Net Neutrality Has Become An Industrial Policy

What will the FCC do?

[tangor]

The net neutrality movement has lost its way.

Net neutrality used to be a principle to protect Internet users — now it’s devolving into political messaging to hide an industrial policy that could harm users.

Professor Tim Wu coined the term “net neutrality” as a network non-discrimination principle.

The first practical government definition of net neutrality was a unanimous bipartisan FCC which defined net neutrality to be a user’s right to access the legal content, apps, services and devices of their choice.

However, after the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals effectively ruled in January that the FCC did not have the legal authority to ban a two-sided Internet market by imposing a permanent zero-price for all downstream traffic, the net neutrality movement has radically changed its focus.

Since then, the movement appears to have nearly abandoned Internet users’ concerns.

[dailycaller.com...]

[graeme_p]

Another biased an dishonest piece from the same source and written by the same person, who is paid by the telecoms industry [sourcewatch.org], as the previous one you linked to on the subject.

Just to pick out his most egregious distortions:

And the movement’s other new neutrality slogan, “no paid prioritization,” further abandons users’ interests because it implies no user right or freedom to decide to prioritize their individual Internet traffic based on what they individually want, need and value.

Users will not choose which services get priority. Their ISPs will and will probably not even tell users.

It is well explained here: [apps.fcc.gov ]

An FCC two-sided market ban would mandate stark traffic discrimination and inequality by allowing payment for upstream traffic, but disallowing payment for downstream traffic.

Not true. We all have websites, and we all pay our providers for data usage (we may get so much thrown in with hosting, but we pay indirectly) and that would continue, and visitors would continue to pay their ISPs. That the telcos are proposing is that in addition, visitors ISPs could charge us as well. They want to double charge to exploit their bottleneck monopoly.

And users know that different Internet access technologies (wireless, satellite, cable or fiber) inherently deliver data at different speeds, so a user’s choice of technology also can naturally result in faster or slower lanes of Internet traffic delivery.

This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with net neutrality at all.

If anything, there is a strong argument for adopting a calling party pays model (which is how phone calls work in most places) so consumers' ISPs should pay providers' ISPs for sending data in response to their customers requests.

[piatkow]

If anything, there is a strong argument for adopting a calling party pays model (which is how phone calls work in most places) so consumers' ISPs should pay providers' ISPs for sending data in response to their customers requests.

+1

[tangor]

Nothing wrong with disagreement, that's what discussion is about.

As for calling party pays... That means each of us are calling for content with every click instead of paying for an open service we access at will at the level we're willing to pay.

The web is either a river in full flow one accesses from their water front, or it is a series of pipes and spigots under some company control. The term "net neutrality" confuses the issue.

[graeme_p]

The term "net neutrality" is perfectly clear: it means treating traffic equally regardless of source without making deals to prioritise particualr providers. People like Scott Clelland the author of the linked article are trying to confuse the issue.

Nothing wrong with disagreement, that's what discussion is about.

Yes, but an article by someone who lies to make his case is not a good starting point for discussion. Can you not find articles that honestly argue the case against regulation? I am sure some libertarian has written them.

As for calling party pays... That means each of us are calling for content with every click instead of paying for an open service we access at will at the level we're willing to pay.

It would change costs, but not the essential nature of the service. We (as consumers) already usually pay for data usage between us and the point where it is peered (unless you have a genuine unlimited connection). Calling party pays would mean that consumers' ISPs pay the peers for the connection at a set rate just as they do with phone calls (but per byte rather than per second). If I phone someone it costs them nothing, so if I send a request to someone's server why should they pay for data usage to send back the reply I asked for? It works well for phone calls, so why not for data?

[tangor]

The term "net neutrality" is perfectly clear: it means treating traffic equally regardless of source without making deals to prioritise particualr providers.

Really?

Title II is one aspect (which FCC seems to lean to) and Tier Service (which we think it is, ie. you get what you pay for) and then there's the surcharge against providers over the pipe (which is full run anyway which makes us wonder). OR... as Netflix comments (as do others) that the pipe is okay UNLESS someone else wants to play bridge troll.

A bunch of fun any one looks at it. :)

[graeme_p]

Yes, really. Can you please clarify what you mean by "tier service"?

[not2easy]

Tier service is plan pricing so you can get a minimal connection or a better one or a deluxe plan depending on what you want to pay per month and the amount of bandwidth at better speeds that you choose. I currently have a free connection at 2Mb speeds (closer to 60k actually) from my land line and a 7Mb line from another supplier at a price I chose to pay for the speed.

[graeme_p]

So tier service is 1) usual 2) something no one objects to and 3) nothing to do with net neutrality.

[tangor]

@graeme_p: What is your definition of net neutrality?

Serious question.

[graeme_p]

The standard definition:

"Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication"

There is a case for an exception for guaranteeing QOS on certain protocols such as VOIP, but then it should be applied to all similar protocols and regardless of where the traffic is going or where from.

It also has nothing to do with charging more for higher bandwith or usage.

