We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality(wired.com)
wired.com
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality
274 comments
There's a lot I disagree with in Declan's comment.
We disagree on what Congress gave the FCC authority to do. The 1996 Telecom Act clearly classified DSL and dial-up as something called a "telecommunications service" which was subject to a host of rules including nondiscrimination rules. On the other hand, things like Yahoo.com would be "information services," not subject to all those rules.
The FCC, adhering to a deregulatory philosophy, decided not to regulate cable modem service by claiming it was an "information service" through some pretty silly technical analysis. After this decision, the FCC decided that DSL and wireless Internet were also "information services" not automatically subject to the rules set out by Congress. (This is sort of like a financial regulator deciding that mortgage-backed securities are not insurance, even though they look like insurance, just to make sure all the laws applicable to insurance don't apply.)
But... the FCC claimed it could impose net neutrality rules on ISPs even though they were "information services" like Yahoo (or Hacker New or Facebook). A court struck down that attempt and the FCC is on try number 2, and before the same court.
The FCC can properly classify ISP service as a "telecommunications service."
The argument about Congress failing to pass a new statute authorizing net neutrality in 2006 is flawed because courts draw no inference from failed legislation. That's well-known statutory interpretation. Any member could introduce any law and it likely won't get passed; that 1 member's view doesn't have a legal impact.
Finally, the argument that Ed Markey can act whenever there's a NN violation misses the point that the FCC is the enforcement agency that should act. By adopting a law, they are simply setting up that enforcement process for people to file complaints, and the FCC can act. Markey on his own can't enforce anything; he can call hearings, but that's not enforcing an order.
(Also, the commenter is Declan McCulloch of CNET, or his biggest fan, since he links to Declan's articles and is named Declan... I'm Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion article. Declan is also quite a "smart fellow" and we get along swell, even if we disagree sometimes and are on opposite coasts.)
We disagree on what Congress gave the FCC authority to do. The 1996 Telecom Act clearly classified DSL and dial-up as something called a "telecommunications service" which was subject to a host of rules including nondiscrimination rules. On the other hand, things like Yahoo.com would be "information services," not subject to all those rules.
The FCC, adhering to a deregulatory philosophy, decided not to regulate cable modem service by claiming it was an "information service" through some pretty silly technical analysis. After this decision, the FCC decided that DSL and wireless Internet were also "information services" not automatically subject to the rules set out by Congress. (This is sort of like a financial regulator deciding that mortgage-backed securities are not insurance, even though they look like insurance, just to make sure all the laws applicable to insurance don't apply.)
But... the FCC claimed it could impose net neutrality rules on ISPs even though they were "information services" like Yahoo (or Hacker New or Facebook). A court struck down that attempt and the FCC is on try number 2, and before the same court.
The FCC can properly classify ISP service as a "telecommunications service."
The argument about Congress failing to pass a new statute authorizing net neutrality in 2006 is flawed because courts draw no inference from failed legislation. That's well-known statutory interpretation. Any member could introduce any law and it likely won't get passed; that 1 member's view doesn't have a legal impact.
Finally, the argument that Ed Markey can act whenever there's a NN violation misses the point that the FCC is the enforcement agency that should act. By adopting a law, they are simply setting up that enforcement process for people to file complaints, and the FCC can act. Markey on his own can't enforce anything; he can call hearings, but that's not enforcing an order.
(Also, the commenter is Declan McCulloch of CNET, or his biggest fan, since he links to Declan's articles and is named Declan... I'm Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion article. Declan is also quite a "smart fellow" and we get along swell, even if we disagree sometimes and are on opposite coasts.)
Thanks for following up. For what it's worth, you have a flawed view of Mortgage backed securities. By virtue of the mortgage behind it, it's a real product like a bond. It is the Credit Default Swap betting on mortgage (or corporate credit) performance that is insurance Against the mortgage backed security.
This is just nitpicking and doesn't alter your argument.
This is just nitpicking and doesn't alter your argument.
Marvin: No need to guess about my identity! My comment to which you replied said "as I wrote here in 2005" when linking to my CNET article. You did read my comment in full before replying, right? :)
Also I have links to my homepage and Twitter screen name in my HN profile: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=declan
In terms of the merit of your arguments, nobody claimed that Markey can do anything on his own; the point I made is that if there are actual NN problems -- as opposed to hypothesized handwaving ones -- Markey and others in Congress can and will advance legislation. In terms of the rest of your points, I think you're reaching. I look forward to continuing this conversation after the court rules!
PS: My last name is spelled "McCullagh."
Also I have links to my homepage and Twitter screen name in my HN profile: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=declan
In terms of the merit of your arguments, nobody claimed that Markey can do anything on his own; the point I made is that if there are actual NN problems -- as opposed to hypothesized handwaving ones -- Markey and others in Congress can and will advance legislation. In terms of the rest of your points, I think you're reaching. I look forward to continuing this conversation after the court rules!
PS: My last name is spelled "McCullagh."
> Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do.
Congress has already authorized it, the FCC is just trying to have its cake and eat it too. The FCC decides whether to classify last mile internet service as a "telecommunications service" that they have significant statutory authority over or an "information service" that they don't, and they picked the second one but are trying to impose regulations anyway, which is why they keep getting slapped down.
Choosing that classification was so controversial at the time that they got sued over it, and the Supreme Court ultimately said that the FCC was allowed to make that classification, not that they were required to. Now that everything that was once classified as a "telecommunications service" is being offered instead over the top using "internet service" it seems reasonable for them to revisit the classification.
Congress has already authorized it, the FCC is just trying to have its cake and eat it too. The FCC decides whether to classify last mile internet service as a "telecommunications service" that they have significant statutory authority over or an "information service" that they don't, and they picked the second one but are trying to impose regulations anyway, which is why they keep getting slapped down.
Choosing that classification was so controversial at the time that they got sued over it, and the Supreme Court ultimately said that the FCC was allowed to make that classification, not that they were required to. Now that everything that was once classified as a "telecommunications service" is being offered instead over the top using "internet service" it seems reasonable for them to revisit the classification.
If you believe that the FCC clearly unambiguously has the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations, then why would Congress have wasted its time drafting (and almost enacting) a law that would have given the FCC the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations?
A) It is possible that members of Congress wanted to grant the FCC the authority to advance network neutrality regulations without subjecting ISPs to the full gamut of regulations they would be subject to if classified as a telecommunications service.
B) You are presupposing that all members of Congress act rationally and have an expert knowledge of the existing state of the law.
B) You are presupposing that all members of Congress act rationally and have an expert knowledge of the existing state of the law.
When ATT and Verizon are allowed to set up their toll booths all over the internet, it's not really the internet any more.
"That'll be $60 for the gas. Oh wait -- where are you going with that gas? Boston? No problem. That's $40 extra if you want to go more than 25 miles an hour."
"That'll be $60 for the gas. Oh wait -- where are you going with that gas? Boston? No problem. That's $40 extra if you want to go more than 25 miles an hour."
Once they begin prioritizing traffic, does this eliminate their safe-harbor status? Could be a double-edged sword for them.
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch sooner or later anyway. It may just take a little longer, but we'll avoid the possibility of letting the government crush Internet innovation forever.
Because the telcos are currently enjoying a "natural monopoly". The cost of entry to become a telco is so high, that normal competitive forces do not apply.
In situations like this, one role of government is to regulate these natural monopolies to protect citizens.
One such regulation, for instance, is that the power company cannot shut off your power in the middle of winter in Minnesota without fulfilling some pretty stringent criteria.
In situations like this, one role of government is to regulate these natural monopolies to protect citizens.
One such regulation, for instance, is that the power company cannot shut off your power in the middle of winter in Minnesota without fulfilling some pretty stringent criteria.
Exactly. Competition is the "active ingredient" in the free market, and "freedom" from regulation does not always suffice to guarantee competition. Utilities are the textbook example.
The utility market used to be competitive, then municipalities began "licensing" them, which eventually led to the current state of affairs.[1] Even lighthouses, which have large externalities, can be built and operated without government intervention, as they did for a very long time.[2]
[1]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ElectricityandItsRegulati...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lighthouse_in_Economics
[1]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ElectricityandItsRegulati...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lighthouse_in_Economics
That Wikipedia link seems to support the claim that lighthouses actually failed to operate well without government intervention:
"Eventually, all these rights were withdrawn or bought up by the authorities because the total light dues that had to be paid by ships were too high as a result of rent-seeking activities of these so-called private providers of lighthouses. Barnett and Block (2007) qualify these critiques by showing that private lighthouses are possible, but do not show up in the historical record."
"Eventually, all these rights were withdrawn or bought up by the authorities because the total light dues that had to be paid by ships were too high as a result of rent-seeking activities of these so-called private providers of lighthouses. Barnett and Block (2007) qualify these critiques by showing that private lighthouses are possible, but do not show up in the historical record."
The utility market moved towards a regulated model in the very early days of electric and gas transmission. There were lots of really good reasons for this around safety, universal service and public good. Most states today have a model where delivery is tightly regulated, but electricity generation is a competitive marketplace.
At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.
At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.
At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.
I would add to that that the free market definitely does not exist to serve the public interest, as far too many fans of it tend to forget.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes
There are places where the free market is ideal - utilities, such as Internet service (which requires either right of way on private land or permission to transmit and receive without interference on public airwaves) is not one of them.
I would add to that that the free market definitely does not exist to serve the public interest, as far too many fans of it tend to forget.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes
There are places where the free market is ideal - utilities, such as Internet service (which requires either right of way on private land or permission to transmit and receive without interference on public airwaves) is not one of them.
Utilities, and communications which rely on scarce distribution channels as you mention are not, and will not be truly free markets and should be regulated.. how tightly they should be regulated is up to interpretation. IMHO such utilities should not be allowed to be owned by companies that have inherent market verticals and/or conflicts of interest that do not serve the public good. Time-Warner is a prime example.
As far as outside utilities, and similar services... I feel the government's role should be to limit monopolies, not eliminate, but only so much as to allow for competition to happen. The rediculous extent of IP protectionism, specifically patents on design, algorithms and business processes are counter to that. Corporate personhood as a legal concept is against that. For that matter, corporations should probably instead have limits on unutilized/underutilized assets for a given length of time, and enforce distribution back to investors in those cases.
A free market is a market is one where upstart competition can generally succeed, and entrenched incumbents are regularly surpassed, or continually growing.
As far as outside utilities, and similar services... I feel the government's role should be to limit monopolies, not eliminate, but only so much as to allow for competition to happen. The rediculous extent of IP protectionism, specifically patents on design, algorithms and business processes are counter to that. Corporate personhood as a legal concept is against that. For that matter, corporations should probably instead have limits on unutilized/underutilized assets for a given length of time, and enforce distribution back to investors in those cases.
A free market is a market is one where upstart competition can generally succeed, and entrenched incumbents are regularly surpassed, or continually growing.
Government exists to organize society. Feudalism served its lords, monarchy served its kings and nobles, empire its emperors, and democracy, occasionally, its people.
Government has served a variety of masters in the past - but rarely purely the public interest.
Government has served a variety of masters in the past - but rarely purely the public interest.
It should serve the public interest, which is good enough for policy debates.
It should serve the public interest, which is good enough for policy debates.
This is absolutely false. Policy debates universally assume that it will serve the public interest, despite experience and extensive research in public choice economics.
The result is that we get policies that aren't crafted to be robust to corruption and bad incentives, and that gets us to the state we're in today.
Any policy debate should include discussion of what could go wrong, what the effects of that would be, and what we could/should do to prevent that.
This is absolutely false. Policy debates universally assume that it will serve the public interest, despite experience and extensive research in public choice economics.
The result is that we get policies that aren't crafted to be robust to corruption and bad incentives, and that gets us to the state we're in today.
Any policy debate should include discussion of what could go wrong, what the effects of that would be, and what we could/should do to prevent that.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. My point is that, in a policy debate, whining about how government has not served the public interest in the past is counterproductive except insofar as it helps to prevent all the crap you enumerated. What we're both saying is that policy debates are about how to write policies that actually serve the public interest, instead of falling into some perverse incentive trap.
Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not very familiar with this issue), but I gather that the tightly regulated part - power transmission and distribution - suffers greatly from decaying infrastructures due to lack of investment and maintainance. It seems to be at the brink of collapse in some places.
I'm not against government regulation of essential infrastructures, but we should be aware of the fact that it's very difficult to get right, particularly (but not only) in a political climate where government spending is such a divisive issue.
I'm not against government regulation of essential infrastructures, but we should be aware of the fact that it's very difficult to get right, particularly (but not only) in a political climate where government spending is such a divisive issue.
Agreed. Regulatory regimes aren't a magic wand -- they are tools that need to be wielded appropriately.
I think that any capital intensive infrastructure becomes more difficult to manage effectively as it ages. Even relatively rich and well maintained infrastructure like the US Interstate system has severe design flaws (35-year lifespan bridges that are 40 years old) that make life more complicated.
Is that a regulatory problem? I don't think so.
I think that any capital intensive infrastructure becomes more difficult to manage effectively as it ages. Even relatively rich and well maintained infrastructure like the US Interstate system has severe design flaws (35-year lifespan bridges that are 40 years old) that make life more complicated.
Is that a regulatory problem? I don't think so.
If by "natural monopoly" you are implying a monopoly arising without government intervention, I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong on that point.
Telecommunication companies need permission to rip up streets and run wires, or run wires on poles, or exclusive rights over parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, or put satellites into the right geosynchronous orbits to broadcast signals to consumers.
(I'm curious to know if I'm wrong about any of these. For example, did Dish/DirecTV require permission to put their satellites in place? Do they even own the satellites.)
All of these things require specific government enforcement. So every telecommunications company is pretty much created through government regulation.
So the idea that backing the wishes of telecom executives is somehow pro-free-market is completely farcical. Free market activity has had almost nothing to do with the current U.S. telecommunications industry. This is just yet another industry asking for a windfall through government acting in their favor, similar in spirit to the financial industry bail out.
Telecommunication companies need permission to rip up streets and run wires, or run wires on poles, or exclusive rights over parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, or put satellites into the right geosynchronous orbits to broadcast signals to consumers.
(I'm curious to know if I'm wrong about any of these. For example, did Dish/DirecTV require permission to put their satellites in place? Do they even own the satellites.)
All of these things require specific government enforcement. So every telecommunications company is pretty much created through government regulation.
So the idea that backing the wishes of telecom executives is somehow pro-free-market is completely farcical. Free market activity has had almost nothing to do with the current U.S. telecommunications industry. This is just yet another industry asking for a windfall through government acting in their favor, similar in spirit to the financial industry bail out.
> If by "natural monopoly" you are implying a monopoly arising without government intervention, I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong on that point.
The reason telecommunications service is a natural monopoly is that the fixed costs are extraordinarily high and the variable costs are trivial. In consequence it is not profitable to build a competing network once one already exists, because all you accomplish is to lay out an enormous capital expenditure in order to enter into an aggressive price war with the incumbent, since making $10/month from a customer that costs you less than that to service once the network is already built is still more profitable than losing that customer to the competitor and making $0. So the result will always be the same: Either there will be a monopoly (or equivalently a cartel), or there will be a price war until every competing provider either goes out of business or joins the cartel and it reverts to a lack of competition. And prospective market entrants understand this dynamic ahead of time and choose not to participate. The only reason we even have the duopoly that exists today instead of a straight monopoly is that the two networks were originally built to provide different non-competing types of service, so now they effectively act as a cartel with the knowledge that no one else is likely to enter the market.
It is certainly true that government intervention has been involved in the creation of that infrastructure -- it's plausible to say that it wouldn't have been cost effective without it. But that only means that in the alternative "free market" for telecommunications service, the infrastructure cost would have been even higher because the provider would have had no subsidies and would have to buy all the land without eminent domain and pay off holdouts etc.
The reason telecommunications service is a natural monopoly is that the fixed costs are extraordinarily high and the variable costs are trivial. In consequence it is not profitable to build a competing network once one already exists, because all you accomplish is to lay out an enormous capital expenditure in order to enter into an aggressive price war with the incumbent, since making $10/month from a customer that costs you less than that to service once the network is already built is still more profitable than losing that customer to the competitor and making $0. So the result will always be the same: Either there will be a monopoly (or equivalently a cartel), or there will be a price war until every competing provider either goes out of business or joins the cartel and it reverts to a lack of competition. And prospective market entrants understand this dynamic ahead of time and choose not to participate. The only reason we even have the duopoly that exists today instead of a straight monopoly is that the two networks were originally built to provide different non-competing types of service, so now they effectively act as a cartel with the knowledge that no one else is likely to enter the market.
It is certainly true that government intervention has been involved in the creation of that infrastructure -- it's plausible to say that it wouldn't have been cost effective without it. But that only means that in the alternative "free market" for telecommunications service, the infrastructure cost would have been even higher because the provider would have had no subsidies and would have to buy all the land without eminent domain and pay off holdouts etc.
Don't assume that the network must be entirely owned by one party. That is the situation right now in the cell and broadcast markets, but it is caused by regulation rather than anything "natural". It isn't the 1940s anymore; wideband radio technology exists that would allow the sharing of all spectrum rather than the single-use requirements we have. After that is adopted the first-mile connection is to a WISP, which is connected by fiber to the rest of the internet.
