.
So what would the mechanism of enforcement be?
Jail time and fines?
I don't get what you're talking about
I wonder why the author doesn't mention robots.txt if you only give "permissions" to be crawled by Google and/or Bing you are part of the problem not leaving space for new search innovations.
Are there legal obligations to adhere to robots.txt?
robots.txt is not an official standard by any governmental standards bodies. This is because HTTP is a global protocol.
Crawlers can and do ignore this file and its contents. It's much like a post-it that says 'no peeking in these specific places', giving away the location of sensitive information you don't want crawled.
It's a well-intentioned initiative but cannot in any way prevent abuse.
Crawlers can and do ignore this file and its contents. It's much like a post-it that says 'no peeking in these specific places', giving away the location of sensitive information you don't want crawled.
It's a well-intentioned initiative but cannot in any way prevent abuse.
Isn't that just an issue of individual choice though? What's wrong with a site admin deciding how they would like their content to be used?
Because search engines were built because they can crawl sites and if there is a monopoly, adhering to robots.txt just support them.
It is important to note that I am not saying that there should be indiscriminate crawling that breaks your site, just saying that robots.txt is not the solution.
It is important to note that I am not saying that there should be indiscriminate crawling that breaks your site, just saying that robots.txt is not the solution.
Well that I agree with, though mainly because robots.txt is only an ask and can be ignored by scrapers.
I do prefer site owners being able to limit how their content can be used though. That's individual choice much like choosing a software license for open source code, and totally unrelated to net neutrality as far as I understand it.
I do prefer site owners being able to limit how their content can be used though. That's individual choice much like choosing a software license for open source code, and totally unrelated to net neutrality as far as I understand it.
[deleted]
Not again...
Wait to we are fighting for net neutrality in the power transmission network.
Are you faulting the former FCC chairman for calling the Internet America’s most important network when speaking in the context of FCC regulations? Obviously he isn’t making a claim that it is more important than power transmission or our transportation networks because those don’t exist in the domain being discussed.
Dude, it was a general statement, not specific to the authors comments.
But if you think internet is bad wait until you have the case where a working mother can't heat her babies bottle but the rich ceo down the road is charging his Tesla.
I know this is coming because I sat in a talk at YOW last year which went over how great it will be to have smart transmission networks. I imagine the presenter (some ex head from Google's Borg project) was so privileged she can't even imagine someone being unable to compete with the ceo for transmission capacity.
But if you think internet is bad wait until you have the case where a working mother can't heat her babies bottle but the rich ceo down the road is charging his Tesla.
I know this is coming because I sat in a talk at YOW last year which went over how great it will be to have smart transmission networks. I imagine the presenter (some ex head from Google's Borg project) was so privileged she can't even imagine someone being unable to compete with the ceo for transmission capacity.
That's correct. Net Neutrality is above solving a problem that doesn't actually exist, even after 12 years and cementing existing internet providers into place by making sure regulations are too costly to allow innovative players into the provider space.
This is a gish gallop of a response.
Net hasn't been neutral for a lot less than 12 years.
California's law prevented the worst harms of un neutral net.
This regulation has not anticompetitive costs. In fact, it forces a level playing field so monopolies can't prevent competition.
The problem does exist. Look no further than your cellphone plan.
Net hasn't been neutral for a lot less than 12 years.
California's law prevented the worst harms of un neutral net.
This regulation has not anticompetitive costs. In fact, it forces a level playing field so monopolies can't prevent competition.
The problem does exist. Look no further than your cellphone plan.
What innovators? I've not seen any innovation in ISPs or network services in over a decade. Social nutworking isn't anything new and has actually harmed society more than it could ever help.
ISPs provide access to the Internet the same way your city and power company provide electricity and water. Tax dollars have gone into its building, and they've disrupted much of the country over their shenanigans.
In absence of good solutions, mesh networks will pop up.
ISPs provide access to the Internet the same way your city and power company provide electricity and water. Tax dollars have gone into its building, and they've disrupted much of the country over their shenanigans.
In absence of good solutions, mesh networks will pop up.
Did they talk about efforts by governments to censor the Internet "for the {children,terrorism,morals}? Nope.
Did they talk about efforts by corporations to control access by adding proprietary DRM layers on top of the open protocols, a la Google WEI? Nope.
Nope, as the article states, "It is the conduct of the ISPs that is in question here".
Just like the last round of "net neutrality", I see Tom Wheeler's lips moving, but I only hear FAANG talking points coming out of his mouth.