Net Neutrality

[OptimusPrime]

All this talk of a free market, yet it seems to continually be ignored that net neutrality effectively creates a free internet market. Without it, ISPs can stifle new start-ups, making it impossible for small business to compete with existing giants.

It absolutely does not. The government still stifles new start ups, with or without net neutrality.

 

[Cassity14]

Isn't that kind of important, though? Because if the rate increases were actually due to other factors - or even announced long before the change in policy - then in fact those increases would have been decided upon under net neutrality. Which would actually create the exact opposite inference of the one your post suggests.

Did you research anything about those price increases before commenting on them?

Yes, I've looked into it.

No, they were not already announced, and the changes TBA from the other giants won't have been either.

 

[Cassity14]

I think @Jack Brickman makes an excellent point in that the Internet itself, currently IS a free marketplace, and Net Neutrality had a lot to do with that.

I'm NOT referring to ISPs themselves here, just as I don't think he was.

What will now be able to happen, however, are wink-wink deals between giants like Ebay/Amazon and big time ISPs to increase speeds and traffic between them in exchange for official endorsements and/or cold hard cash.

Amazon can now offer Comcast a ton of financial incentive to give Comcast users a quicker connection to Amazon than any other online marketplace. What's the user going to pick?

This just gives these massive companies an even bigger advantage, and again, does not encourage competition. When we talk about startups getting screwed, we're talking about in the online marketplace as well.

I'd bet we aren't too far from every ISP having a standard homepage for us with direct links to sites that are 'often visited' or some shit. Not something the user can customize, but just a static page or portal if you will, akin to what AOL had going on 20 years ago.

But, again, we have seen companies do shady shit to circumvent the Internet's original principle of net neutrality, hence the reason for it being legislated in the first place. I'm not sure how that's being lost on people. Net Neutrality was not an example of the government trying to be proactive and thus overstepping its bounds before anything happened. It was done as a direct result of companies like Verizon, AOL, etc. doing what has been outlined ad nauseum in here.

I'm not at all thrilled about 'letting this play out' because it already has.

 

[Triplethreat]

Go read the paper I posted above please.

 

[gourimoko]

Go read the paper I posted above please.

I'm actually in the process of reading it now.. What from that paper do you want to assert as your argument though?

 

[Triplethreat]

I'm actually in the process of reading it now.. What from that paper do you want to assert as your argument though?

Why not start here?

The R&O (op. cit., §§21-32) cites chapter and verse

of all the incentives and opportunities that broadband
ISPs have to abuse their position to enhance their
profits at the expense of application/content providers
and their own customers.8) The concerns expressed

are concerns about the economics of broadband ISPs,
but nowhere in the R&O can we find anything
approaching an economic analysis of these hypotheses
(or allegations). In fact, one has to read the R&O very
closely to find any empirical support whatsoever that
any of the suspect behaviors the FCC seeks to prevent
have actually occurred. In fact, the FCC produces four
examples:9)

• In 2005, Madison River Communications., in its
role as a broadband ISP in North Carolina, blocked
its customers from using Vonage, a VoIP voice
phone provider that competed with Madison River’s
main telephone business. After complaints to the
FCC, Madison River paid a $15,000 fine and stopped
the practice.

• In 2007-08, Comcast was interfering with BitTorrent
traffic (a video P2P site) it claimed was congesting
its network. The FCC issued an order prohibiting
their network management practices. Comcast duly
changed its practices but took the FCC to court
claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The DC District
Court agreed, and the issue was remanded to the
FCC.

• A letter from the ACLU alleged that a mobile
service provider had blocked the use of an
application because it had a competing application.
This issue apparently never made it to the formal
complain stage.

• In 2009, Apple and AT&T blocked the use of WiFi
connectivity rather than AT&T’s own 2G and 3G
services on their successful mobile iPhone. The
issue was resolved by the FCC.

So in over a decade, there were only four examples

of purported misconduct (one which was denied by

the courts and another which didn’t even rise to the

level of a complaint) for the entire broadband ISP

industry. By any standard, four complaints about
an entire industry in over a decade would seem to
be cause for a commendation, not for restrictive
regulations.