Wireless is not a panacea even with spread spectrum. You still have a finite amount of radio spectrum you have to share with everybody within range. The amount of bandwidth you can serve to each customer with a fiber-terminating central office every square mile is limited in practice by the cost of installing fiber. The amount of bandwidth you can serve to each customer with a WISP every square mile is limited in practice by the laws of physics -- the only way to get more is to build a higher density of wireless base stations, and in higher population density areas the cost of that is on the same order as installing fiber to the customer premises. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of using wireless for the last mile goes down as the demand for bandwidth per customer increases over time, because you have to increase the density of wireless base stations and run new cable to each of them in order to expand capacity rather than only replacing the terminating equipment at both ends of an existing cable.
Wireless is a great solution to providing high bandwidth services in rural areas where the cost of laying new cable is prohibitive. It's not a solution for cities.
Wireless is a great solution to providing high bandwidth services in rural areas where the cost of laying new cable is prohibitive. It's not a solution for cities.
It's true that there is a rural/urban breakover point; I'd contend that is at far greater densities than most people think, especially if we made use of the entire spectrum rather than the drips and drabs meted out so far by the FCC. The portion of the population getting shafted right now, all the "rural" (and most suburban, and urban in Texas-style "sprawling" cities) folks, is definitely a majority. "Laws of physics" arguments aren't convincing at this point, since engineers have had their hands tied by FCC regs. Let a big market for this type of radio tech exist for a decade, and then we'll see what can be done.
You can't use the entire spectrum without addressing the sunk costs problem. All the existing users of the spectrum would have to throw out their equipment and replace it with spread spectrum equipment. Nobody wants to do that, especially when the benefit of them doing it goes primarily to third parties. You want to talk about phasing it out in favor of spread spectrum, fine, but that's going to take years or decades. What do we do in the meantime?
The next piece of trouble is, if you really want high power unlicensed spectrum, what do you do about contention? What happens when scientists start setting up transmitters to continuously send 50Tbps of scientific data from remote monitoring stations to the regional university's data center? Or people set up a distributed mesh network of Tor nodes? Or someone decides to operate a wireless "cable TV" franchise and starts transmitting 50,000 streams of 4K HD?
Don't get me wrong, I think you have the right idea -- spread spectrum is the way to go for wireless and there is room for a lot of innovation there if the FCC would get out of the way. Especially in the way of short and medium range mesh networks. It just isn't a replacement for fiber to the premises.
The next piece of trouble is, if you really want high power unlicensed spectrum, what do you do about contention? What happens when scientists start setting up transmitters to continuously send 50Tbps of scientific data from remote monitoring stations to the regional university's data center? Or people set up a distributed mesh network of Tor nodes? Or someone decides to operate a wireless "cable TV" franchise and starts transmitting 50,000 streams of 4K HD?
Don't get me wrong, I think you have the right idea -- spread spectrum is the way to go for wireless and there is room for a lot of innovation there if the FCC would get out of the way. Especially in the way of short and medium range mesh networks. It just isn't a replacement for fiber to the premises.
A natural monopoly is a well defined term in economics. A natural monopoly occurres when there are massive fixed costs but insignificant variable costs in delivering a service.
The economics of the industry naturally lead to one firm providing the service, a monopoly.
The economics of the industry naturally lead to one firm providing the service, a monopoly.
Not at all "natural". The cost is so high partially due to special agreements between these corporations and governments, from local agreements to lay down fiber, to national agreements regarding the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
US Telcos = Natural Monopoly + Regulatory Capture
> The cost is so high partially due to special agreements
This is true, but it doesn't contradict the fact that telcos are also natural monopolies.
Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your business plan?
> The cost is so high partially due to special agreements
This is true, but it doesn't contradict the fact that telcos are also natural monopolies.
Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your business plan?
> What's your business plan?
Thanks, this is is a point I do not see expressed enough. Regulatory capture just one expression of a 'free market'. When you are a non-moral entity, free to do business however you want, you will cheat, you will find ways within any system to lock others out of your market, you will screw the customer for every last cent, you will break the law if you can get away with it - or at least the ones that do will end up ahead of the game.
Liberalists seem to believe that free-marketism is a self-perpetuating algorithm. But when the unit tests fail, they suggest it should be unleashed system wide without thinking through the consequences. If your competitor has locked you out, and you are a non-moral entity, and there is no legal recourse, what do you do? How do you break a cartel? Car-bombs?
The opposite of regulatory capture is not no regulation, it is public education and engagement and power. Consumer power is directly proportional to market freedom.
edit: cool, so what do you call them in the states? there is no such distinction in oz, the current governing party is the liberal party and there is no way in hell they are progressives ;)
Thanks, this is is a point I do not see expressed enough. Regulatory capture just one expression of a 'free market'. When you are a non-moral entity, free to do business however you want, you will cheat, you will find ways within any system to lock others out of your market, you will screw the customer for every last cent, you will break the law if you can get away with it - or at least the ones that do will end up ahead of the game.
Liberalists seem to believe that free-marketism is a self-perpetuating algorithm. But when the unit tests fail, they suggest it should be unleashed system wide without thinking through the consequences. If your competitor has locked you out, and you are a non-moral entity, and there is no legal recourse, what do you do? How do you break a cartel? Car-bombs?
The opposite of regulatory capture is not no regulation, it is public education and engagement and power. Consumer power is directly proportional to market freedom.
edit: cool, so what do you call them in the states? there is no such distinction in oz, the current governing party is the liberal party and there is no way in hell they are progressives ;)
>>> The opposite of regulatory capture is not no regulation, it is public education and engagement and power.
And unicorns. Most of all the unicorns, being the most real part of the deal. At least until people realize that regulatory capture is not some excess of the regulation, it is a direct and inevitable consequence of it. There's no people that can understand the industry enough to regulate it but the people of the industry. There's no people that are motivated enough and having enough concentrated resources but the people of the industry. Thinking that you can beat a team of industry experts knowing everything about their industry and already having majority of regulatory body composed of their former coworkers by chanting "power to the people" and "public education" is beyond naive. Of course, if you're lucky, you can align your interest with a competing group and suppress opposing group's interests for a time. But that would not give you any power - it would just redistribute the power between the two groups. As long as you agree that the power should belong to the regulatory bodies, you would have them to be controlled by major industry players, partially or completely. You can say feel-good things like "public education" all day long, but you'd have to wake up and face the reality one day - and the reality is that regulatory capture is an inevitable consequence of powerful regulation in a big industry.
And unicorns. Most of all the unicorns, being the most real part of the deal. At least until people realize that regulatory capture is not some excess of the regulation, it is a direct and inevitable consequence of it. There's no people that can understand the industry enough to regulate it but the people of the industry. There's no people that are motivated enough and having enough concentrated resources but the people of the industry. Thinking that you can beat a team of industry experts knowing everything about their industry and already having majority of regulatory body composed of their former coworkers by chanting "power to the people" and "public education" is beyond naive. Of course, if you're lucky, you can align your interest with a competing group and suppress opposing group's interests for a time. But that would not give you any power - it would just redistribute the power between the two groups. As long as you agree that the power should belong to the regulatory bodies, you would have them to be controlled by major industry players, partially or completely. You can say feel-good things like "public education" all day long, but you'd have to wake up and face the reality one day - and the reality is that regulatory capture is an inevitable consequence of powerful regulation in a big industry.
> Liberalists seem to believe that free-marketism is a self-[optimizing] algorithm.
It's worth noting that in the US, the term "liberal" is often used in association with those who are skeptical of the free market (moreso than their political opponents, anyway). Classical liberalism does promote laissez-faire economic policy, so you aren't incorrect, but the term is a bit ambiguous in context (see the 2nd paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism )
Anyway, I agree completely with your point. Business interests and consumer interests often oppose one another, and I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.
Campaign finance reform would be a good start (private campaign finance => bribery is a prerequisite for obtaining power).
It's worth noting that in the US, the term "liberal" is often used in association with those who are skeptical of the free market (moreso than their political opponents, anyway). Classical liberalism does promote laissez-faire economic policy, so you aren't incorrect, but the term is a bit ambiguous in context (see the 2nd paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism )
Anyway, I agree completely with your point. Business interests and consumer interests often oppose one another, and I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.
Campaign finance reform would be a good start (private campaign finance => bribery is a prerequisite for obtaining power).
> I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.
For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
> Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do.
What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidder.
But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do.
What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidder.
Not necessarily. Right now our system has a policy of mandatory bribery built into the system by way of campaign finance rules. It's relatively easy to go from "mandatory bribery" to "optional bribery" through public campaign funding, which I think is a step in the right direction.
Campaign finance reform is a boring but necessary first step towards fixing this mess.
Campaign finance reform is a boring but necessary first step towards fixing this mess.
I agree, that's the real world result, but we can't win that argument easily. Instead we can point out each instance of it happening and hopefully the more pragmatic liberals will come around eventually.
I think cam_l meant libertarian.
I think it's more likely that cam_l was from a country where the term "liberal" was associated with the concept of Classical Liberalism.
There's a lot of ambiguity in your scenario. Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? Assuming this deregulation comes along with some law or judicial ruling that no local government can create such an ongoing monopoly, there would likely be created a separate industry that simply builds infrastructure at some price to the locality with no continuing agreement.
Second, who am i? A startup? Since this is a fantasy world, I imagine I'd have invented some new tech that would substantially reduce the cost of operating an ISP. I'd pitch that to investors and raise enough to get of the ground?
But that's only one way I might enter the market. I may be Google, or even an existing telco looking to expand my turf.
My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results. In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls (in the long run). There may be exceptions, but which industries do you see this not happening:
1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?
All industries with close connection to the state. I'd wager that sans these connections, things would be a lot different.
Second, who am i? A startup? Since this is a fantasy world, I imagine I'd have invented some new tech that would substantially reduce the cost of operating an ISP. I'd pitch that to investors and raise enough to get of the ground?
But that's only one way I might enter the market. I may be Google, or even an existing telco looking to expand my turf.
My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results. In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls (in the long run). There may be exceptions, but which industries do you see this not happening:
1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?
All industries with close connection to the state. I'd wager that sans these connections, things would be a lot different.
If any of the subsequent logic is flawed I'm very open to conceding points based on logically rebuttals.
Aside: This community is awesome, so much respect for this intelligent lengthy, conversation.
It seems 'regulated' vs. 'unregulated' is a false dichotomy, no?
A company in the US (there maybe some complications due to globalization) cannot kill a customer who writes a bad yelp review. This might be advantageous, if the customer will never use the company's service again and may convince others to avoid that company (and the killing does not cause PR harm) then it as a gain to have this customer, and their review, gone.
This is a regulation. So are anti-discriminatory laws (it is true that the market can potentially correct for racists attitudes by naturally punishing those who refuse do business with a segment of the population. This only holds when the discriminated group is large enough and the market is not saturated).
Lets look at this point:
> In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls (in the long run)
Can we instead substitute: 'In most industries, as you decrease regulation, quality rises and prices fall'.
Can we agree that if a company could force us to buy their products at gun point, they would sell us terrible products? Or at the other extreme, if the government regulates everything, companies often create shitty products (Products in some communist countries)?
If we can, what we are looking for is a 'sweet spot of regulation'. Maybe that allows the natural spirit of competition to create the best product given the constraint of cost?
To look even further, (I'm blanking on an example >_<) is it unreasonable to say that the advent of new technology can shift this 'sweet spot'?
So would a comprise to this question of 'should telecommunications be regulated?' fall to, yes, 'there should be a set of regulations which allow for competition' and that change when 'a new technology emerges that hopefully decreases (it could increase by the same logic. For example, advent of very expensive technology that is advantageous to have) the amount of regulation need (or even that changes the type of regulation).
In this picture, the government might be more akin to a gardner, the lump of citizen action (a tree) and the laws (in case the regulations) the frame used to shape the tree as it grows[1].
So if we accept this flow, we have arrived at, 'regulation which shifts as technology affects the barrier to entry meant to allow for competitive spirt to flourish and natural create the best product given cost constraints'
I'll readily admit this logically path takes a wide definition of what 'regulation' means.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping#Methods (just awesome examples of tree shaping 0.o)
Aside: This community is awesome, so much respect for this intelligent lengthy, conversation.
It seems 'regulated' vs. 'unregulated' is a false dichotomy, no?
A company in the US (there maybe some complications due to globalization) cannot kill a customer who writes a bad yelp review. This might be advantageous, if the customer will never use the company's service again and may convince others to avoid that company (and the killing does not cause PR harm) then it as a gain to have this customer, and their review, gone.
This is a regulation. So are anti-discriminatory laws (it is true that the market can potentially correct for racists attitudes by naturally punishing those who refuse do business with a segment of the population. This only holds when the discriminated group is large enough and the market is not saturated).
Lets look at this point:
> In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls (in the long run)
Can we instead substitute: 'In most industries, as you decrease regulation, quality rises and prices fall'.
Can we agree that if a company could force us to buy their products at gun point, they would sell us terrible products? Or at the other extreme, if the government regulates everything, companies often create shitty products (Products in some communist countries)?
If we can, what we are looking for is a 'sweet spot of regulation'. Maybe that allows the natural spirit of competition to create the best product given the constraint of cost?
To look even further, (I'm blanking on an example >_<) is it unreasonable to say that the advent of new technology can shift this 'sweet spot'?
So would a comprise to this question of 'should telecommunications be regulated?' fall to, yes, 'there should be a set of regulations which allow for competition' and that change when 'a new technology emerges that hopefully decreases (it could increase by the same logic. For example, advent of very expensive technology that is advantageous to have) the amount of regulation need (or even that changes the type of regulation).
In this picture, the government might be more akin to a gardner, the lump of citizen action (a tree) and the laws (in case the regulations) the frame used to shape the tree as it grows[1].
So if we accept this flow, we have arrived at, 'regulation which shifts as technology affects the barrier to entry meant to allow for competitive spirt to flourish and natural create the best product given cost constraints'
I'll readily admit this logically path takes a wide definition of what 'regulation' means.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping#Methods (just awesome examples of tree shaping 0.o)
Umm, the only way you would have access to there infrastructure is with heavy regulation so no there is no access to any of it. Suggesting otherwise is seriously ignoring the question.
PS: 1 billion in capital no regulation no access to any existing infrastructure no magic wand and the only way you can dig is to convince the local government or individuals that there is so reason to let you dig aka spend money. Which is clearly harder where there is already existing high speed internet. So what do you do you find city's without FIOS (etc) and build there at which point there yours and everyone else leaves them alone more or less. (Though if there is no natural monopoly then fighting in existing markets should be easy...)
PS: 1 billion in capital no regulation no access to any existing infrastructure no magic wand and the only way you can dig is to convince the local government or individuals that there is so reason to let you dig aka spend money. Which is clearly harder where there is already existing high speed internet. So what do you do you find city's without FIOS (etc) and build there at which point there yours and everyone else leaves them alone more or less. (Though if there is no natural monopoly then fighting in existing markets should be easy...)
Clearly a local government is going to be less receptive to more digging if high speed service is in place, but it's not a "natural" monopoly if a deal with the government must be made as a prerequisite to provide services. You are also assuming that the "digger" is necessarily the service provider. In my view, local governments are basically seduced by telcos subsidizing or eliminating the up front costs of building infrastructure. In the long run, it's a bad deal.
I would say the monopoly is "natural" if and only if the local government is required to allow anyone (or no one) to dig. Or if it pays for the digging itself.
I would say the monopoly is "natural" if and only if the local government is required to allow anyone (or no one) to dig. Or if it pays for the digging itself.
Ah, yes it is? Someone owns that land, and it's not you. And for that matter, you want to see expensive, wait till you have to convince 10,000 property owners individually to let you trench up their gardens.
A natural monopoly is an economic concept about how high fixed costs makes a single company the most efficient. Regulation of a natural monopoly is secondary to that. A telco might then be a both natural monopoly, due to how the business works, but also have a government-granted monopoly due to licenes etc.
> Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)?
No, the existing company retains ownership of the infrastructure they paid for and the ability to charge anyone whatever the heck they want for using it. Also, they retain all rights granted in private contracts (not involving government at the federal, state, or municipal level).
> Second, who am i? A startup [with new, cheaper tech]? Google? Another telco?
You get to pick, subject to three constraints:
* Your source of capital is rational (they'll replace you or refuse to fund you if you're acting against their monetary interests)
* Your source of capital is limited (or, rather, their trust in you is limited). Enough to cover a town, but not a city.
* Your competitive advantage isn't disruptive (for the sake of arbitrary concreteness, your up-front and continuing costs are 80% of what they are/were for the competition)
> My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results.
That's what I was afraid of. The "game" we're playing is going to pit my knowledge of anticompetitive market practices against your ingenuity. My thesis is that the anticompetitive opportunities offered by the market will be enough to stymie innovation all on their own, unless the government takes an active role in leveling the playing field.
> In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls
Yes, but it works better for some industries than for others, and the industries where it has a track record of failing miserably (utilities, basic research, health care) require government intervention if we want a functional society. Adam Smith himself didn't believe that the market was suited to the task of optimizing infrastructure or military/police forces (he didn't think said list was in any way complete, either). Perverse incentives, externalities, anticompetitive opportunities, information asymmetries, and pathological nash equilibria (prisoner's dilemma) all frustrate the ability of markets to optimize society. Medicine is probably the worst rat's nest of such complications, but let's keep the focus on utilities for brevity.
