Net neutrality is yet another in the long list of federal laws that is a solution in search of a problem. We need to stop passing laws that are not necessary and will no doubt have unintended negative consequences.
This is all about control; not about freedom (and the desire by it’s proponents to shape content in their favor). In the case of Comcast, they were doing what they thought was best for their consumers on their own networks; exactly as they should be. As long as we can keep government away from the industry, consumers can be free to choose - if you think you’re provider is doing something bad, just choose a competitor.
This ARPANET itself demonstrates that we don’t need more laws. They went on to create great new things without new laws.
Let’s please stop the mindset that the answer to most of our problems is more government control.
Ah yes, if the government just adds more rules and forces people at gunpoint to follow them then things will be much nicer for everyone.
This is kind of the “No child left behind” for the Internet. We all get to move at the speed of the slowest user.
Don’t consider the cost that will come because if a company wants to carry any data they must carry all data. At some point since there is no profit there will be companies that won’t play any longer. Yes companies exist to make a profit. What do people think they are for? But you will notice that there is no individual or charity group building international data links.
Forcing everyone to build handicapped access into all new construction and renovations sounds good as well. Until the lifeguard station at Clearwater Beach can’t fix their second floor observation room unless they make it wheelchair accessible. Now you would think that someone would give them a pass since only lifeguards are allowed up there but such is not the case. They must make it wheelchair accessible or do without.
So we have unelected bureaucrats at the FCC deciding unanimously that it can regulate one of the most important innovations in the history of humanity.
Speaking of unelected officials, I don’t remember ever electing the CEO of AT&T or the CEO of Verizon.
Why don’t we just elect them out with our wallets, right. Since they operate in industries with little competition and high barriers to entry, it’s virtually impossible to do so.
They are entitled to make a profit, but given the critical nature of their assets, they should be forced to make a profit in the most equitable way possible. In this case, that means Net Neutrality.
Furthermore, the real innovation is at the endpoints not the middle. If the internet didn’t start out as neutral there would be no Google, no YouTube, no Facebook, no Twitter. None of us would be here today commenting on Jeff’s post, either. None of those startups would have had enough money to pay the packet premium charged by the providers.
Wow, looks like the telco lobbyists are out in full force today.
More seriously, network neutrality is a more complicated subject than it first appears. Most people can’t even define it properly.
I think a big reason for the Internet’s success is the fact that network neutrality has been a de facto principle to date. We can lament the fact that some intervention may be needed to keep the Internet neutral, but I think it is critical to do so. However, any regulation should be measured and only target clear and present threats to neutrality.
The Internet has leveled the playing field – everyone can have an equal voice on the Internet. This clearly makes some of those in power uncomfortable. That’s exactly why we need to preserve network neutrality.
Wow. This post was so frustrating that I actually clicked out of my Google Reader tab–a rarity–so I could come leave a lone comment in dissension, saying how you had everything completely backwards, and that regulation and enforced monopoly was halting innovation. And further, that Net Neutrality is a Trojan Horse concept, sounding like a panacea to geeks at the endpoints, so long as they don’t think too deeply about its devastating, innovation-destroying consequences for the network.
But instead, I’m heartened by the number of your responders who clearly get it, so I’m going to go back to Google Reader to enjoy the rest of my day.
We’re really stuck. Neither route is good. Big Government can’t be trusted. Big ISP Corp can’t be trusted. Centralization of power leads to abuse. We need another model. Monopoly sucks, no matter if it is business or government or a combination of the two that runs the monopoly.
Let’s start innovating right here and right now. Who has an idea for a model that decentralizes control? Push it down as far as possible, to the end user, ultimately. C’mon, don’t bloviate, innovate!
The real answer is competition. I have at least 4 ISP’s that can serve my house.
That’s great, and you can find one that doesn’t prioritize Comcast’s shitty built-in video service over YouTube and Netflix. Unfortunately, a carrier halfway between your ISP and Netflix does prioritize it. So you’re out of luck anyway.
Also, you just had a great idea, but the only way you can monetize it is by getting a patent and becoming a troll because you don’t have the VC connections to pony up the millions of dollars it will cost to payoff every ISP to carry your bits at a decent speed. Thank god net neutrality was defeated and we’re free to innovate.
The concept of Net Neutrality sounds great at first glance. I’m mean, who could possibly be against it?
Well, I am. Proponents fear large companies like AT&T, Verizon, Com Cast etc regulating their bandwidth, therefore crushing competition on the internet and therefore the freedom of creativity. The answer to their fears is the FCC. Who will ensure the net remains neutral.
The flaw in this logic is the FCC is neutral. It is not. The FCC is influenced by those with political power. These large companies spend large amounts of money in Washington protecting their interests. When threatened, they will use their power to stop the competition.