The FCC acknowledges this lack of evidence of
actual wrongdoing by referring in the R&O to
the proposed rules as “prophylactic,” or preventive.
Their purpose, therefore, is to prevent things from
happening that haven’t actually happened thus far.
Further, the R&O (§4) acknowledges explicitly that
“…[the rules] incorporate longstanding openness
principles that are generally in line with current
practices and with norms endorsed by many
broadband providers.” If the rules are indeed aligned
with current practices and norms, then why, it might
be asked, do we need them?10)

If we have had a decade of experience with

broadband ISPs with little evidence of wrongdoing,

how can network neutrality advocates support their

demands for government net neutrality regulation? If

there has been no problem for the past decade, is there

any reason to suspect that such problems are right

around the corner?

 

[-Akronite-]

NO ONE KNOWS

???

He's pulling one of those "I'm wise because I recognize that there are two sides to every story" moves, which we see here from time to time. Almost always, the poster neglects to discuss the actual merits of either side and basically advocates doing and saying nothing because we can't possibly know everything.

Glad to see we came full circle.

I think @Triplethreat's main point is that we don't know for sure whether the repeal of net neutrality is a bad thing. There isn't enough data in either direction so basically both sides are a little wrong and a little right. I'm not even sure if Triple has a firm stance, he's just trying to open up the conversation so it isn't simply both sides digging in. He's stated multiple times that those supporting NN fail to acknowledge the possible upsides of the repeal.

That being said, Gouri and I (and some others on both sides) disagree. I feel that while your intentions are good, for the most part it seems defeatist. We are basically saying both sides have a point and no one can be right at the moment, which is true in some sense but feels like a cop out instead of simply debating the policy itself (which I recognize you've chosen to do via the paper you linked, fair enough) and deciding (for ourselves) whether or not we should or shouldn't preserve NN.

When it comes to repealing NN, there is the possibility of an economic benefit. It will certainly benefit the ISPs, which are major corporations and employers, and hopefully funnel money back towards infrastructure expansion by these companies. But we can't pretend as if the downsides are purely hypothetical when we have historic evidence of abuse by ISPs before net neutrality became an official policy from the FCC. And we certainly shouldn't tolerate these nonsense "it's only been two years" arguments when we know better.

I feel, based on the evidence I've seen, that Net Neutrality is a net positive policy that keeps the internet the free and open space that it is and should be, as it is not a privately owned entity and is necessary for modern life. I don't find the arguments to the contrary, where people on the right essentially argue that repealing NN will keep the internet free, to be convincing. Perhaps you disagree or you see yourself on the fence, Triple, but do you feel like you understand why some people are pissed off rather than looking at the bright side of what they view as bad policy?

 

[gourimoko]

Why not start here?

The R&O (op. cit., §§21-32) cites chapter and verse

of all the incentives and opportunities that broadband
ISPs have to abuse their position to enhance their
profits at the expense of application/content providers
and their own customers.8) The concerns expressed

are concerns about the economics of broadband ISPs,
but nowhere in the R&O can we find anything
approaching an economic analysis of these hypotheses
(or allegations). In fact, one has to read the R&O very
closely to find any empirical support whatsoever that
any of the suspect behaviors the FCC seeks to prevent
have actually occurred. In fact, the FCC produces four
examples:9)

• In 2005, Madison River Communications., in its
role as a broadband ISP in North Carolina, blocked
its customers from using Vonage, a VoIP voice
phone provider that competed with Madison River’s
main telephone business. After complaints to the
FCC, Madison River paid a $15,000 fine and stopped
the practice.

• In 2007-08, Comcast was interfering with BitTorrent
traffic (a video P2P site) it claimed was congesting
its network. The FCC issued an order prohibiting
their network management practices. Comcast duly
changed its practices but took the FCC to court
claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The DC District
Court agreed, and the issue was remanded to the
FCC.