> which industries do you see this not happening: 1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?
You can't use these observations to support your point over mine because they also fit my model of reality (government must be more involved with industries that stymie the free market's optimization abilities). Also, health care in the US is ~2x as expensive as in "socialist" single-payer systems, so I find your choice of who to blame less than convincing. The ACA is the plan proposed by market reformists -- not even the Heritage Foundation thinks deregulation is the way forward on that front.
No, the existing company retains ownership of the infrastructure they paid for and the ability to charge anyone whatever the heck they want for using it. Also, they retain all rights granted in private contracts (not involving government at the federal, state, or municipal level).
> Second, who am i? A startup [with new, cheaper tech]? Google? Another telco?
You get to pick, subject to three constraints:
* Your source of capital is rational (they'll replace you or refuse to fund you if you're acting against their monetary interests)
* Your source of capital is limited (or, rather, their trust in you is limited). Enough to cover a town, but not a city.
* Your competitive advantage isn't disruptive (for the sake of arbitrary concreteness, your up-front and continuing costs are 80% of what they are/were for the competition)
> My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results.
That's what I was afraid of. The "game" we're playing is going to pit my knowledge of anticompetitive market practices against your ingenuity. My thesis is that the anticompetitive opportunities offered by the market will be enough to stymie innovation all on their own, unless the government takes an active role in leveling the playing field.
> In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls
Yes, but it works better for some industries than for others, and the industries where it has a track record of failing miserably (utilities, basic research, health care) require government intervention if we want a functional society. Adam Smith himself didn't believe that the market was suited to the task of optimizing infrastructure or military/police forces (he didn't think said list was in any way complete, either). Perverse incentives, externalities, anticompetitive opportunities, information asymmetries, and pathological nash equilibria (prisoner's dilemma) all frustrate the ability of markets to optimize society. Medicine is probably the worst rat's nest of such complications, but let's keep the focus on utilities for brevity.
> which industries do you see this not happening: 1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?
You can't use these observations to support your point over mine because they also fit my model of reality (government must be more involved with industries that stymie the free market's optimization abilities). Also, health care in the US is ~2x as expensive as in "socialist" single-payer systems, so I find your choice of who to blame less than convincing. The ACA is the plan proposed by market reformists -- not even the Heritage Foundation thinks deregulation is the way forward on that front.
I was in the middle of writing a long-winded reply, but I'd rather just agree to disagree on philosophy and economics. I'm also not the right person to come up with the winning business plan to your scenario (little knowledge of the ISP market other than as a consumer).
And ultimately I probably agree with you about how to deal with the situation right now, in that we shouldn't lose net neutrality when the ISPs are clearly public/private partnerships, not independently operating entities in a free market.
Where we disagree is whether or not it is possible to create the conditions for a truly competitive market primarily by reducing state involvement. I believe it is.
In my opinion, fears of private monopolies are generally unwarranted, that most "natural" private monopolies are flimsy and temporary. I fear more the monopolies created by the government, such as the monopoly that "licensed" physicians hold over what substances we put in our body, who gets to sell us information about our own DNA, who gets to invest in startups ("accredited" investors) etc.
In the long run, I think our freedom is better protected by fighting against artificial monopolies such as these ..
And ultimately I probably agree with you about how to deal with the situation right now, in that we shouldn't lose net neutrality when the ISPs are clearly public/private partnerships, not independently operating entities in a free market.
Where we disagree is whether or not it is possible to create the conditions for a truly competitive market primarily by reducing state involvement. I believe it is.
In my opinion, fears of private monopolies are generally unwarranted, that most "natural" private monopolies are flimsy and temporary. I fear more the monopolies created by the government, such as the monopoly that "licensed" physicians hold over what substances we put in our body, who gets to sell us information about our own DNA, who gets to invest in startups ("accredited" investors) etc.
In the long run, I think our freedom is better protected by fighting against artificial monopolies such as these ..
> I'd rather just agree to disagree on philosophy and economics.
I'm sure you would. I'm armed with a long list of time-honored principles that allow a big player to anti-competitively grind a small player into the ground long before any real competition can take place.
You are armed with your faith in the market.
> Where we disagree is whether or not it is possible to create the conditions for a truly competitive market primarily by reducing state involvement. I believe it is.
You hit the nail on the head: I believe that there are a handful of important markets where the "more freedom!" approach not only doesn't lead to optimization, but leads to counter-optimization.
I take international comparisons of health care costs/efficacy as my evidence.
> In my opinion, fears of private monopolies are generally unwarranted, that most "natural" private monopolies are flimsy and temporary.
If only I could force reality to comply with your opinion, I would be a much happier person.
> I fear more the monopolies created by the government, such as the monopoly that "licensed" physicians hold
Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_heal...
I fear a "free" health care market more than I fear a single-player "govrnment monopoly."
I also object to the use of the term "monopoly" in relationship to the government. Market monopolies have direct incentive to screw you for whatever they can, and they get to keep the spoils. The government has checks and balances that frustrate the process, and the people involved get to keep a far smaller fraction of the spoils. Market monopolies are worse.
I'm sure you would. I'm armed with a long list of time-honored principles that allow a big player to anti-competitively grind a small player into the ground long before any real competition can take place.
You are armed with your faith in the market.
> Where we disagree is whether or not it is possible to create the conditions for a truly competitive market primarily by reducing state involvement. I believe it is.
You hit the nail on the head: I believe that there are a handful of important markets where the "more freedom!" approach not only doesn't lead to optimization, but leads to counter-optimization.
I take international comparisons of health care costs/efficacy as my evidence.
> In my opinion, fears of private monopolies are generally unwarranted, that most "natural" private monopolies are flimsy and temporary.
If only I could force reality to comply with your opinion, I would be a much happier person.
> I fear more the monopolies created by the government, such as the monopoly that "licensed" physicians hold
Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_heal...
I fear a "free" health care market more than I fear a single-player "govrnment monopoly."
I also object to the use of the term "monopoly" in relationship to the government. Market monopolies have direct incentive to screw you for whatever they can, and they get to keep the spoils. The government has checks and balances that frustrate the process, and the people involved get to keep a far smaller fraction of the spoils. Market monopolies are worse.
It's also worth adding that the "dumb pipe" model of utility regulation was the one adopted (rather successfully) by Margaret flipping Thatcher when she privatised the UK utilities.
Are we throwing out the FCC's regulation of the spectrum? If so, then WISPs will sweep across the nation, competing to provide consumers the best wireless access at the lowest prices, on frequency bands previously wasted on broadcast, cell, and official uses. A great deal of money will be made in that sector, especially to whichever equipment maker rolls out the best first- and second-generation wideband modems.
Another good business will be replacing car radios, at least for some time.
Another good business will be replacing car radios, at least for some time.
> Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your business plan?
My business plan is to be Google: Install duplicate infrastructure for 80% of what the incumbent paid (per your other post), using my massive cash reserves, and charge $0 for equivalent or better service. Revenue comes from my massive ad network (which my competitors don't have), so I can sustainably run the business like this for as long as necessary to force the incumbent to fold. I now have the local monopoly, which I can use as I see fit. I might (for example) give priority to packets originating from hosts who are also customers of my ad network.
This creates a virtuous cycle for me--advertizes will only want to spend money with me, so I can upgrade my infrastructure more rapidly that the former incumbent ever could. That brings me more internet-users, which makes my ad network more valuable. Since I have a monopoly, I can also rent-seek with respect to internet access fees (though I might keep it at $0 to encourage end-uses to continue clicking on ads).
I will then repeat this process in other cities until I have a nation-wide monopoly. Despite being in blatant violation of anti-trust laws, I will continue to do this by bribing^H contributing to the election campaigns of friendly politicians.
Of course, this is cheating a little (because my business plan replaces one natural monopoly with another)--but not a lot, because you asked for my business plan to break into the current natural monopoly, not how one could sustainably obtain a competitive market. The answer to the latter question is obvious: You can't.
My business plan is to be Google: Install duplicate infrastructure for 80% of what the incumbent paid (per your other post), using my massive cash reserves, and charge $0 for equivalent or better service. Revenue comes from my massive ad network (which my competitors don't have), so I can sustainably run the business like this for as long as necessary to force the incumbent to fold. I now have the local monopoly, which I can use as I see fit. I might (for example) give priority to packets originating from hosts who are also customers of my ad network.
This creates a virtuous cycle for me--advertizes will only want to spend money with me, so I can upgrade my infrastructure more rapidly that the former incumbent ever could. That brings me more internet-users, which makes my ad network more valuable. Since I have a monopoly, I can also rent-seek with respect to internet access fees (though I might keep it at $0 to encourage end-uses to continue clicking on ads).
I will then repeat this process in other cities until I have a nation-wide monopoly. Despite being in blatant violation of anti-trust laws, I will continue to do this by bribing^H contributing to the election campaigns of friendly politicians.
Of course, this is cheating a little (because my business plan replaces one natural monopoly with another)--but not a lot, because you asked for my business plan to break into the current natural monopoly, not how one could sustainably obtain a competitive market. The answer to the latter question is obvious: You can't.
Considering the economic defintion of a natural monopoly, deregulation would be the wrong path to go down. Instead, we should see more regulation like that of "last mile" and caps on or forced wholesale pricing.
I was working on creating an MVNO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator) at one point but after crunching the numbers we decided (among other reasons) not to pursue it further. We were looking at handing over about 80% of turnover, even with fairly good laws in place (EU). On top of that, the contracts we were looking at where all based on bundling of services (i.e. XX amount of data, minutes and texts) which would have made our business more of a game of demand estimation. We could perhaps have gotten a small margin if we could estimate what our users would use of services better than what we paid for them wholesale. This has also led to the unfortunate business strategy of most MVNOs around here where they look for a quick exit by being bought out by the infrastructure owner when they have gotten enough customers. Few make it into into black numbers before that.
I was working on creating an MVNO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator) at one point but after crunching the numbers we decided (among other reasons) not to pursue it further. We were looking at handing over about 80% of turnover, even with fairly good laws in place (EU). On top of that, the contracts we were looking at where all based on bundling of services (i.e. XX amount of data, minutes and texts) which would have made our business more of a game of demand estimation. We could perhaps have gotten a small margin if we could estimate what our users would use of services better than what we paid for them wholesale. This has also led to the unfortunate business strategy of most MVNOs around here where they look for a quick exit by being bought out by the infrastructure owner when they have gotten enough customers. Few make it into into black numbers before that.
You love the phrase "regulatory capture", don't you? :)
[deleted]
Not as much as I despise both the thing it refers to and the propensity of self-styled libertarians to pretend that it's the only problem in the world :)
You may be right but this is a moot point for the present discussion. Regardless how or why, there is a monopoly and it will be very difficult for any party to provide a competing service.
The idea that a new competitor will jump in and make everything better is an absolute delusion.
The idea that a new competitor will jump in and make everything better is an absolute delusion.
I thought it was the other way around, i.e. the telcos were given a monopoly on the wires, in order to avoid a bunch of different companies all running their own cables and turning the streets into an ugly mess. In exchange there is a bunch of regulation such as they are required to provide service to rural areas at a loss.
Its both. Monopoly with infrastructure providers is inevitable, so in many cases the government created regulated monopolies instead of letting unregulated monopolies arise naturally.
That said, telcos are not monopolies. They're in a hybrid state of regulated competition.
That said, telcos are not monopolies. They're in a hybrid state of regulated competition.
The problem is that governments forcefully prevent competition and call that "natural monopoly." Personally, I would call that the opposite of a natural monopoly. The term is used very confusingly. Wikipedia gives one definition, which I think is reasonable, which is basically a (theoretical or real) environment in which a single producer maximizes efficiency. But the term used by governments and their supporters is something completely different, where the government forcefully prevents all producers but one from operating.
It's silly to talk about telcos "enjoying" a "natural" monopoly, when the airwaves are one of the most tightly-regulated industries, and in addition to being expensive for a competitor to enter the market, it's generally illegal.
It's silly to talk about telcos "enjoying" a "natural" monopoly, when the airwaves are one of the most tightly-regulated industries, and in addition to being expensive for a competitor to enter the market, it's generally illegal.
The "natural monopoly" of telcos and other utilities comes from the limited amount of physical space available to run water pipes, electrical lines, and data lines. Not to mention the limited opportunity to install those services without causing disruption (typically when the land is first prepared)
It's not the case that everyone can simply spend the same amount of money as the first utility, and replicate it's services in order to compete.
It's not the case that everyone can simply spend the same amount of money as the first utility, and replicate it's services in order to compete.
You're talking about the valid theoretical concept in economics, not the government-enforced monopolies that we actually see in practice.
Telecom isn't a natural monopoly, it's a government sponsored cartel.
While you are correct that telcos currently enjoy a certain degree of regulatory capture, they are also natural monopolies/oligopolies in the sense that competitors have an astronomical barrier to entry. It's tempting but naive to think that all we need to do in order to see the market right itself is to eliminate existing regulations.
What we actually need to do is to change regulations to encourage competition, both by eliminating explicit monopoly rights and by mandating and/or price-controlling B2B bandwidth/traffic sales so that incumbents can't kill new entrants without beating them on a level playing field.
Forcing telcos to act like "dumb pipes" is one type of regulation that forces them to compete against each other (otherwise they just lump their market power with media providers until they are once again too big to challenge).
What we actually need to do is to change regulations to encourage competition, both by eliminating explicit monopoly rights and by mandating and/or price-controlling B2B bandwidth/traffic sales so that incumbents can't kill new entrants without beating them on a level playing field.
Forcing telcos to act like "dumb pipes" is one type of regulation that forces them to compete against each other (otherwise they just lump their market power with media providers until they are once again too big to challenge).
> .. by eliminating explicit monopoly rights and by mandating and/or price-controlling B2B bandwidth/traffic sales ...
Are you willing to try the former before the latter? If so, I don't think we're far off .. I'm not an absolutist, if there is a compelling case after the artificial constraints are removed, then I might consider state intervention as a last resort. But not before giving the free market a fair shot.
Are you willing to try the former before the latter? If so, I don't think we're far off .. I'm not an absolutist, if there is a compelling case after the artificial constraints are removed, then I might consider state intervention as a last resort. But not before giving the free market a fair shot.
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, I'm hesitant due to the analogy with the health care market. We've been giving them "just one more chance" to find the set of market regulations that promote progress for the last few decades at the price of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives every year (in comparison to established single-payer systems). Without a concrete stopping point and with LOTS of money behind the lobby to perpetuate a pathological free market experiment long past its due date, I'm inclined to fight for utility regulation from the getgo.
"just lump their market power with media providers" is interesting considering that's Comcast, today. In a world without net neutrality, how do you stop Comcast from delivering NBC video content on the fast pipe, while degrading the performance of it's competitors?
Telecom is not a natural monopoly. My little flyover city has three wired telcos, and who knows how many wireless ones. If San Francisco does not have hundreds of telcos, it is because somebody rigged the game.
Another disproof of natural monopolization is the operating costs. If a monopoly could profitably run handmade cables through the air to an office full of operators, then modern buried cables and automated switches can support several competitors in every large market. Again, lack of competition is actually proof that the game is rigged.
Anybody who supports network "neutrality" without trust-busting has AT&T's dick in their mouth.
Another disproof of natural monopolization is the operating costs. If a monopoly could profitably run handmade cables through the air to an office full of operators, then modern buried cables and automated switches can support several competitors in every large market. Again, lack of competition is actually proof that the game is rigged.
Anybody who supports network "neutrality" without trust-busting has AT&T's dick in their mouth.
hard to know if the 'cost is too high' or not since regulation makes it impossible for companies to compete. Know what cost is too high? State enforced monopolies.
Consumers don't have the flexibility to decide if they're dealing with only a small number of sellers working in collusion. The cost of entry into this market is astronomically high -- even Google, with all its money and all the dark fiber it snapped up, hasn't established a foothold yet.
Setting up telecommunications networks is expensive and legally complex, and the resources involved are extremely limited. The likelihood of a functioning free market in this space is essentially nil. In the absence of a functioning free market, the government is the only entity with the authority to apply regulations for the benefit of the citizenry.
Setting up telecommunications networks is expensive and legally complex, and the resources involved are extremely limited. The likelihood of a functioning free market in this space is essentially nil. In the absence of a functioning free market, the government is the only entity with the authority to apply regulations for the benefit of the citizenry.
The distinguishing factor should be how the government protects net neutrality. Should the FCC have a limitless authority to regulate the Internet, which they happen to apply to net neutrality for now? Or should the FTC have authority to bring suits against monopolistic ISPs to discourage these behaviors?
Your argument is that the free market will favor ISPs that support/don't oppose net-neutrality.
I argue that most people won't care about their "choice" (air quotes, because most people can't pick from more than 2 ISPs) of ISP until it's too late.
Already you have ISPs throttling access to streaming video sites (netflix, youtube, twitch) with little to no REAL blowback.
With the barriers to entry as high as they are, there's no way for a competitor to succeed in the market solely on the basis of being net-neutral.
Google Fiber, in markets where it's available, has led to competitors reducing prices and offering better service. However, there's no word of change regarding net neutrality.