[tangor]

Are you USA? Reason I ask is everything here is based on price per bit and what the customer is willing to pay. That's strike one for most folks on the bottom end/ability to pay.

Governments are already in the mix, some better than others, but there nonetheless. That isn't going to change. But if the USA enacts Title II on the "net" inside its borders, that will affect everything else.

[RhinoFish]

All data is not equal.

This false premise means those who favor it, will later add 1,000 rules to try and fix it, but will always come up short, and to what end? It's not broken now (though not perfect - ISPs muck it up, and get whacked). Proponents will speed the development of private networks, and will likely try to outlaw them later, in the name of fairness, never answering the question, fair to whom, or addressing the false premise.

"Can you not find articles that honestly argue the case against regulation? I am sure some libertarian has written them."
And, slyly insulting people, and ad hominem attacks, are not at all why I visit Webmaster World.

[thecoalman]

But if the USA enacts Title II on the "net" inside its borders, that will affect everything else.

I support net neutrality but my understanding is that Title II will trigger some very onerous regulations and fees e.g. the USF fee you have on phone bills. That I will not support.

What I want to see is for the consumer to have choices, if you want a fire hose pay for it, if you can only afford a garden hose that's what you get. What is important is whether it's a fire hose or a garden hose you are getting equal access to the sites and services you want to use.

[graeme_p]

What is important is whether it's a fire hose or a garden hose you are getting equal access to the sites and services you want to use.[/quotes]

So you support net neutrality, but the only way net neutrality can be imposed is Title II - unless the law changes.

As for onerous regulations, it appears that the FCC can selectively apply regulations, and intends to regulate ISPs more lightly than voice [dailydot.com ]

[qoute]That I will not support.

Your only other choice, given that it is unlikely the law will be changed to favour net neutrality without it, is letting ISPs do whatever they want, and an end to equal access to sites and services.

@tangor, no, not US, but I follow what is happening in the US for just that reason - it will have repercussions.

@RhinoFish, the article is dishonest. My comment is neither sly nor an ad hominem attack - I am pointing out demonstrable lies in the article. I attack the hominem incidentally in the course of repudiating his argument, rather than basing my repudiation on him.

I also think the fact that he has an interest in the argument *is* relevant anyway. There are a lot of libertarians who write well and honestly and who instinctively opposed regulation so I think they probably have written better arguments than this in favour of not regulating (it is essentially the same argument as that for not regulating voice telecoms).

[graeme_p]

For further debunking, I found this:

[techdirt.com ]

Well written, links to a lot more information.

[tangor]

That Obama has come out on the side of regulation (Title II) should be an alarm that the label "net neutrality" has been hijacked. The last thing the internet needs is government regulation. Beware what you ask for, you just might get it.

[graeme_p]

Because Obama is for it, it must be bad?

You can have government regulation, or let ISPs companies do as they please. No other choice.

Telecoms is tightly regulated in almost every country in the world, and that usually works a lot better than letting telecoms companies do what they please. Same for utilities in general. All businesses almost everywhere are subject the competition (anti-trust in US terms) regulation and that is usually good too - the main problem is lack of it rather than too much of it.

[tangor]

You can have government regulation, or let ISPs companies do as they please. No other choice.

True "net neutrality" is letting the CUSTOMER choose which ISP they desire (ie, the one that treats them right at the right price) and let the others go hang.

Gov intrusion never works. And yes, if Obama is for it, it's bad.

[thecoalman]

Because Obama is for it, it must be bad?

Because no matter what he or anyone else says any law that can impose fees and taxes will inevitably be used to impose fees and taxes.

Net neutrality, yes. Title II, no.

[thecoalman]

True "net neutrality" is letting the CUSTOMER choose which ISP they desire...

I have grand total of one to choose from if you don't want to count crappy DSL with a whopping speed of 1Mbps. There is almost no chance another company would move in because it's low density population.

[graeme_p]

@tangor, there are two problems with that:

1) consumers will not have a wide enough choice for that to be meaningful - thecoalman has one example, but even if you have some choice, if all the major ISPs make deals with a few major players it still locks out startups (and no one is going to make deals with startyps.

2) Consumers will not have the information they need to make an informed choice - not ISP is going to advertise the fact that, for example, they have done a deal with Google and now downgrade all video services other than Youtube, or that they downgrade all VOIP to get you to make voice calls. Information flow is a requirement of free-markets.

Gov intrusion never works. And yes, if Obama is for it, it's bad.

The second half of that does not even need an answer. If you think gov intrusion is always bad can I assume you would be in favour of abolishing the FCC altogether? And the FCC, and anti-trust laws etc.?

@thecoalman, Net neutrality without title II is simply not an option without major changes to the legislation (that the telecoms lobby will never allow). Remember the reason the FCC are resorting to Title II is that the courts ruled that they could not impose net neutrality without it.

Looking at telecoms regulation in Europe, heavy regulation has worked very well. Take a look at the broadband deals available in small towns in England: [uswitch.com...] (this is the town on which Elizabeth Gaskell based Cranford)