• A letter from the ACLU alleged that a mobile
service provider had blocked the use of an
application because it had a competing application.
This issue apparently never made it to the formal
complain stage.

• In 2009, Apple and AT&T blocked the use of WiFi
connectivity rather than AT&T’s own 2G and 3G
services on their successful mobile iPhone. The
issue was resolved by the FCC.

So in over a decade, there were only four examples

of purported misconduct (one which was denied by

the courts and another which didn’t even rise to the

level of a complaint) for the entire broadband ISP

industry. By any standard, four complaints about
an entire industry in over a decade would seem to
be cause for a commendation, not for restrictive
regulations.

The FCC acknowledges this lack of evidence of
actual wrongdoing by referring in the R&O to
the proposed rules as “prophylactic,” or preventive.
Their purpose, therefore, is to prevent things from
happening that haven’t actually happened thus far.
Further, the R&O (§4) acknowledges explicitly that
“…[the rules] incorporate longstanding openness
principles that are generally in line with current
practices and with norms endorsed by many
broadband providers.” If the rules are indeed aligned
with current practices and norms, then why, it might
be asked, do we need them?10)

If we have had a decade of experience with

broadband ISPs with little evidence of wrongdoing,

how can network neutrality advocates support their

demands for government net neutrality regulation? If

there has been no problem for the past decade, is there

any reason to suspect that such problems are right

around the corner?

Well, let's go through this... but first, let's agree to some rules..

IF I can prove that your assertions (or the assertions being presented here) are counterfactual, and you can easily verify that yourself (i.e., proof), then you agree to state the assertion is incorrect? And I'll do the same.

That's only reasonable, right?

 

[Triplethreat]

Glad to see we came full circle.

I think @Triplethreat's main point is that we don't know for sure whether the repeal of net neutrality is a bad thing. There isn't enough data in either direction so basically both sides are a little wrong and a little right. I'm not even sure if Triple has a firm stance, he's just trying to open up the conversation so it isn't simply both sides digging in. He's stated multiple times that those supporting NN fail to acknowledge the possible upsides of the repeal.

That being said, Gouri and I (and some others on both sides) disagree. I feel that while your intentions are good, for the most part it seems defeatist. We are basically saying both sides have a point and no one can be right at the moment, which is true in some sense but feels like a cop out instead of simply debating the policy itself (which I recognize you've chosen to do via the paper you linked, fair enough) and deciding (for ourselves) whether or not we should or shouldn't preserve NN.

When it comes to repealing NN, there is the possibility of an economic benefit. It will certainly benefit the ISPs, which are major corporations and employers, and hopefully funnel money back towards infrastructure expansion by these companies. But we can't pretend as if the downsides are purely hypothetical when we have historic evidence of abuse by ISPs before net neutrality became an official policy from the FCC. And we certainly shouldn't tolerate these nonsense "it's only been two years" arguments when we know better.

I feel, based on the evidence I've seen, that Net Neutrality is a net positive policy that keeps the internet the free and open space that it is and should be, as it is not a privately owned entity and is necessary for modern life. I don't find the arguments to the contrary, where people on the right essentially argue that repealing NN will keep the internet free, to be convincing. Perhaps you disagree or you see yourself on the fence, Triple, but do you feel like you understand why some people are pissed off rather than looking at the bright side of what they view as bad policy?

I'm all for the debate.

However, in order to have real, constructive debate that actually means something. You first have to recognize that the other side of the argument has SOME merits, instead of being completely negligent.

Then, and only then can you begin to have conversations about which is "better" per se.

 

[Cassity14]

So, again, these things happened, and the principle of Net Neutrality was formally legislated as a result.

Instead of handling more cases like the above on an arbitrary, case-by-case, and potentially partisaned basis that would surely result in too many inconsistencies over time, the law was instituted declaring the Internet to be an open, fully accessible place.

• In 2009, Apple and AT&T blocked the use of WiFi
connectivity rather than AT&T’s own 2G and 3G
services on their successful mobile iPhone. The
issue was resolved by the FCC.