I argue that most people won't care about their "choice" (air quotes, because most people can't pick from more than 2 ISPs) of ISP until it's too late.
Already you have ISPs throttling access to streaming video sites (netflix, youtube, twitch) with little to no REAL blowback.
With the barriers to entry as high as they are, there's no way for a competitor to succeed in the market solely on the basis of being net-neutral.
Google Fiber, in markets where it's available, has led to competitors reducing prices and offering better service. However, there's no word of change regarding net neutrality.
>Google Fiber, in markets where it's available, has led to competitors reducing prices and offering better service. However, there's no word of change regarding net neutrality.
As a KC resident, TWC has not yet reduced my internet costs or increased speeds.
As a KC resident, TWC has not yet reduced my internet costs or increased speeds.
I'll say my only knowledge of this was anecdotal (from others)
I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.
I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.
>I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.
Except if you're one of those millions that live in rural areas with only one ISP.
Or if the major ISPs in your area are complicit in keeping prices up and enjoy a pre-arranged share of the market each.
Except if you're one of those millions that live in rural areas with only one ISP.
Or if the major ISPs in your area are complicit in keeping prices up and enjoy a pre-arranged share of the market each.
Right.
Rural areas and complicit ISPs suck for internet service.
My statement only makes sense if you would actually go through with the threat if they didn't reduce your bill
Rural areas and complicit ISPs suck for internet service.
My statement only makes sense if you would actually go through with the threat if they didn't reduce your bill
The only other option is U-verse which is more expensive for the same speed or they don't even offer the same speed. Calling the ISP and threatening them only works if you can find someone with the power to do so(and hope they don't note your account for trying it again, later..), and assumes they hold true to their word on your next bill.
I was primarily refuting your "causes isps to lower their prices" because Google fiber has done NOTHING for TWC's marketing. It's still the same terrible prices.
I was primarily refuting your "causes isps to lower their prices" because Google fiber has done NOTHING for TWC's marketing. It's still the same terrible prices.
(this is getting a little off topic)
The way customer service works (again in my experience) is that you'll go through several people before you get to someone who has the power to change your bill.
It's a needlessly involved process, but it is an option in some cases.
The original comment was regarding Google Fiber's effect on competitors. If you're in an area that can get their service, then you should be able to back up your threat.
Either google fiber is faster and cheaper than what you have now, or it's not and what you have now is better.
The way customer service works (again in my experience) is that you'll go through several people before you get to someone who has the power to change your bill.
It's a needlessly involved process, but it is an option in some cases.
The original comment was regarding Google Fiber's effect on competitors. If you're in an area that can get their service, then you should be able to back up your threat.
Either google fiber is faster and cheaper than what you have now, or it's not and what you have now is better.
I'm in the one section of KC that Google has yet to actually proliferate (probably some shady dealings with TWC and the council, but alas... no proof). TWC still offers the same terrible rates in the adjacent areas regardless of Gfiber actually being present. I'm pretty sure they just wrote off KC as an experiment and not indicitive of actual market importance. Coworkers with Gfiber have recieved no resistance from abandoning their previous ISP.
You would think the OP area of KC without Gfiber would be the one area trying to 'make nice' with people offering better service, discounts, and/or promises, but there is absolutely zero signs of 'competition' in the market.
You would think the OP area of KC without Gfiber would be the one area trying to 'make nice' with people offering better service, discounts, and/or promises, but there is absolutely zero signs of 'competition' in the market.
My ISP - Virgin in the UK - has a transparent proxy cache for streaming video sites. If I want to watch an episode of Breaking Bad then it is there, instant. However, that 1992 B-side tack with 200 views 'buffers' for a while. That probably is because it is not cached down the road or further upstream at some Akamai CDN. It probably has to come straight from the heart of the GooglePlex, Sergei's very own hard drive...
Given that most people watch what they are told to watch, i.e. the same stuff as everyone else, and, since almost all of that can be cached by the ISP, why would they throttle? The final mile I pay for, I could buy the basic 'throttled to 5Mbs' service but they kindly let me pay for a sensible level of bandwidth. How is this throttling thing different in the USA?
Given that most people watch what they are told to watch, i.e. the same stuff as everyone else, and, since almost all of that can be cached by the ISP, why would they throttle? The final mile I pay for, I could buy the basic 'throttled to 5Mbs' service but they kindly let me pay for a sensible level of bandwidth. How is this throttling thing different in the USA?
"why would they throttle?"
Because they want to slow the demise of their television business unit. Many of the telcos here in the states not only also offer cable television service, they also directly compete with Netflix (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/0...). If they can make Netflix slower than the Comcast online offering (and they can), then more users will often choose the Comcast offering, even if it is inferior in every other way...and, most nefariously, the consumer probably won't know why Netflix is "so slow" and Comcast streaming is so fast.
In short, Telcos want the ability to kill their rivals, without having to provide a better product. They succeeded in doing so during the 90s on the broadband Internet front (there used to be thousands of independent ISPs in the US; they were killed by the telcos abusing their monopoly power, it's a story I've told here before, and so won't go into again).
Because they want to slow the demise of their television business unit. Many of the telcos here in the states not only also offer cable television service, they also directly compete with Netflix (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/0...). If they can make Netflix slower than the Comcast online offering (and they can), then more users will often choose the Comcast offering, even if it is inferior in every other way...and, most nefariously, the consumer probably won't know why Netflix is "so slow" and Comcast streaming is so fast.
In short, Telcos want the ability to kill their rivals, without having to provide a better product. They succeeded in doing so during the 90s on the broadband Internet front (there used to be thousands of independent ISPs in the US; they were killed by the telcos abusing their monopoly power, it's a story I've told here before, and so won't go into again).
Thank you for that. The situation is different in the UK, at least with my ISP. They have teamed up with Netflix rather than throttled them.
http://about.virginmedia.com/press-release/9410/virgin-media...
In the UK cable TV took a lot longer to arrive than in the US. When it arrived it quickly merged into some monster debt vehicle that had to be refinanced somehow. Nobody really went for cable, it took on a new life with the Internet. This competes with ADSL copper from BT and various competitors. There is no local monopoly, if I go for Talk Talk instead of BT then the same wire to the door gets used. Sounds like we have a better market over here.
http://about.virginmedia.com/press-release/9410/virgin-media...
In the UK cable TV took a lot longer to arrive than in the US. When it arrived it quickly merged into some monster debt vehicle that had to be refinanced somehow. Nobody really went for cable, it took on a new life with the Internet. This competes with ADSL copper from BT and various competitors. There is no local monopoly, if I go for Talk Talk instead of BT then the same wire to the door gets used. Sounds like we have a better market over here.
I moved from Mountain View to London and I have to say the whole telecom system is night and day better in the UK. It's embarrassing how the wool has been pulled over the eyes of Americans in terms of believing that the country has good telecom infrastructure and value.
In the UK I pay £10($16)/month for my mobile service on pay-as-you-go vs $70/month on contract in the US (which high limits than I needed, but it was the cheapest I could get). Similarly, I pay £30($50)/month for my FTTC connection from BT, which gives me actual sustained speeds night and day of 75/15mbps up/down vs something like $80/month (and it rose by a dollar or so every single month) for a highly variable 10/2mbps up/down cable from Comcast in Mountain View that suffered heavily during prime time.
Oh, and don't get me started on nationalized healthcare and the willfully ignorant propaganda that has been fed to and swallowed by the American people hook line and sinker.
In the UK I pay £10($16)/month for my mobile service on pay-as-you-go vs $70/month on contract in the US (which high limits than I needed, but it was the cheapest I could get). Similarly, I pay £30($50)/month for my FTTC connection from BT, which gives me actual sustained speeds night and day of 75/15mbps up/down vs something like $80/month (and it rose by a dollar or so every single month) for a highly variable 10/2mbps up/down cable from Comcast in Mountain View that suffered heavily during prime time.
Oh, and don't get me started on nationalized healthcare and the willfully ignorant propaganda that has been fed to and swallowed by the American people hook line and sinker.
Moved from eastern Europe to London and the only thing that is actually better is 3G coverage. The rest is expensive/extremely low quality.
Just came back from holidays at parents. 300 Mbps FTTH is £20/month, however it's not all bells and whistles. Speed to London is 200 Mbps. To NY - 1 Mbps. Neighbouring countries get 100-200 Mbps and I couldn't establish a real pattern, but international torrent speed is usually 25% of the national one.
The thing is we have monopoly and no one is bothered to play that game "rent from us, it's competition" because everyone knows it's extremely inefficient. Where as in London I could choose among 5 or so "competitors", which offer precisely the same service (and all of them won't offer upload speed of more than 200-300 Kbps - it's hardly enough for video chats (which gave me the idea that not only upload speeds should be advertised, but also streaming bandwidth)).
Oh, and how about the whole BT's rollout of FTTC? Why would you'd be saving couple ££'s, when you know for sure that couple years later that will have to be upgraded?
Mobile plans are roughly half price, 3G coverage over the country is spotty and 4G is virtually non-existant.
Just came back from holidays at parents. 300 Mbps FTTH is £20/month, however it's not all bells and whistles. Speed to London is 200 Mbps. To NY - 1 Mbps. Neighbouring countries get 100-200 Mbps and I couldn't establish a real pattern, but international torrent speed is usually 25% of the national one.
The thing is we have monopoly and no one is bothered to play that game "rent from us, it's competition" because everyone knows it's extremely inefficient. Where as in London I could choose among 5 or so "competitors", which offer precisely the same service (and all of them won't offer upload speed of more than 200-300 Kbps - it's hardly enough for video chats (which gave me the idea that not only upload speeds should be advertised, but also streaming bandwidth)).
Oh, and how about the whole BT's rollout of FTTC? Why would you'd be saving couple ££'s, when you know for sure that couple years later that will have to be upgraded?
Mobile plans are roughly half price, 3G coverage over the country is spotty and 4G is virtually non-existant.
In the UK we were able to get something good enough using the copper that was in place 'since Marconi was a lad' simply by putting in better boxes at the local telephone exchange.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, after the wall fell, the situation was 'well, let's start from scratch'. Hence in places like Latvia you have internet speeds both ways (uplink as well as downlink) that are ridiculously fast compared to what is offered in the UK.
When it comes to the fat pipes, a lot of it was put in place during a speculative bubble more than a decade ago. Remember companies like Nortel? I think the bubble burst before they got to places like Riga. So it does not surprise me at all what you are saying.
Incidentally 3G was also a weird speculative bubble in the UK, more than 20 billion or so went on the auction for the radio spectrum. Maybe things were a bit more realistic in Eastern Europe.
The situation in the USA is going to be quite scary. Lots of areas that were remote but sophisticated, e.g. Missoula in Montana, could fall off the map as a desirable place to live, just because of poor internet speeds. It does not seem the government is that alarmed about the country turning into internet have's and have not's.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, after the wall fell, the situation was 'well, let's start from scratch'. Hence in places like Latvia you have internet speeds both ways (uplink as well as downlink) that are ridiculously fast compared to what is offered in the UK.
When it comes to the fat pipes, a lot of it was put in place during a speculative bubble more than a decade ago. Remember companies like Nortel? I think the bubble burst before they got to places like Riga. So it does not surprise me at all what you are saying.
Incidentally 3G was also a weird speculative bubble in the UK, more than 20 billion or so went on the auction for the radio spectrum. Maybe things were a bit more realistic in Eastern Europe.
The situation in the USA is going to be quite scary. Lots of areas that were remote but sophisticated, e.g. Missoula in Montana, could fall off the map as a desirable place to live, just because of poor internet speeds. It does not seem the government is that alarmed about the country turning into internet have's and have not's.
My dad lived in a small town and his phone number (which we found in phone book from certain occupation before Russians), was 55.
So the phone lines were there for a while.
So the phone lines were there for a while.
Yes. As a person who has been using small ISPs since forever, and who tries to encourage others to do the same, most people just don't have the background or the inclination to really understand this stuff. They just see that the first-year cost for a major telco is twice what the open alternative is and they're done.
I'm lucky I live in the SF area, where there are enough hardcore nerds to support Sonic.net, a great independent ISP. But elsewhere? Not so much.
I'm lucky I live in the SF area, where there are enough hardcore nerds to support Sonic.net, a great independent ISP. But elsewhere? Not so much.
> If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide.
If you leave it up to the prisoners, they will both rat each other out resulting in the worst possible outcome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Assuming that consumers will decide what is best for the whole of society is simply incorrect. "Internet innovation" is very much one of those big picture goals where I think some community planning (e.g. government intervention) would help the outcome.
If you leave it up to the prisoners, they will both rat each other out resulting in the worst possible outcome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Assuming that consumers will decide what is best for the whole of society is simply incorrect. "Internet innovation" is very much one of those big picture goals where I think some community planning (e.g. government intervention) would help the outcome.
You might also look at Braess' Paradox[1], which while often applied to traffic planning, tells us that a network of nodes that choose their options selfishly will not result in improved performance when expanding that network (increase in number of possible choices).
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
Braess' Paradox "states that adding extra capacity to a network when the moving entities selfishly choose their route, can in some cases reduce overall performance. This is because the Nash equilibrium of such a system is not necessarily optimal."
Also, isn't the internet itself more or less a "a network [where] the moving entities selfishly choose their route"?
Also, isn't the internet itself more or less a "a network [where] the moving entities selfishly choose their route"?
>Also, isn't the internet itself more or less a "a network [where] the moving entities selfishly choose their route"?
The moving entities? No, the routers make choices; it's equivalent to the road telling you which turns to take. In the example scenario the router at 'start' could evenly distribute the entities for optimal performance.
The moving entities? No, the routers make choices; it's equivalent to the road telling you which turns to take. In the example scenario the router at 'start' could evenly distribute the entities for optimal performance.
Brilliant. If a solution appears over-simplified, it probably is. Like a reverse razor.
You should go read about the history of the Internet. AT&T was a major barrier to early efforts in creating the Internet. See, e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/06848326... In my view, the breakup of the Bell System laid the groundwork for the Internet to thrive.
For that matter, read about the origins of antitrust law. Monopolies and oligopolies neutralize the market's usual power to straighten things out. Giant companies aren't generally interested in innovation; they're interested in dominance. (See The Innovator's Dilemma for more on the economics of why.)
If it makes you feel any better, it's not like the FCC's going to go around kicking down telco doors and inspecting routers. Proof of net neutrality failures will come from us, the nerds. As individuals, measuring our own networks, and as the techies at innovative companies, going public when telcos try to discriminate against them.
For that matter, read about the origins of antitrust law. Monopolies and oligopolies neutralize the market's usual power to straighten things out. Giant companies aren't generally interested in innovation; they're interested in dominance. (See The Innovator's Dilemma for more on the economics of why.)
If it makes you feel any better, it's not like the FCC's going to go around kicking down telco doors and inspecting routers. Proof of net neutrality failures will come from us, the nerds. As individuals, measuring our own networks, and as the techies at innovative companies, going public when telcos try to discriminate against them.
I plan on doing this. I'm actually excited for the day when I get to nail Verizon for discriminating against my business.
(I wish I were youtube.)
Here's what I plan to do, and please tell me what you would think if you saw this:
"Hi, Verizon customer! We've detected that Verizon is hurting your speeds to reach us, while favoring access to _____ (competitor). Click on this link to see some other internet service providers in your area. If you'd like to file a complaint with the FCC, click here. If you'd like to get a refund, this link has instructions. If you'd like to join a class action suit, a discussion is occuring at this link."
We'll of course not list competitors where there are none.
Proportional to your popularity, it might even be possible to hurt Verizon's bottom line.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-yo... says you may have Net Neutrality issues already if you are subscribed to:
• Verizon
• Comcast
• Time Warner Cable
• Deutsche Telecom, Orange, Telefónica
(I wish I were youtube.)
Here's what I plan to do, and please tell me what you would think if you saw this:
"Hi, Verizon customer! We've detected that Verizon is hurting your speeds to reach us, while favoring access to _____ (competitor). Click on this link to see some other internet service providers in your area. If you'd like to file a complaint with the FCC, click here. If you'd like to get a refund, this link has instructions. If you'd like to join a class action suit, a discussion is occuring at this link."
We'll of course not list competitors where there are none.
Proportional to your popularity, it might even be possible to hurt Verizon's bottom line.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-yo... says you may have Net Neutrality issues already if you are subscribed to:
• Verizon
• Comcast
• Time Warner Cable
• Deutsche Telecom, Orange, Telefónica
Net Neutrality is how the internet has operated since its beginning. It's not "giving" the government or anyone else anything new, just preserving a very successful status quo. It's the telco's and the anti-NN crowd that want to change that, not the other way around, despite their dissembling. If you want the internet to remain a level playing field for everyone, as it has been since day 1, from bootstrapped startups to giants like Google and Microsoft, support Net Neutrality.
The government isn't completely inept. They execute policy decisions quite well.
IMO, the US government correctly concluded that the Bell Monopoly was initially in the best interest of the nation, as it accelerated universal phone service. Later, with a lot of prodding, they reversed that policy and unleashed the telecom competition that helped bring us the last 30 years of innovation.
The problem is that the telephone companies are essentially rebuilding the old AT&T through merger, and wants to pillage the consumers of telecom services once again. They are doing this by declaring that the FCC can only regulate voice, defined as legacy TDM/POTS lines and related technology. Simultaneously, they are moving in state legislatures and congress to eliminate the requirement to provide universal POTS service.