For all the people saying most people live in an area with multiple ISPs available:
I live 8 miles from a gigantic mall (Great Lakes Crossing, Auburn Hills, MI). My road is paved, I live in a subdivision with 75 homes. (It isn’t backwoods America.) And I have exactly one ISP available to me. Comcast. Oh wait, unless I want to use dialup. But that isn’t really the internet. I don’t even have access to DSL.
Comcast is a terrible ISP regarding service and price. And if you recall, they were one of the ISPs caught traffic shaping BitTorrent.
Internet is has become a right. Why? It is a mass mode of communication. Like Newspapers, Radio, and TV before it. Are those industries regulated? Yes. I’m not for regulation that says what you can do. I’m for regulation that says what you can’t do. Comcast should not be able to say I can access youtube.com for an additional fee. THAT does not stifle innovation.
Also, I’m a card carrying Libertarian. No party gets everything right.
Net Neutrality ignores the fact that bandwidth is a scarce resource and as such is governed by the normal laws of economics; it is simply price control re-branded. All pro Net Neutrality arguments ultimately boil down to: “we want it, and at someone else’s expense.” Net Neutrality is immoral because it is a violation of property rights. c.f. http://bit.ly/HygEc
If I sent a letter to my congressman and the postal carrier threw it out for political reasons, I would be upset. If I emailed my senator and my ISP rejected it for political reasons, I would be equally upset. I’m not sure if I’m on the same page as everyone else here.
Also, just because you own something doesn’t mean that your business can do whatever you want with it. For example, in the US it is illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or age.
I look at it this way, a byte is a byte and it doesn’t matter if it is an audio file or a web page. I should be charged for the bandwidth that I use and if that is not enough then I should have the option to purchase more. Being charged for the TYPE of bytes I transmit is completely wrong.
It is like Telco is looking at certain types of bandwidth, and wanting to capitalize on the success of that usage by adding yet another tax upon it. This is nothing new. Back in the 80’s I had a similar battle against their flawed logic (http://cd.textfiles.com/thegreatunsorted/texts/bbs_legal_info/flaprb.txt). I was a “heavy” bandwidth user (my single bbs line was occupied over 80% of the time) and they found a loophole to abuse by twisting their definition of a business. They saw a difference between teenagers using modems to communicate, to using their voices. In both circumstances the amount of telecom hardware being used was the same.
“Was AT&T merely blowing smoke? Not at all: the company was referring to a special rule that was part of their covenant with the federal government.”
Does no one see the irony here? AT&T could only make good on their threat precisely because they were complying with regulatory controls that the federal government instituted. Net Neutrality’s solution? Force ISPs to comply with regulatory controls that the federal government institutes! Never once is it acknowledged that the problem is the evil symbiotic relationship between the corporate moochers and government looters.
But, the main topic of concern is priority access. And in the end it comes down to two things.
There will be an incentive to keep bandwidth as it is and offer a premium service to websites willing to pay for more. Not only is blocking content illegal(It depends who is blocking from/to whom), but it would actually hurt internet providers to offer a lower quality service to their customers.
The only reason why websites would pay for a premium service for their content is if there was a noticeable improvement. Which means a noticeable lower quality of service for other websites.
But when it comes to the internet, no one can truly predict the future.
Unexpected commentary here, for sure. Regulation is evil? Regulation that prevents monopolistic practices is good. Regulation that promotes monopolistic behavior (see Hush-a-Phone) is bad.
The network has been neutral for most of us to date. Let’s keep it that way.
Please read that Jeff, and post a follow-up if your position changes even subtly. It boils down to your whether you believe competition delivers better results than the “intelligent” designs of bureaucrats.
If you look at the track records of each, yes markets have their friction and their occasional pathologies, but asking the FCC (or any regulator) to keep it fair is trusting the fox to guard the hen-house.
You took the wrong lesson from Hush-a-Phone. It wasn’t the maniacal actions of a monopoly that stifled this innovation and limited consumers choices it was the initially-well-intentioned regulation of these networks that invited this lunacy.
I’m surprised that the technical aspects of enabling filtering based on originator (not just protocol) haven’t been brought up more in this discussion.
With net neutrality, each router must:
look at the destination IP address.
look up the destination IP address in a routing table to determine which port to send it on.
send it on that port.
Once the ISP is allowed to filter based on the site it came from.
look at the source IP address
look up the source IP address in a table of preferred customers
if not present, wait, or maybe just throw the packet out.
if it is present, look at the destination IP address.
look up the destination IP address in a routing table to determine what port to send it on
send it to that port
Oh yeah, and by the way, with that scenario, every time you (the new awesome web4.5 innovative company) bring a new server up, you must make sure to update your list of IP addresses with each and every ISP you have preferred status with. Or we can add a reverse DNS query into the above list of steps, but then I hope you weren’t planning on using any sort of cloud computing service like heroku where all of your IP addresses reverse map to proxy.heroku.com.
Bottom line is that filtering like this will result in worse performance for everyone, though maybe it will spur some innovation in faster db lookups, since we’re doing several for every single packet that gets sent.