In this above example, we saw one of the biggest technological breakthroughs for the everyday consumer in my lifetime be manipulated by AT&T in a way to only benefit the large company.

As someone against the repeal of Net Neutrality, this is exactly the kind of thing I don't want companies to be able to do, particularly in a market as rooted in only a few major players as the Internet is.

The paper's argument (particularly what is bolded there) boils down to, "Well, there were only a few major fuckups, so why be afraid of more?"

Really convincing stuff.

 

[gourimoko]

So, again, these things happened, and the principle of Net Neutrality was formally legislated as a result.

Instead of handling more cases like the above on an arbitrary, case-by-case, and potentially partisaned basis that would surely result in too many inconsistencies over time, the law was instituted declaring the Internet to be an open, fully accessible place.

• In 2009, Apple and AT&T blocked the use of WiFi
connectivity rather than AT&T’s own 2G and 3G
services on their successful mobile iPhone. The
issue was resolved by the FCC.

In this above example, we saw one of the biggest technological breakthroughs for the everyday consumer in my lifetime be manipulated by AT&T in a way to only benefit the large company.

As someone against the repeal of Net Neutrality, this is exactly the kind of thing I don't want companies to be able to do, particularly in a market as rooted in only a few major players as the Internet is.

The paper's argument (particularly what is bolded there) boils down to, "Well, there were only a few major fuckups, so why be afraid of more?"

Really convincing stuff.

Damn it.. I wanted @Triplethreat to AGREE first that he would admit the paper he cited was bullshit...

Alas....

Anyway, yeah, since you've ruined the setup Cassity ( ) .. There were more than 4 instances of "violations" of the net neutrality standard prior to it becoming law. Verizon blocking pay services was a huge issue, Comcast blocking competing streaming services, as well as several others.

The premise of the argument was that, only these 4 instances happened, thus, there's no historical rationale for implementing these rules; however, it's false that only those 4 instances of violations happened, it's also false that those 4 or the many others were resolved amicably or in accordance with the net neutrality standard (Comcast won it's cases, btw), or that there isn't a rationale for having a preventative policy that would keep the internet from becoming fragmented.

Hopefully @Triplethreat will still agree to acknowledge this error in the paper he cited?

 

[Triplethreat]

So, again, these things happened, and the principle of Net Neutrality was formally legislated as a result.

Instead of handling more cases like the above on an arbitrary, case-by-case, and potentially partisaned basis that would surely result in too many inconsistencies over time, the law was instituted declaring the Internet to be an open, fully accessible place.

• In 2009, Apple and AT&T blocked the use of WiFi
connectivity rather than AT&T’s own 2G and 3G
services on their successful mobile iPhone. The
issue was resolved by the FCC.

In this above example, we saw one of the biggest technological breakthroughs for the everyday consumer in my lifetime be manipulated by AT&T in a way to only benefit the large company.

As someone against the repeal of Net Neutrality, this is exactly the kind of thing I don't want companies to be able to do, particularly in a market as rooted in only a few major players as the Internet is.

The paper's argument (particularly what is bolded there) boils down to, "Well, there were only a few major fuckups, so why be afraid of more?"

Really convincing stuff.

Did you read the whole paper? Or just the part I posted?

Because it goes on a to pretty thorough economic analysis.

 

[gourimoko]

Did you read the whole paper? Or just the part I posted?

Because it goes on a to pretty thorough economic analysis.

Hey Triple, can you answer my question above so we can go through the paper together?

 

[Cassity14]

Did you read the whole paper? Or just the part I posted?

Because it goes on a to pretty thorough economic analysis.

I won't be able to do it that full justice until our semester ends, but I definitely plan to. Thing is a beast.

 

[Triplethreat]

Hey Triple, can you answer my question above so we can go through the paper together?

It's true. Those four instances are federally published in the R&O and the FCC has taken care of every known issue that has arisen to this point anyways.

As far as Comcast. It was never proven that they had partaken in any misconduct. So how can you use this as evidence? The FCC takes care of misconduct if it's proven to be going on. Just like your right, my right, as a citizen. Innocent until proven guilty.