I've worked in a large enterprise where the network teams became too politically powerful (essentially becoming a troll under the bridge instead of a service provider) and basically put the organization out of business by making it either impossible or too expensive to get anything done. Empowering phone companies without a short, tight leash would be doing the same thing to our nation.
Powerful network owners are the most dangerous people in technology.
IMO, the US government correctly concluded that the Bell Monopoly was initially in the best interest of the nation, as it accelerated universal phone service. Later, with a lot of prodding, they reversed that policy and unleashed the telecom competition that helped bring us the last 30 years of innovation.
The problem is that the telephone companies are essentially rebuilding the old AT&T through merger, and wants to pillage the consumers of telecom services once again. They are doing this by declaring that the FCC can only regulate voice, defined as legacy TDM/POTS lines and related technology. Simultaneously, they are moving in state legislatures and congress to eliminate the requirement to provide universal POTS service.
I've worked in a large enterprise where the network teams became too politically powerful (essentially becoming a troll under the bridge instead of a service provider) and basically put the organization out of business by making it either impossible or too expensive to get anything done. Empowering phone companies without a short, tight leash would be doing the same thing to our nation.
Powerful network owners are the most dangerous people in technology.
>I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality?
Because it's not a technology issue, it's a business fairness issue. You know, the same way we let the government handle contracts.
>Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide.
One's the genie is in the corporate box, there will be no turning back. The consumer cannot decide if he is not even provided with an alternative -- or if any alternative is more expensive. Like you couldn't decide about carrier-locked phones all those years.
You either push for fairness to be regulated in law, or let the 4-5 top players divide the pie as they like.
>Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch sooner or later anyway.
And who told you that Google WONT take advantage of crashing net neutrality itself?
Because it's not a technology issue, it's a business fairness issue. You know, the same way we let the government handle contracts.
>Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide.
One's the genie is in the corporate box, there will be no turning back. The consumer cannot decide if he is not even provided with an alternative -- or if any alternative is more expensive. Like you couldn't decide about carrier-locked phones all those years.
You either push for fairness to be regulated in law, or let the 4-5 top players divide the pie as they like.
>Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch sooner or later anyway.
And who told you that Google WONT take advantage of crashing net neutrality itself?
How's the 'invisible hand' working for healthcare again?
I'm very against government regulation, but something it's necessary.
I'm very against government regulation, but something it's necessary.
That's a rather poor example - healthcare is an exceptionally heavily-regulated industry. There's an argument to be made that many of the ills in the industry are a result of over-regulation.
That an argument can be made doesn't imply it's a good one, or that anybody should pay it any heed.
Most of the ills in the health industry stem from the fact that providers--insurers and direct providers alike--have a profit motive rather than a "provide healthcare" motive, because their market is entirely captive and literally without any (real) choice.
Most of the ills in the health industry stem from the fact that providers--insurers and direct providers alike--have a profit motive rather than a "provide healthcare" motive, because their market is entirely captive and literally without any (real) choice.
Most tire shops have a profit motive rather than a "provide tires" motive. It's true that tire customers aren't "captive", but I don't understand which sense of that word you mean to apply in a relevant way to health care consumers.
You don't understand how health care consumers are captive? Health care is literally something human beings cannot live without. The quality and cost of the care is far less important than its availability, because it's literally a matter of being healthy and surviving, or becoming or continuing to be ill, deteriorating and then dying. Healthcare consumers, in other words, don't have real choices in where and how they obtain care. This isn't the case with tires (or almost any other non-essential good or service).
Over-regulation is a bad term when it is rather a problem of bad regulation. What is needed is re-regulation not deregulation.
As a Canadian living in the US, I'd have to say it works a lot better than up north. I realize that's probably heresy for a lot of people, however, it's hard to stomach seeing your parents having to wait multiple years to get in to see a doctor. Particularly when they have debilitating health issues.
That said, I'm not sure what the right answer is; I want everyone to have access to good health care. I'm not sure I need to be able to get in to have an MRI in a day or two like I can here, however it would be nice if my mother could have one without waiting for two years.
That said, I'm not sure what the right answer is; I want everyone to have access to good health care. I'm not sure I need to be able to get in to have an MRI in a day or two like I can here, however it would be nice if my mother could have one without waiting for two years.
Having lived and worked in the health care industry in both countries, I'll have to respectively disagree. I can see how your personal experience must be very frustrating, and I'm not attempting to belittle that.
However on the whole the Canadian system is better at delivering the health care that is needed. Overall, it works better for more people, more of the time, and much more efficiently (i.e. cost effectively). The latter point means that sometimes people with non-critical issues have to wait -- usually not very long notwithstanding the stories people sometimes focus on (the dramatic failure modes of the US system are much, much worse).
That being said, if you a) have the right insurance, b) live in the right state, c) have money, and d) live in the right part (typically urban) of the state -- you can get very good care very quickly in the US. Unfortunately that leaves out an awful lot of people.
However on the whole the Canadian system is better at delivering the health care that is needed. Overall, it works better for more people, more of the time, and much more efficiently (i.e. cost effectively). The latter point means that sometimes people with non-critical issues have to wait -- usually not very long notwithstanding the stories people sometimes focus on (the dramatic failure modes of the US system are much, much worse).
That being said, if you a) have the right insurance, b) live in the right state, c) have money, and d) live in the right part (typically urban) of the state -- you can get very good care very quickly in the US. Unfortunately that leaves out an awful lot of people.
You can just cherry pick examples unless you can explain how it's analogous. For example, healthcare suffers from natural monopolies to an extent. Hospitals don't really have to compete with each other, and it's really difficult to build a new hospital. The same principle applies to telecommunications.
On the other hand, healthcare is heavily regulated and hardly a free market, so it's pretty terrible comparison in that aspect.
On the other hand, healthcare is heavily regulated and hardly a free market, so it's pretty terrible comparison in that aspect.
Hospitals have a limited competition as well in other countries. Healthcare is also regulated in other countries, maybe not as much
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Look at "US Unfunded Liabilities" towards the bottom. The US is drowning in debt, due to promises made... Or promises soon to be broken. It's laughable to suggest the free market is at work in the medical industry.
Look at "US Unfunded Liabilities" towards the bottom. The US is drowning in debt, due to promises made... Or promises soon to be broken. It's laughable to suggest the free market is at work in the medical industry.
We regulate car safety even though there is some competition among car companies. If competition did not lead to net neutrality, then we should still mandate it.
Also, it's true, as others have noted, that competition among ISPs won't be enough to ensure net neutrality because there can't be enough competition (either through regulatory capture or natural monopoly economics).
However, even if there were competition, competing ISPs have the economic incentive to discriminate. The economic modeling is available in the work of Barbara van Schewick (she wrote an amazing, and dense, book on net neutrality). So competition would not necessarily solve the issue, as it does not solve things like car safety (or safe housing). I'm a huge fan of free markets, but there are market failures requiring some government intervention in the form of contract law, property law and its exemptions, and regulation in specific situations.
Also, it's true, as others have noted, that competition among ISPs won't be enough to ensure net neutrality because there can't be enough competition (either through regulatory capture or natural monopoly economics).
However, even if there were competition, competing ISPs have the economic incentive to discriminate. The economic modeling is available in the work of Barbara van Schewick (she wrote an amazing, and dense, book on net neutrality). So competition would not necessarily solve the issue, as it does not solve things like car safety (or safe housing). I'm a huge fan of free markets, but there are market failures requiring some government intervention in the form of contract law, property law and its exemptions, and regulation in specific situations.
> I'm a huge fan of free markets, but there are market failures requiring some government intervention in the form of contract law, property law and its exemptions, and regulation in specific situations.
I agree that contract and property law need to be enforced - this is a vital component of a free market. But I don't consider that regulation or intervention.
What are the "specific situations" that demand regulation?
I agree that contract and property law need to be enforced - this is a vital component of a free market. But I don't consider that regulation or intervention.
What are the "specific situations" that demand regulation?
property law is definitely a form of regulation. go to a country without regulation, like afghanistan, and you'll see no property law :)
there's an entire semester in law school on the intricacies of property law, including fee simple, easements, etc., because property law doesn't come from heaven, it's made by men to regulate our affairs.
beyond that, of course, there's regulation of restaurants, securities regulation, regulation of wireless spectrum regarding interference, regulation of satellite orbital slots, regulation of food safety, of drugs, of the legal profession, of the medical profession, etc. often for safety, often because of factors like information asymmetries or high transaction costs. Joseph Stiglitz's writings might interest you on the topic, the stuff he won a Nobel for.
i current have 2 choices at my place in the US for internet:
comcast cable and comast DSL.
Not sure how i'm getting the choice to use a "net neutrality compliant" ISP if comcast decides i can't reach site Z or Y.
Not sure how i'm getting the choice to use a "net neutrality compliant" ISP if comcast decides i can't reach site Z or Y.
Consumers don't decide shit. Consumers are people that buy stuff, nothing more. The people that decide are called citizens or "voters".
(Also, Google is probably one of the worst examples imaginable for arguing the market should make such decisions.)
(Also, Google is probably one of the worst examples imaginable for arguing the market should make such decisions.)
Who decided that the automobile would replace the horse and buggy for most modes of personal transportation?
Consumers.
Consumers.
Early horseless carriages didn't sell well, if at all. Consumers weren't making the decision to replace the horse and carriage. Continuous innovation and industry and government did that.
Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change.
We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become so good that the gasoline car is practically taken off of the table as a viable choice. You can then credit the change to the consumers, but it's really much greater forces at work behind the scenes making it happen.
Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change.
We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become so good that the gasoline car is practically taken off of the table as a viable choice. You can then credit the change to the consumers, but it's really much greater forces at work behind the scenes making it happen.
If consumers wanted to continue using the horse-and-buggy, they would have continued to buy it. But they didn't. The desired the automobile.
I'm not sure how the notion that "consumers don't decide anything" can really hold water. Consumers are literally the people who allocate their resources to particular goods.
In some cases, external forces remove or enforce particular choices. But I don't know how this implies that consumers can't decide anything.
I'm not sure how the notion that "consumers don't decide anything" can really hold water. Consumers are literally the people who allocate their resources to particular goods.
In some cases, external forces remove or enforce particular choices. But I don't know how this implies that consumers can't decide anything.
> Early horseless carriages didn't sell well
Exactly. Henry Ford paid his workers very well, not out of altruism because he was the one of the most unaltruistic people you can think of, but because he wanted them to be able to afford his car. They would become mobile advertisements of his new technology.
In that, they were much like the Google Glassers are today.
Exactly. Henry Ford paid his workers very well, not out of altruism because he was the one of the most unaltruistic people you can think of, but because he wanted them to be able to afford his car. They would become mobile advertisements of his new technology.
In that, they were much like the Google Glassers are today.
Who decided that automobiles should have seat belts, collapsable steering columns, and the numerous other safety features that save lives today? Hint: not consumers.
Was there something I said that implies that consumers decided everything? No? Okay then.
The only entity capable of governing, is government in some form or another.
Some of us believe that broadband should be considered a public utility, in which case it is appropriate to subject providers to these regulations.
> Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality?
I think the key is the false assumption that this is how the origins and advancement of political authority works. This net neutrality issue is much easier to explain with a model of political authority that treats it as something the ruling class takes by force.
Social contract theory was just the best thing Enlightenment thinkers could come up with to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced upon realizing that the existence of governments was a plain violation of their new ideas about natural rights.
I think the key is the false assumption that this is how the origins and advancement of political authority works. This net neutrality issue is much easier to explain with a model of political authority that treats it as something the ruling class takes by force.
Social contract theory was just the best thing Enlightenment thinkers could come up with to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced upon realizing that the existence of governments was a plain violation of their new ideas about natural rights.
Ehm, but Google Fiber doesn't respect net neutrality, see multiple posts on HN about them forbidding servers on the network...
That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
Forbidding servers on their network is a completely rational stance for them to take.
Do you also get upset at "all-you-can-eat" buffets when they don't let you fill a barrel full of food to take home and eat later?
Forbidding servers on their network is a completely rational stance for them to take.
Do you also get upset at "all-you-can-eat" buffets when they don't let you fill a barrel full of food to take home and eat later?
How can they distinguish personal vs pro servers? They have to inspect the contents, which to me seems related to net neutrality.
The comparison should rather be "Do you get upset at buffets when they don't let you have the main dish after dessert?" They use content inspection to increase their revenue.
The comparison should rather be "Do you get upset at buffets when they don't let you have the main dish after dessert?" They use content inspection to increase their revenue.
Bandwidth and number of incoming connections.
I do get upset if the commercial say "up to 20 different kind of food, and all-you-can-eat", but during lunch rush it is just a couple of carrots that looks half moldy.
One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capacity to make food is full.
If the network connection Google want to sell has direct limitation to them, Google should be legally bound to make sure the consumer is aware before a contract is signed. That is normally a basic consumer protection law in most markets, and the ISP market is just lagging behind.
One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capacity to make food is full.
If the network connection Google want to sell has direct limitation to them, Google should be legally bound to make sure the consumer is aware before a contract is signed. That is normally a basic consumer protection law in most markets, and the ISP market is just lagging behind.
I thought the wording of the contract had already changed to be specific to commercial activity, at least in KC. Am I remembering things incorrectly?
Its not enough that you change the fine print in a 20 page long legal contract. A restaurant could easy require you to agree to an customer agreement on the point of booking a table. It would still not allow them to book 50 people and make food for 10, arguing that their capacity to make food is full. Even if the customer agreement said that the restaurant is only responsible to supply food "up to" all-you-can-eat. The police would classify such scheme as a scam.
> It would still not allow them to book 50 people and make food for 10,
Is something like a 5 to 1 over booking happening with google fiber? Overbooking is common practice with airlines and many business that have solid statistics that tell them how safe it is to overbook. It is not normally considered, when done in a reasonable manner, a scam to do so either.
Is something like a 5 to 1 over booking happening with google fiber? Overbooking is common practice with airlines and many business that have solid statistics that tell them how safe it is to overbook. It is not normally considered, when done in a reasonable manner, a scam to do so either.
That's been cleared up. You can run personal servers from your home.
The problem is that telecom is already a heavy regulated area (for historical and technical reasons). Besides this, connecting to your competitor network is going to be always a rigged game, just a handful of players will connect between them, that leads to monopoly... So I think it is virtually impossible to setup your own new company... I live in France and it is quite interesting to see the raise of the provider Free.fr, quite impressive how they defied all other big companies... (Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this ISP).
edit: typos.
edit: typos.
I used to live in France, DSL providers are a joke here. Verizon advertised $30 for single play (no phone, no television). In the end they added "fees" and taxes (what those are not included?), the price was $56 per month. The router is as shitty as it gets too. Now I moved and for $55 I have cable with optimum and it's way better. Still more expensive than Free, and still no tv/phone included.
Free has traffic shaping for anything going through their peering, but in particular apple and google.
Good luck using youtube via free's peering. it's nearly impossible. I don't know many people on free.fr that use youtube at all, because it's too terribly slow (1min load for 3s of video?). It's barely acceptable for things like google play downloads.
Their peering isn't net neutral at all.
Their peering isn't net neutral at all.
Why does Google continue to peer with them then? The whole point of peering vs. transit is that two networks will connect for free to each other to get better service.
I think I dont notice because I use VPN all the time.
Well, because obviously if something is wrong in the world, giving a bunch of professional liars selected by people 10% of which disagree on whether it exists and how to fix it and 90% of which do not understand the problem and vote on the looks of the guy and the fact he wears the colors of the team their granddad rooted for - giving such setup maximum power seems like a brilliant idea. If that doesn't fix the problem, what else would?
It's like somebody being wrong on the internet, only you can feel you did something about it. Like empowered somebody who doesn't know how to fix it and has abysmal track record in fixing hundreds of other things, to do whatever it takes to fix it. That can't ever go wrong, can it?
And we can be sure we can totally trust them with this power and they won't think about usurping this and taking it way beyond original purpose and trying to control everything everywhere. It's not like we're living through the wave of revelations showing how far the government can go subverting privacy, undermining security and expanding its powers in very short time. It's not like we have an agency that has an official logo of globe-encompassing octopus on top of the slogan "Nothing is beyond our reach". Calling for more control of the internet for those people would be indeed a bit myopic. But that's not what is going on here, right?
It's like somebody being wrong on the internet, only you can feel you did something about it. Like empowered somebody who doesn't know how to fix it and has abysmal track record in fixing hundreds of other things, to do whatever it takes to fix it. That can't ever go wrong, can it?
And we can be sure we can totally trust them with this power and they won't think about usurping this and taking it way beyond original purpose and trying to control everything everywhere. It's not like we're living through the wave of revelations showing how far the government can go subverting privacy, undermining security and expanding its powers in very short time. It's not like we have an agency that has an official logo of globe-encompassing octopus on top of the slogan "Nothing is beyond our reach". Calling for more control of the internet for those people would be indeed a bit myopic. But that's not what is going on here, right?
To me it just seems self-evident that monopoly telcos should be required to treat all traffic equally. That's what it means to be a common carrier. Imagine if you called your favorite pizza place to order a pizza and the phone said 'we'll be connecting you in 30 seconds, or press 1 to be connected to a Verizon Preferred Partner Pizza Parlor immediately...'. It seem ridiculous for the phone company to be allowed to do that, so why would we ever tolerate it for an ISP?
Sure. And if industry collusion is such a shitty practice, just let the consumers decide.
At least part of it is that tech companies benefit from net neutrality in the fight against the telcos. Its really to the advantage of distributors like Google or Netflix if net connections are dumb commoditized pipes. That allows them to extract a larger share of the revenue from any given customer. Unsurprisingly, distributors don't want telcos to be able to differentiate their services by partnering with distributors.
This is one of the two key dynamics in the tech industry. The other is distributors versus content companies. When Amazon streams you a movie made by NBC/Universal over pipes built by Verizon, Amazon is positioned antagonistically to these other companies in wanting to extract the largest share of the total you're willing to pay for the whole package. Net neutrality helps them do this, and so does weaker copyright protections, among other things.
This is one of the two key dynamics in the tech industry. The other is distributors versus content companies. When Amazon streams you a movie made by NBC/Universal over pipes built by Verizon, Amazon is positioned antagonistically to these other companies in wanting to extract the largest share of the total you're willing to pay for the whole package. Net neutrality helps them do this, and so does weaker copyright protections, among other things.
Who does the telcos' "differentiating" their internet services help, other than the shareholders of the telcos? That bit of rent seeking behavior would have large negative impacts on everyone else.
Why should we let telcos begin charging for no commensurate improvement in their end of the bargain after they've been granted local monopolies across the country? Internet service looks like a utility, quacks like a utility, it should be treated like a utility.
Why should we let telcos begin charging for no commensurate improvement in their end of the bargain after they've been granted local monopolies across the country? Internet service looks like a utility, quacks like a utility, it should be treated like a utility.
Amen.
I would argue that it's not even clear how the market would respond to this, and yet the pro-neutrality camp paint a picture of corporate apocalypse. This seems reasonable to me:
Neutrality rules are repealed. Some ISPs begin discriminating against certain publishers that do not pay up, but can use the payments to subsidize reductions in cost of consumer access. The "multitudes" of neutrality proponents begin demanding undiscriminated connections, calling for boycotts, switching to providers that offer such connections. Neutrality activists develop tools to compare and publicize connection rates to different publishers through different ISPs. Small-time providers form associations to raise awareness of the issue as well. Ethical marketing comes into play as some ISPs and some big publishers reject connection rate differentiation. Some ISPs that also own publishing properties are caught or implied to be preferring their own content over competitors, drawing political attention. In some areas, net neutrality laws (not just "rules") are passed, which is a draw for startups. Meanwhile, many who had no home connectivity in the past are now able to afford the "subsidized/sponsored" service level.
What irks me about the middle-class idealogues raising a fuss about this now is that they arbitrarily draw the line of equality around big corporations, with little attention given to the fact that service is tiered at all. If it doesn't make sense for small publishers to be penalized for not ponying up, it should make even less sense for certain individuals in society to be penalized for not being able to afford anything more than dial-up or basic DSL. Going further, it should be more appalling that the most financially under-resourced can't even afford the most basic service level, and live without any internet participation. Instead, they prefer corporations to carry the costs of keeping the level field artificially level, while doing nothing to help those below them have the same level of access they do.
I would argue that it's not even clear how the market would respond to this, and yet the pro-neutrality camp paint a picture of corporate apocalypse. This seems reasonable to me:
Neutrality rules are repealed. Some ISPs begin discriminating against certain publishers that do not pay up, but can use the payments to subsidize reductions in cost of consumer access. The "multitudes" of neutrality proponents begin demanding undiscriminated connections, calling for boycotts, switching to providers that offer such connections. Neutrality activists develop tools to compare and publicize connection rates to different publishers through different ISPs. Small-time providers form associations to raise awareness of the issue as well. Ethical marketing comes into play as some ISPs and some big publishers reject connection rate differentiation. Some ISPs that also own publishing properties are caught or implied to be preferring their own content over competitors, drawing political attention. In some areas, net neutrality laws (not just "rules") are passed, which is a draw for startups. Meanwhile, many who had no home connectivity in the past are now able to afford the "subsidized/sponsored" service level.
What irks me about the middle-class idealogues raising a fuss about this now is that they arbitrarily draw the line of equality around big corporations, with little attention given to the fact that service is tiered at all. If it doesn't make sense for small publishers to be penalized for not ponying up, it should make even less sense for certain individuals in society to be penalized for not being able to afford anything more than dial-up or basic DSL. Going further, it should be more appalling that the most financially under-resourced can't even afford the most basic service level, and live without any internet participation. Instead, they prefer corporations to carry the costs of keeping the level field artificially level, while doing nothing to help those below them have the same level of access they do.
[deleted]
Who would you have enforce net neutrality?
The only thing that needs to be enforced is anti-trust law. Monopolies are what give ISPs the ability, and perhaps the incentive, to filter and editorialize the Internet. The FTC should be involved in defending consumers against those behaviors.
Net neutrality arises naturally. It didn't need enforcement 30 years ago. In some contexts, like exotic network protocols, it may not even make sense.
I wouldn't care much if it was a limited authority granted to the FCC, but they are claiming an authority which is limitless in scope and using net neutrality as an excuse to exercise it.
Net neutrality arises naturally. It didn't need enforcement 30 years ago. In some contexts, like exotic network protocols, it may not even make sense.
I wouldn't care much if it was a limited authority granted to the FCC, but they are claiming an authority which is limitless in scope and using net neutrality as an excuse to exercise it.
Wait, 30 years ago? Actually, net neutrality needed substantial government help. The parallel at the time is the long distance market. Read about the history of Sprint, MCI, and the like.
And it goes back further. At one point, you weren't even allowed to connect your own phone to the network, let alone an answering machine; AT&T claimed it was too dangerous. So you had to rent everything from Ma Bell. It wasn't until the Carterphone case in 1968, where the FCC told AT&T to knock it off, that you saw things get better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_...
As much as I would like anti-trust law to help here, you don't need collusion or a monopoly to ruin net neutrality. As long as you have an oligopoly, which is the general state of the US residential ISP market, then that's plenty. As we see in the article as soon as one ISP starts a shakedown, the other big ones will try the same thing.
And it goes back further. At one point, you weren't even allowed to connect your own phone to the network, let alone an answering machine; AT&T claimed it was too dangerous. So you had to rent everything from Ma Bell. It wasn't until the Carterphone case in 1968, where the FCC told AT&T to knock it off, that you saw things get better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_...
As much as I would like anti-trust law to help here, you don't need collusion or a monopoly to ruin net neutrality. As long as you have an oligopoly, which is the general state of the US residential ISP market, then that's plenty. As we see in the article as soon as one ISP starts a shakedown, the other big ones will try the same thing.
I suppose using it as a claim for unlimited authority isn't a good situation, but I don't know if I see breaking net neutrality as being a trust.
Considering where the term anti-trust came from, ISPs who block certain sites without customer consent aren't really being monopolistic in nature. Which makes, to me, defending net neutrality a separate issue than breaking trusts and monopolies...
Considering where the term anti-trust came from, ISPs who block certain sites without customer consent aren't really being monopolistic in nature. Which makes, to me, defending net neutrality a separate issue than breaking trusts and monopolies...
[deleted]
> why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality?
Because we have no free market in the ISP business. It's close to a sick monopoly, or to cartels which agree on fixing high prices. If the government won't reign it, who will?
Because we have no free market in the ISP business. It's close to a sick monopoly, or to cartels which agree on fixing high prices. If the government won't reign it, who will?
Hm, practically we don't get a choice and by we I mean the tech-community. We're less than 10% of the voting population in ANY country.
Because telcos are in bed with government. We don't really have a free market, it is virtually illegal to compete with the telcos. Some cities have tried and have been sued over it.
Yes the free market should decide, but we just don't have one. Net neutrality is an imperfect remedy at best, but letting the telcos run wild with artificial privilege isn't the answer either.
Yes the free market should decide, but we just don't have one. Net neutrality is an imperfect remedy at best, but letting the telcos run wild with artificial privilege isn't the answer either.
IMHO, this isn't about Netflix, YouTube, or even Amazon having to pay for higher tiered access to customers. They have the deep pockets and smart lawyers to construct contracts that work out for them in the end. So I see that as the same grumpy story as California and New York forcing Amazon to collect sales tax.
BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot like the deals that HBO/Shotime have with Comcast and TWC. Plus, look at what's going on with Facebook already... phones in some countries have "facebook data" only plans. Sure, this is great for emerging markets to have access to family and friends for free, but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it.
I don't see indie content ever being cut off, but I do see them becoming "premium" subscription level services that require people to pay more to access them. Want to play COD or GOW online? You will need this level access to play with any reasonable speeds. It will happen slowly too, as people become accustom to the idea that opening a Wikipedia page will take 1000 ms then to 5000 ms to fully finish rendering. Someone at Comcast will nudge slowly testing whether people notice or care.
If we don't fight the good fight and force internet providers to remain dumb pipes, we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet. As cable TV dies in favor of watching what you want, when you want, they will naturally move to charge you for things you want to do on the internet instead.
edit: autocorrect fail :-P
BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot like the deals that HBO/Shotime have with Comcast and TWC. Plus, look at what's going on with Facebook already... phones in some countries have "facebook data" only plans. Sure, this is great for emerging markets to have access to family and friends for free, but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it.
I don't see indie content ever being cut off, but I do see them becoming "premium" subscription level services that require people to pay more to access them. Want to play COD or GOW online? You will need this level access to play with any reasonable speeds. It will happen slowly too, as people become accustom to the idea that opening a Wikipedia page will take 1000 ms then to 5000 ms to fully finish rendering. Someone at Comcast will nudge slowly testing whether people notice or care.
If we don't fight the good fight and force internet providers to remain dumb pipes, we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet. As cable TV dies in favor of watching what you want, when you want, they will naturally move to charge you for things you want to do on the internet instead.
edit: autocorrect fail :-P
> we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet
Indeed, it will be unfortunate for the United States when internet services are akin to healthcare and prescription drugs.
Indeed, it will be unfortunate for the United States when internet services are akin to healthcare and prescription drugs.
Is that necessarily a bad thing in all cases? I think it would be great if a company offered, say, really cheap or free access to wikipedia and other basic websites, but charged for actual service. Letting poor people access it or making it available to host cheaper free wifi. I think what people are afraid of is them throttling competitors, or charging more for normal service, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Why would Wikipedia be given cheaper than say, dictionary.com or nytimes.com? Or what about this website and all of the links it provides access to? "Poor people" need access to high quality content too ya know :-P.
Unless you want to create a scholarship foundation to provide free unlimited access to everything for these folk? Then a nice lottery can make it so the lucky few get that scholarship.
Unless you want to create a scholarship foundation to provide free unlimited access to everything for these folk? Then a nice lottery can make it so the lucky few get that scholarship.
why do that instead of just making it so that really poor people got internet access, and then allowing them to decide how they use it?
as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.
as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.
If they want normal internet access they can pay for it. The point is to allow for a cheaper option if people want or need it.
Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal).
So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?
So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?
I believe some places have much larger prices for businesses, and those that want to offer free wifi. Getting internet through phones is also very expensive. And not everyone has access to DSL.
So cheaper albeit restricted internet would be very welcomed by many. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. It's just another choice.
So cheaper albeit restricted internet would be very welcomed by many. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. It's just another choice.
[deleted]
but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it
Who do you think is footing the bill for those Facebook-only plans? Covering the costs of all internet use sounds like an unsustainable business strategy.
Are 'social network upstarts' losing out on users in the USA because people don't want (or can't afford) to pay for a data plan? How is this any different?
Who do you think is footing the bill for those Facebook-only plans? Covering the costs of all internet use sounds like an unsustainable business strategy.
Are 'social network upstarts' losing out on users in the USA because people don't want (or can't afford) to pay for a data plan? How is this any different?
Well, lower income families in the US are far richer than equivalent families in emerging markets. Either that, or they at LEAST have access to credit to make access possible, just a burden. So that's not really a fair comparison.
This might not be very popular, but I'm going to say I'm in favour of the law being struck down. I'm totally on board with ISPs not throttling / extorting money out of web 2.0 companies, however, I'm not sure that trying to enforce a swiss-cheese law is the right way to do it.
That and I'm kind of biased, because I founded a company which is trying to level the playing field and make net neutrality de facto for internet services instead of de jure. Information is like water. Put a barrier in front of it and it will always try to find a way to flow through it.
That and I'm kind of biased, because I founded a company which is trying to level the playing field and make net neutrality de facto for internet services instead of de jure. Information is like water. Put a barrier in front of it and it will always try to find a way to flow through it.
>make net neutrality de facto
how so?
how so?
I hate to say it, because I don't consider myself a radical, but the US congress is in the pockets of big business, US law relating to technology is broken, and US intelligence agencies have taken liberties beyond their mandate. The consequences seem fairly straightforward. The Internet will route around the damage to the system. The outcome is predictable and the dysfunction that is leading up to it is regrettable. I don't know what this bodes for US customers. Hopefully a coalition of forward-thinking companies will provide a genuine alternative to the US telcos.
What you're saying is: you don't like admitting the truth if it makes you seem radical. I don't respect that attitude, but thanks for doing the right thing here anyway.
If net neutrality was truly working, nobody would need to renew their contracts with Verizon or TMobile or anybody else. Contracts would be deprecated and all the telecoms would be forced to compete on something other than lock-in and "whatever the latest trendy device is" promotions. But that's hard to do when you're selling what essentially amounts to a homogeneous product like bandwidth. They don't wanna do that. They like guaranteed income and they especially like it when people go over their contract data allocations.
In 2013 there is absolutely _zero_ rationale for contracts to play a part in either the wireless or the pipeline infrastructure. Telecoms know this and are doing everything they can to drag out the death sentence, making it as painful and expensive as possible for everybody involved.
If we let the telecoms do with fiber what's been done with mobile networks not only is the web going to be less neutral, the bias will naturally lead to the dissemination of news and information as being more easily controlled and piped to the masses in sinister ways.
In 2013 there is absolutely _zero_ rationale for contracts to play a part in either the wireless or the pipeline infrastructure. Telecoms know this and are doing everything they can to drag out the death sentence, making it as painful and expensive as possible for everybody involved.
If we let the telecoms do with fiber what's been done with mobile networks not only is the web going to be less neutral, the bias will naturally lead to the dissemination of news and information as being more easily controlled and piped to the masses in sinister ways.
The toothpaste is out of the tube already, people know what freedom online tastes like.
Bad news for old money - the Internet has an appetite for rentier blood. This will not be tolerated long term.
Bad news for old money - the Internet has an appetite for rentier blood. This will not be tolerated long term.
Likely nobody would even realize. It's not like the telcos would block sites. Instead, suddenly Netflix loads a lot slower than Comcast. Blame Netflix and move on.
That lasts right up until Netflix puts a big banner on their page for Comcast customers that explains the situation.
Netflix might have the clout to do so, but a small startup which nobody has heard of never would.
Ultimately, the consumer mindset is never to blame their provider. They blame the website. If you come to my site and it's throttled, there's a high chance you'll click away and never come back.
Ultimately, the consumer mindset is never to blame their provider. They blame the website. If you come to my site and it's throttled, there's a high chance you'll click away and never come back.
thats generally how that stuff starts to be tolerated. "it wont fly so i don't care".
then since there is a HUGE financial interest, they try again, and again and again, and nobody's to block them, it eventually works.
It really seems a lot like CISPA and the Patriot Act. A popular outcry from the citizens of this country can stop it once, twice, three times, but how long can they hold out? Can we spread outrage about CISPA when its being voted on for the 500th time in lieu of any bill that might actually help this country? The fact that the citizens of this country are constantly having to fight their congressmen to actually do what they desire is the most clear example that our country is completely broken.
I find it amusing that those in favor of net neutrality consider themselves on the side of freedom.
The sticking point for me is that the market is already regulated such that it makes it very difficult for a competitor to challenge companies who engage in exploitative practices (and for similar reasons, the incentive to collude is extremely high). In a free market, net neutrality wouldn't need to be regulated because companies who attempted to enact business plans like the AT&T plan described in the article would rapidly find themselves losing marketshare to competitors.
I'm not really okay with the idea of regulating net neutrality from an ideological perspective, but from a practical one, we're kind of stuck with the market we have - effective regional monopolies are granted to a very small number of companies, and there is very little space for counterbalance from competition (which is why Google Fiber is such a Huge Frickin' Deal!). Left unfettered, the end result would likely be that the AT&Ts and Comcasts end up leeching their customers dry on both ends of the pipe, because those customers don't have any alternative.
In my ideal world, there would be no need to regulate net neutrality because I could penalize bad companies by refusing to do business with them, and getting my friends and family to do the same, but we don't have those options - choosing an ISP is a lot like choosing which knee you want to be hit in. In a market where companies have been granted regulatory monopolies, the invisible hand is rather ineffective.
I'm not really okay with the idea of regulating net neutrality from an ideological perspective, but from a practical one, we're kind of stuck with the market we have - effective regional monopolies are granted to a very small number of companies, and there is very little space for counterbalance from competition (which is why Google Fiber is such a Huge Frickin' Deal!). Left unfettered, the end result would likely be that the AT&Ts and Comcasts end up leeching their customers dry on both ends of the pipe, because those customers don't have any alternative.
In my ideal world, there would be no need to regulate net neutrality because I could penalize bad companies by refusing to do business with them, and getting my friends and family to do the same, but we don't have those options - choosing an ISP is a lot like choosing which knee you want to be hit in. In a market where companies have been granted regulatory monopolies, the invisible hand is rather ineffective.
Why would a free market guarantee net neutrality? All the big players could still prefer to offer products that curtail it. There's no logical step ensuring net neutrality.
An example - in Australia, there is an ISP called Internode, which used to be run by a techie called Hackett. They were very much for user's rights and net neutrality, and were always at the forefront of lobbying the government for users. Their support centers are in-country, and the web tools they offer make techies happy.
But they only have a sliver of the ISP pie, despite the very high quality product - because that shit does not come cheap. They're 50-100% more expensive. Instead the public run towards big brands like Optus - who actively engage in tactics like obscuring the structure of your bill to make it harder to understand, or engage in openly deceptive marketing, and see users as cattle to manipulate. Or they'll go to bargain-basement ISPs with woeful service, then complain about that service and give you a hateful stare when you suggest they pay a little more for good service.
I can see zero evidence to suggest that 'net neutrality' is a killer feature that would be automatically enabled by a free market.
An example - in Australia, there is an ISP called Internode, which used to be run by a techie called Hackett. They were very much for user's rights and net neutrality, and were always at the forefront of lobbying the government for users. Their support centers are in-country, and the web tools they offer make techies happy.
But they only have a sliver of the ISP pie, despite the very high quality product - because that shit does not come cheap. They're 50-100% more expensive. Instead the public run towards big brands like Optus - who actively engage in tactics like obscuring the structure of your bill to make it harder to understand, or engage in openly deceptive marketing, and see users as cattle to manipulate. Or they'll go to bargain-basement ISPs with woeful service, then complain about that service and give you a hateful stare when you suggest they pay a little more for good service.
I can see zero evidence to suggest that 'net neutrality' is a killer feature that would be automatically enabled by a free market.
Internode are amazing in every aspect and everyone I've switched to them continue to use them and continue to thank me to this day. The customer service is second to none: http://xkcd.com/806/
IIRC they were bought out by Adam internet. They were also among the first (the first?) to introduce naked DSL, which you still can't get here in the UK apparently.
http://on.net
IIRC they were bought out by Adam internet. They were also among the first (the first?) to introduce naked DSL, which you still can't get here in the UK apparently.
http://on.net
They were bought out by iiNet. Apparently Adam also signed deals for a takeover by iiNet in August this year.
The telcos are competing over very limited resources (easements necessary to build fiber, etc.). In the absence of a regulatory system you'd have cartels instead.
They may have been monopolies once, but they're not anymore. At least in the US. Most people already have two broadband subscriptions: home cable broadband and HSPA+ or LTE. The home cable broadband is in competition with ADSL throughout much of the nation, and the HSPA+/LTE providers are in fierce competition everywhere.
Furthermore, what makes you say this:
>In a free market, net neutrality wouldn't need to be regulated because companies who attempted to enact business plans like the AT&T plan described in the article would rapidly find themselves losing marketshare to competitors.
I certainly would not expect them to lose market share.
Furthermore, what makes you say this:
>In a free market, net neutrality wouldn't need to be regulated because companies who attempted to enact business plans like the AT&T plan described in the article would rapidly find themselves losing marketshare to competitors.
I certainly would not expect them to lose market share.
Why wouldn't you expect them to lose market share? They're actively hindering customers from their desired actions. Doesn't that typically mean customers will look for alternatives?
Most people prefer to buy cheap crap instead of quality.
Even if cheap actively hinders them from doing something they want to do?
You don't think YouTube & Facebook & iTunes would pony up?
I don't think they'd always be given the choice to. Especially something like Netflix, which directly competes with cable companies and their online offerings.
You're talking about a population which elected both Bush II and Obama.
The population didn't elect Bush II the first time [1]. The electoral college did, making it the fourth time a candidate winning the popular vote didn't win the electorate vote.
Would the alternatives of McCain or Romney have resulted in the current NSA scandal not happening? No, it's silly to think that way, especially because it was happening (on a slightly smaller scale) when Bush was president. How it's being handled now might not be the best way to handle it, but would it have been handled differently with McCain or Romney in the Oval Office?
And making a grand statement about how a vastly large group of people doing something you perceive as not being in their best interest doesn't mean they didn't believe it to be in their best interest.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
Would the alternatives of McCain or Romney have resulted in the current NSA scandal not happening? No, it's silly to think that way, especially because it was happening (on a slightly smaller scale) when Bush was president. How it's being handled now might not be the best way to handle it, but would it have been handled differently with McCain or Romney in the Oval Office?
And making a grand statement about how a vastly large group of people doing something you perceive as not being in their best interest doesn't mean they didn't believe it to be in their best interest.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
Whew.
1) Yes, the population did elect Bush II. According to the rules of the game, the population picked him. If you want to get all picky over it, you can note that XX% of the population didn't even vote - so technically the population didn't pick any of them! Har har.
2) The alternatives of McCain, Romney, and Gore were also chosen to be the alternatives by the population.
3) I'm not sure what this all has to do with the NSA.
4) You seem to think that net neutrality would be in their interest. Yet they seem to have selected politicians which oppose it. So that would be one (possible) example of the population acting against their own interests (as you see it).
1) Yes, the population did elect Bush II. According to the rules of the game, the population picked him. If you want to get all picky over it, you can note that XX% of the population didn't even vote - so technically the population didn't pick any of them! Har har.
2) The alternatives of McCain, Romney, and Gore were also chosen to be the alternatives by the population.
3) I'm not sure what this all has to do with the NSA.
4) You seem to think that net neutrality would be in their interest. Yet they seem to have selected politicians which oppose it. So that would be one (possible) example of the population acting against their own interests (as you see it).
I'm not really sure that you can call mobile data networks competitors to home broadband, if for no other reason than that their usage is aggressively capped, and is device-specific. I've never heard of someone cancelling their cable broadband because they can just tether their phone for all their household's internet needs instead.
ADSL vs cable is certainly the big battlefield right now, but even then, you're dealing with one telco and one cable provider. Time-Warner and Comcast are so reviled that it's practically a joke now, but people still subscribe to their services by the millions, because they don't have any actual alternative.
> Furthermore, what makes you say this...I certainly would not expect them to lose market share.
If I had my choice of several competing, technologically-equivalent ISPs, and mine decided to start charging extra for full-speed access to Netflix (or Netflix started charging me extra because I was an EvilISP subscriber, meaning that sending me those bytes costs them extra), I'd jump ship to a competitor who didn't in a heartbeat.
ADSL vs cable is certainly the big battlefield right now, but even then, you're dealing with one telco and one cable provider. Time-Warner and Comcast are so reviled that it's practically a joke now, but people still subscribe to their services by the millions, because they don't have any actual alternative.
> Furthermore, what makes you say this...I certainly would not expect them to lose market share.
If I had my choice of several competing, technologically-equivalent ISPs, and mine decided to start charging extra for full-speed access to Netflix (or Netflix started charging me extra because I was an EvilISP subscriber, meaning that sending me those bytes costs them extra), I'd jump ship to a competitor who didn't in a heartbeat.
The home cable broadband is in competition with ADSL throughout much of the nation...
Except the only cable company and the only phone company often collude to convince the state legislature to outlaw anything that could actually compete with them, like municipal fiber projects.
Except the only cable company and the only phone company often collude to convince the state legislature to outlaw anything that could actually compete with them, like municipal fiber projects.
Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme?
I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.
I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.
Bullshit. The "freedom" of the subscriber is not on the line. The subscriber can do as they wish. I can't go into a hotel and claim I have the "freedom" to use my room as a distillery just because I paid for the room.
The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, work to change the situation so you can.
I'd rather get people pissed off enough at the current monopolistic ISP situation to change it rather than keep the situation at just the right place that no one is happy.
The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, work to change the situation so you can.
I'd rather get people pissed off enough at the current monopolistic ISP situation to change it rather than keep the situation at just the right place that no one is happy.
That analogy is not at all applicable. It would be more like you rented a hotel room over the phone, but when you show up to check in, they say "Oh, you are black. Sorry, we can't give you that room, but we have a smaller one in the basement".
Net neutrality means that it does not matter what kind of car you have, you are allowed to drive on the highway. No one is going to say, oh you are not driving a domestic sedan, sorry you have to drive over there in the slow lane.
Lack of net neutrality goes directly against entrepreneurship. Any Joe Blow can buy bandwidth, build a server and start offering service online and compete against anyone and often times successfully. But without net neutrality, telco has the power to kill your business, by throttling access to it (which is esp. important in the early stages of your business). In fact your competitors can pay the telco to throttle you (why not? it may be cheaper than competing with you).
It is also extremely easy to kill access to dissenting views, blogs, news sources etc. This all rides on net neutrality.
Net neutrality means that it does not matter what kind of car you have, you are allowed to drive on the highway. No one is going to say, oh you are not driving a domestic sedan, sorry you have to drive over there in the slow lane.
Lack of net neutrality goes directly against entrepreneurship. Any Joe Blow can buy bandwidth, build a server and start offering service online and compete against anyone and often times successfully. But without net neutrality, telco has the power to kill your business, by throttling access to it (which is esp. important in the early stages of your business). In fact your competitors can pay the telco to throttle you (why not? it may be cheaper than competing with you).
It is also extremely easy to kill access to dissenting views, blogs, news sources etc. This all rides on net neutrality.
Agreed totally, except for the order of what should happen. The monopolies, which are usually granted by agreements with local governments, should end first.
How do you propose to distribute access to fiber networks laid in public land, then? Are the new competitors in these markets going to make individual contracts with every property owner they come in contact with, too?
I don't know .. that's something to be debated, however it does impinge on my individual freedom if my government decides who can wire what to my house. I did not personally agree to grant any corporation such a right.
Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.
Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.
It's something that has been debated. Do you think telecoms and utilities sprang into existence fully-formed world-wide the day you were born? These issues are not new, they date back centuries.
Then how can you consider these companies to be truly private?
I don't. Neither, I'd wager, does djur, who you initially replied to. You should read his other posts in this thread.
He and I are both speaking of the practical problems of the mentality that governments shouldn't be involved at all, not arguing that telecom monopolies are a good thing.
You can't have a practical system of utilities of any sort without government involvement. That doesn't mean you have to have government-granted monopolies to nominally private companies. There are other options, like having the core utilities (e.g. fiber) be a public utility to begin with.
He and I are both speaking of the practical problems of the mentality that governments shouldn't be involved at all, not arguing that telecom monopolies are a good thing.
You can't have a practical system of utilities of any sort without government involvement. That doesn't mean you have to have government-granted monopolies to nominally private companies. There are other options, like having the core utilities (e.g. fiber) be a public utility to begin with.
so you say people will work to lay fiber everywhere til they can have a neutral internet?
Oh yeah, right, that'll happen because it's totally possible!
Freedom of saying this ain't right. Freedom of making laws against it. Freedom to steal. Freedom to pirate servers. Extend the thinking far enough til you get to freedom to kill people. Exactly the same thinking.
This circular argument is useless. Freedom without means to limit and enforce it is no freedom at all.
It's obvious that for the general good, there should be net neutrality. If you make it impossible (laying fiber in all the country from scratch is impossible), this is wrong.
Just like killing people or stealing is wrong.
Oh yeah, right, that'll happen because it's totally possible!
Freedom of saying this ain't right. Freedom of making laws against it. Freedom to steal. Freedom to pirate servers. Extend the thinking far enough til you get to freedom to kill people. Exactly the same thinking.
This circular argument is useless. Freedom without means to limit and enforce it is no freedom at all.
It's obvious that for the general good, there should be net neutrality. If you make it impossible (laying fiber in all the country from scratch is impossible), this is wrong.
Just like killing people or stealing is wrong.
My LTE is frequently faster than my home cable.
So... I'm supposed to move to another city, maybe even state, in order to place competitive pressure on my ISP?
Of course you mentioned the monopolistic ISP situation that creates that problem, but that seems to just be handwaving; I don't think you can point to angry consumers as a solution without explaining what exactly you think those angry consumers under a monopoly can possibly do to improve their situation without government intervention akin to the current FCC neutrality arrangement.
Of course you mentioned the monopolistic ISP situation that creates that problem, but that seems to just be handwaving; I don't think you can point to angry consumers as a solution without explaining what exactly you think those angry consumers under a monopoly can possibly do to improve their situation without government intervention akin to the current FCC neutrality arrangement.
It's not just the freedom of the subscriber: it's the freedom of startup founders who need a way for users to reach their sites. Suppose Comcast et al. had been able to decide that, say, Dropbox was "competing" with their own offerings of file space to subscribers, and either blocked or throttled access to dropbox.com, so subscribers couldn't even go there to view the "about" page without a lot of hassle (if at all)?
>In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme?
No, there is no conflict. This is black and white. I know that HN doesn't want to hear it.
The subscribers freedom is to leave for another provider. The provider's freedom is to charge what it wants for whatever service it wants to provide.
Only one's freedom is being infringed upon here.
No, there is no conflict. This is black and white. I know that HN doesn't want to hear it.
The subscribers freedom is to leave for another provider. The provider's freedom is to charge what it wants for whatever service it wants to provide.
Only one's freedom is being infringed upon here.
Provider already has that freedom. But once I buy my bandwidth for what ever price the telco is selling, net neutrality guarantees that every packet of information I send is routed all the way to its destination as equal with anybody else's (i.e. telco's are neutral and don't prefer anyone's packets).
But without net neutrality, your provider may decide they don't like your packets going to Youtube esp. since they are also selling TV cable service. So they are now allowed to slow down your traffic to Youtube.
But without net neutrality, your provider may decide they don't like your packets going to Youtube esp. since they are also selling TV cable service. So they are now allowed to slow down your traffic to Youtube.
Sure, if you don't admit or haven't heard of the concept of positive freedom.
But what if there isn't another provider in your area?
The government of the United States has the authority and the responsibility to regulate the commercial use of limited resources held in common. The freedom at stake here is the right of the people to regulate the use of public property.
I agree with you on principle, if there was a free market for providing internet services. However, this is totally not the case .. ISPs gain local monopolies by virtue of agreements with local governments.
For example, Verizon struck a deal to provide fiber access a few years ago with my parents' hometown. Part of this deal was that no other provider could do the same.
This impinges on the subscriber's freedom to leave for another provider, so your argument falls flat, unless you are ready to invalidate all such agreements with local governments.
For example, Verizon struck a deal to provide fiber access a few years ago with my parents' hometown. Part of this deal was that no other provider could do the same.
This impinges on the subscriber's freedom to leave for another provider, so your argument falls flat, unless you are ready to invalidate all such agreements with local governments.
I find it amusing that those think freedom is only about their ability to pay for things, not to be FREE from paying additional money for things they have already bought.
Where I live, I only have one choice for internet provider (Comcast). One choice. And I should trust them with content censorship? I would be in idiot to believe this is anything but a terrible idea.
Freedom of telcos to do as they wish with their pipes vs freedom of users to use the pipes that they pay for access to as they see fit.
The telcos don't owe users anything more than is specified in the contract. The telcos are a company; there is no moral reason to force the ISPs to do anything more than they contracted to do.
Instead of having everyone continue to be pissed off at the shitty monopolistic telcos, and having the telcos continue to be pissed off because we keep demanding that the government squash the telcos' rights to provide a shitty service, let's work to change the situation so that telcos don't get exclusive rights to public resources like land and spectrum.
Instead of having everyone continue to be pissed off at the shitty monopolistic telcos, and having the telcos continue to be pissed off because we keep demanding that the government squash the telcos' rights to provide a shitty service, let's work to change the situation so that telcos don't get exclusive rights to public resources like land and spectrum.
Telcos and cablecos that own the lines in the ground are not an ordinary company; they often have a monopoly granted by the city that prevents others from running a parallel physical deployment, which would be wasteful anyway. Further, the last mile physical deployments are often subsidized by taxes.
As you say in your second paragraph, removing the exclusive rights held by telcos and cablecos would be one option, but since running parallel cables is physically wasteful, I'd prefer common ownership or regulation of the last mile to save companies and customers the expense of running a parallel cable, while ensuring competition beyond the last mile.
As you say in your second paragraph, removing the exclusive rights held by telcos and cablecos would be one option, but since running parallel cables is physically wasteful, I'd prefer common ownership or regulation of the last mile to save companies and customers the expense of running a parallel cable, while ensuring competition beyond the last mile.
What makes that amusing?
[deleted]
Seriously?
Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.
Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.
[deleted]
Seriously?
Because we don't call them inalienable corporate rights, we call them inalienable human rights. Equating a corporation to a human is part of what got us in a whole host of messes.
Because we don't call them inalienable corporate rights, we call them inalienable human rights. Equating a corporation to a human is part of what got us in a whole host of messes.
Would these be the same telcos that operate as regional public utility monopolies, subsidized by your taxes and mine?
[deleted]
The telcos make extensive use of common property like licensed portions of the RF spectrum and a great deal of land in order to do their business. The people have every right to enforce regulations on the use of their property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Read about natural monopolies.
Read about natural monopolies.
I strongly am in favor of freedom, but not a fully free market. And exactly for reasons like this: a fully free market destroys freedom.
The Free Market of libertarianism reknown doesn't exist and can't exist. For such a market to work, each participant needs perfect information and capacity. If you've had any involvement with business should be enough experience to understand that there's no such thing as perfect information once the product is more complex than say, an orange, and even then it'd be a stretch (grown where? what pesticides? which labour? which transport company? where are all the other places I can purchase this orange? ...)
> Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.
Imagine that someone was allowed to own the air, and then control / privileged what you are allowed to say (sound waves). Would your opinion be different?
Imagine that someone was allowed to own the air, and then control / privileged what you are allowed to say (sound waves). Would your opinion be different?
The principle of net neutrality is directly related to freedom (or ability of a corporation to curb it, kill competition they don't like by throttling access to them etc).
How net neutrality is put in practice is entirely a different matter. And for some reason you think if it is the government doing the enforcement, that it is somehow against freedom? I completely disagree. Government not allowing another private entity to abuse me is fine with me.
In some countries net neutrality is the law already by the way.
How net neutrality is put in practice is entirely a different matter. And for some reason you think if it is the government doing the enforcement, that it is somehow against freedom? I completely disagree. Government not allowing another private entity to abuse me is fine with me.
In some countries net neutrality is the law already by the way.
Do you consider those who support antitrust regulations to be on the side of freedom? Monopoly is the opposite of freedom and is much closer to dictatorship.
Some countries, like Japan, have addressed this issue by separating infrastructure from service. One company owns the network, several other companies provided the internet access.
This creates a competitive market between service provides (competing on price, service quality, and customer service) while removing the high costs to enter that market.
Infrastructure, as opposed to service, becomes the regulated market.
This creates a competitive market between service provides (competing on price, service quality, and customer service) while removing the high costs to enter that market.
Infrastructure, as opposed to service, becomes the regulated market.
The author seems to think the internet is all about America. We in Europe doesn't give a shit whatever your court decides.
The best case scenario is if the US was disconnected from the rest of the worlds connectivity. Almost all evils that has generated hate from the public has been american corporations.
The best case scenario is if the US was disconnected from the rest of the worlds connectivity. Almost all evils that has generated hate from the public has been american corporations.
Well, for those of us in the US, that's not the best case! Sheesh! Leave us to rot in our awful insular spoiled rotten hellhole? The best parts of the internet in the US are that we can interact with and engage people and culture from the rest of the world! Sorry about sending our garbage to you as a side-effect…!
Any thought on the effect increased programmability in telecom networks is going to be on Network Neutrality? It seems likely to me that regular IP routing is likely to become the "slow lane" on the Internet?
[deleted]
What about all the new technologies like DPI and data analytics coupled with things like SDN and NFV which will easily technically enable any operator to have a very high level of granularity (e.g. application, user, site, device etc.) in controlling access to the network in the name of providing better QOE/S to the customer? These technologies will easily enable operators to enable complex policies which will be difficult to track and can be modified in very flexible manner to adjust to the current workarounds around any NN laws.
Those technologies are expensive and I would hope that it's cheaper for ISPs to add capacity than to use that stuff. Unfortunately this thinking does not apply if ISPs see neutrality as a strategic threat.
I highly suggest "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu to this entire thread. There seems to be a bunch of people here who don't understand common carrier services and why they are important.
Net neutrality should be extended to the mobile networks, not dropped for the landline ones. ISPs should be regulated like essential dumb data pipes.
We are doing a net neutrality IndieGogo campaign http://uplink.aero/project.html http://igg.me/at/aero
But based on our conversion rate, I don't think there is a market for it. Feel free to email us if you have any constructive criticism. [email protected]
But based on our conversion rate, I don't think there is a market for it. Feel free to email us if you have any constructive criticism. [email protected]
I'm not surprised that your campaign hasn't succeeded. You do a very poor job of explaining how it works, or what the benefits are, and it largely duplicates the efforts of other existing mesh networking projects, and free software/hardware projects like FreedomBox.
I have a feeling that I've read this before, why is it making it's way back to the front page of HN?
Any new developments on this matter?
Any new developments on this matter?
While a well-intentioned article, i believe this author overlooks a few points that should be pointed out.
As a consumer, i would obviously be a proponent of my current ISP giving non-discriminatory access to all sites. However, aside from voicing my opinion in the form of purchasing the services of a specific ISP, i do not believe we should have the power to do much else in dictating how these companies should run their business through the passing of laws. The author points out that the loss of net neutrality would hurt small-scale ventures - yet ignores the fact that these ISPs he wishes to regulate were once the same small start-ups that he wants to protect. Was the success of these businesses the single factor that moves them from protected status to regulatory target?
The size of these dominant ISPs means that a great deal of the population relies on their services - but our "need" for these services does not give us the right to dictate how they should run their business. If enough of us feel that none of the dominant ISPs are adequate, then our need goes unserved, and sooner or later another ISP will arrive to serve these customers.
Again - i am strongly in favor of net neutrality. But if we resort to regulatory means to get what we want, it will lead to vastly negative consequences down the road. Why start a business if this is the reward for success?
As a consumer, i would obviously be a proponent of my current ISP giving non-discriminatory access to all sites. However, aside from voicing my opinion in the form of purchasing the services of a specific ISP, i do not believe we should have the power to do much else in dictating how these companies should run their business through the passing of laws. The author points out that the loss of net neutrality would hurt small-scale ventures - yet ignores the fact that these ISPs he wishes to regulate were once the same small start-ups that he wants to protect. Was the success of these businesses the single factor that moves them from protected status to regulatory target?
The size of these dominant ISPs means that a great deal of the population relies on their services - but our "need" for these services does not give us the right to dictate how they should run their business. If enough of us feel that none of the dominant ISPs are adequate, then our need goes unserved, and sooner or later another ISP will arrive to serve these customers.
Again - i am strongly in favor of net neutrality. But if we resort to regulatory means to get what we want, it will lead to vastly negative consequences down the road. Why start a business if this is the reward for success?
Forget about Net Neutrality. What we need is Open Spectrum so everybody can share the waves and we stop needing the telcos altogether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum
As long as we have an oligopoly of telcos, they will lobby their way to destroy Net Neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum
As long as we have an oligopoly of telcos, they will lobby their way to destroy Net Neutrality.
Long ago the corporate oligarchy decided to let the Internet tech sector grow to the extent that it has in order to externalize the cost of deploying certain infrastructure and the cost of training the populous to become dependent on that infrastructure. Now that these tasks are complete what reason do they have to delay taking control of this particular DARPA project ?
You have to be willing to show them that reason in order to save your business. You all have to innovate a solution. How are you going to join together with the other businesses in your sector to PIVOT TOGETHER in order to jolt ordinary people out of their careless stupor and educate them about how to force the hand of those corporations who could easily solve the problem ?
Do you really think a black page background and a banner is anything more than a sloppy haphazard attempt to save your industry ?
Aren't you risking shareholder value if your company is not engaging a significant percentage of it's resources towards engineering a plan to resist the takeover of the key infrastructure that your business needs in order to survive ?
How can you justify that kind of risk taking to your board ?
VC's what percentage of your fund's budget is set aside for the task of preserving the Internet that your portfolio will rely on ?
Ordinary people won't care if a page is black or not or if some banner is present or not, but if twitter, instagram, and pintrest for example all go offline at the same time that would send a message. Or what about if all the major social startups started paying attention to HTTP referer headers and they started redirecting inbound visitors to educational splash screens based on their referred header? The splash screens would educate these people about how they should really change their default search engine or delete their Facebook account in order to help save the Internet.
I'm not saying we should pick on Google or Facebook specifically per say, but I do think that if enough "social pressure" was applied Google alone could fix the problem by helping the Internet route around the entities who are engaged in a Denial Of Service attack on key Internet infrastructure. All Google has to do is punish a few corporate websites like they did to rapgenius the other day. That's a good start at least. Does your startup "scene" have a plan to help force google's hand ? If not then why not ?
If all of the major web startups started doing this kind of thinking Google would have to take this stuff more seriously REAL FAST. Think about it! That's how you send a real "social signal".
Why is this industry not trying to defend itself ? Ask yourself this question.. Who controls your company ? Who gets to decide how important preserving a free Internet is to the long term viability of your business? Has your company already sold out ?
Founders, where do you stand ? How willing are you to be public about where you stand and how long are you going to wait ? How long can you afford to wait before you take action with others in order to save your business ? Why aren't you already more organized on this issue ? Why aren't you ready ? Why are you not taking this threat to your business more seriously ? Why do you apparently assume you are powerless ?
You have to be willing to show them that reason in order to save your business. You all have to innovate a solution. How are you going to join together with the other businesses in your sector to PIVOT TOGETHER in order to jolt ordinary people out of their careless stupor and educate them about how to force the hand of those corporations who could easily solve the problem ?
Do you really think a black page background and a banner is anything more than a sloppy haphazard attempt to save your industry ?
Aren't you risking shareholder value if your company is not engaging a significant percentage of it's resources towards engineering a plan to resist the takeover of the key infrastructure that your business needs in order to survive ?
How can you justify that kind of risk taking to your board ?
VC's what percentage of your fund's budget is set aside for the task of preserving the Internet that your portfolio will rely on ?
Ordinary people won't care if a page is black or not or if some banner is present or not, but if twitter, instagram, and pintrest for example all go offline at the same time that would send a message. Or what about if all the major social startups started paying attention to HTTP referer headers and they started redirecting inbound visitors to educational splash screens based on their referred header? The splash screens would educate these people about how they should really change their default search engine or delete their Facebook account in order to help save the Internet.
I'm not saying we should pick on Google or Facebook specifically per say, but I do think that if enough "social pressure" was applied Google alone could fix the problem by helping the Internet route around the entities who are engaged in a Denial Of Service attack on key Internet infrastructure. All Google has to do is punish a few corporate websites like they did to rapgenius the other day. That's a good start at least. Does your startup "scene" have a plan to help force google's hand ? If not then why not ?
If all of the major web startups started doing this kind of thinking Google would have to take this stuff more seriously REAL FAST. Think about it! That's how you send a real "social signal".
Why is this industry not trying to defend itself ? Ask yourself this question.. Who controls your company ? Who gets to decide how important preserving a free Internet is to the long term viability of your business? Has your company already sold out ?
Founders, where do you stand ? How willing are you to be public about where you stand and how long are you going to wait ? How long can you afford to wait before you take action with others in order to save your business ? Why aren't you already more organized on this issue ? Why aren't you ready ? Why are you not taking this threat to your business more seriously ? Why do you apparently assume you are powerless ?
Still, this is all from the implications of messing with the 1996 telecommunications act, allowing duopoly, preventing cities from offering broadband, and crushing the small guys. Too bad so few spoke up then; the balance of power has been against us ever since.
What prevents a proxy-net from starting up and flubbing the recipients/senders of the data such that the ISP can't see what site/domain the traffic is coming from and can't enforce their 1s page-load "tax" on them?
Well, first that would itself impose a page-load tax.
Second, ISPs could just impose a page-load tax on data where it couldn't verify that the source was a one not subject to the tax, instead of imposing it on those that they could verify were subject.
Second, ISPs could just impose a page-load tax on data where it couldn't verify that the source was a one not subject to the tax, instead of imposing it on those that they could verify were subject.
Such a proxy-net would intrinsically increase latency and lower bandwidth. Oops.
The best way we can get the attention of the companies is by causing them to lose profits. This is best done by an organized boycott of their goods and services. It will get their attention very quickly. But currently we don't have a central website to browse and search boycotts and other forms of protest.
In addition to protesting, we should also consider building a free open source network thats protected and run by the community. (It could be run by the government, but until the government is 'for and by the people', we'll crowdsource the maintainance and seek to rapidly automate the work that nobody would volunteer for) We can give ourselves the best, but lets start with free gigabit internet wired and wireless for all of America! What would this 'cost' in terms of money? millions or billions? But the resources are here; just being hoarded until money is traded. Would AT&T build a free network for us? Not if it meant losing money to Verizon. But what if it wasnt about money? The value in having a fully connected country is priceless.
Thankfully we have the government to protect us against trusts and monopoly's. But what if the trust or monopoly was a community one? If AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile colluded to give free gigabit internet to America, they could combine their separately walled gardens and use those resources to further the human race. But this would have to be a guaranttee so that once everyone put all their time and resources into this, some CEO cant just flip a switch and start charging. Once free, always free. So if they did this it would probably mean giving up their pride and names. I mean, would this free network be called Verizon? Why do they get their name on it? So we could crowdsource a new name for our free network so no one can boast. US Telecom, US Net, Free Net, the name can be anything, something we would all be proud to get behind. the most important part is the 'us' and 'US'. All of us in the US have the resources to take care of all of US(just focusing on America now, but eventually we could help the world). These telecom companies will either become part of the solution or they will precipitate out.
Again though, this would be a huge project and there's currently no website we can go to in order to find and take part in these country and perhaps global initiatives. Imagine a mix of Kickstarter and Change.org. First a project or idea is petitioned to the community and if enough people like it and think it would be the best solution, then its opened up to a crowdsourcing page to collect funds and not just money but people can also donate the final resources that are ultimately needed, which is what the money would eventually be traded for anyways....more to come, working on this website...
In addition to protesting, we should also consider building a free open source network thats protected and run by the community. (It could be run by the government, but until the government is 'for and by the people', we'll crowdsource the maintainance and seek to rapidly automate the work that nobody would volunteer for) We can give ourselves the best, but lets start with free gigabit internet wired and wireless for all of America! What would this 'cost' in terms of money? millions or billions? But the resources are here; just being hoarded until money is traded. Would AT&T build a free network for us? Not if it meant losing money to Verizon. But what if it wasnt about money? The value in having a fully connected country is priceless.
Thankfully we have the government to protect us against trusts and monopoly's. But what if the trust or monopoly was a community one? If AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile colluded to give free gigabit internet to America, they could combine their separately walled gardens and use those resources to further the human race. But this would have to be a guaranttee so that once everyone put all their time and resources into this, some CEO cant just flip a switch and start charging. Once free, always free. So if they did this it would probably mean giving up their pride and names. I mean, would this free network be called Verizon? Why do they get their name on it? So we could crowdsource a new name for our free network so no one can boast. US Telecom, US Net, Free Net, the name can be anything, something we would all be proud to get behind. the most important part is the 'us' and 'US'. All of us in the US have the resources to take care of all of US(just focusing on America now, but eventually we could help the world). These telecom companies will either become part of the solution or they will precipitate out.
Again though, this would be a huge project and there's currently no website we can go to in order to find and take part in these country and perhaps global initiatives. Imagine a mix of Kickstarter and Change.org. First a project or idea is petitioned to the community and if enough people like it and think it would be the best solution, then its opened up to a crowdsourcing page to collect funds and not just money but people can also donate the final resources that are ultimately needed, which is what the money would eventually be traded for anyways....more to come, working on this website...
The freedom of the telcos to act as highwaymen? Consumer protections are necessary for basic utilities. Especially either the numerous de facto monopolies that exist in the consumer telco market.
It would almost be comical if it weren't so sick: rent-seeking through a government-granted monopoly, under the premise that the providers would serve the public good.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669298
We are getting hustled[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNGCja9mRo
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNGCja9mRo
How is this different from Google charging bit guys for blackhat SEO, while those who don't pay - are penalised?
Because Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. If you don't like the results, don't use Google. However, if you don't like your ISP, generally your only option is to move to a different city/state.
It's not a monopoly for me, but it is a monopoly for those who want to appear in search.
It's not a monopoly for products, it's a monopoly for clients.
It's not a monopoly for products, it's a monopoly for clients.
The solution in the end is to turn internet access into common carrier services.
It's time for a new net then.
This article is over a month old. I'm interested in the current status of NN. Could someone informed fill us in on the latest?
yeah, we're still waiting for the ruling. the only other thing that happened is that the current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made a comment that suggested he opposed net neutrality--arguing that Netflix should be allowed to pay carriers for better service. This framing (assuming companies want to pay, not that telcos are angling to get paid) is the framing placed by telcos, etc. Wheeler was once the head lobbyist for the cable industry, then the wireless telco industry, so there's been some concerns, particularly with those comments. some fear he'll do nothing meaningful if/when we lose the court case. See this ars technica article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/fcc-chair-isps-sh...
After some googling, I've concluded that the ruling hasn't happened yet. Every other source on this topic is from around the same time, and some of them mention that the ruling is expected sometime between then and early 2014.
After basically 20 years of commerce dictating the needs of the net, I'd think we've already lost it.
The internet model worked when subsidized by a military and academic community supported by a massive industry.
Now that it's trying to pay for itself, it's looking a lot more like television or those free newspapers that are more ads than articles.
The internet model worked when subsidized by a military and academic community supported by a massive industry.
Now that it's trying to pay for itself, it's looking a lot more like television or those free newspapers that are more ads than articles.
Is anybody noticing a pattern here. Every god damn 4 months.. They wont give up.
[deleted]
Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html
That same appeals court is currently considering the FCC's Net neutrality regulations. BTW, it's also the same court that slapped down the FCC's first attempt to impose Net neutrality regulations without legal authority in 2010: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html
If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.