Net Neutrality

[IBCoupe]

I read this morning that the TEA Party opposes Net Neutrality (if a vague decentralized organization can be seen to oppose anything), as an affront to the First Amendment and individual liberty. In my understanding of the issue, I don't quite see the connection. The article didn't go into what the TEA Party believes Net Neutrality is; it merely quoted their talking points on the issue, and so part of their opposition, as odd as it appears on its face given the actuality of "net neutrality," may be due to a misconception as to what it is. Of course, before I continue, there's the possibility that they understand the issue better than I do and that I've got the misconception, but until someone corrects me, I'm going to assume that I've got it right.

I expect that many of you who use this section of the NICOclub forums are well aware of what Net Neutrality is, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those that don't. It's a fairly obscure issue which doesn't get much play in the media (though the implications of net neutrality on the media could be far-reaching).

I first became aware of the net neutrality discussion a few years ago when I, an avid online gamer, heard that Comcast was starting a pilot program in Texas of charging internet service customers a rate that was related in part to their bandwidth consumption. While that sort of thing doesn't appear to be central to the net neutrality debate, it is what introduced it to me.

What is central is this, as summed up in one sentence by the New York Times:

The concept of “net neutrality’' holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally.

The issue is this: should Internet Service Providers (ISP's) be able to restrict access, by means of limiting bandwidth, to certain content? Be it iTunes, World of Warcraft, or FoxNews.com, a policy of net neutrality would seek to prevent an ISP from limiting how much an individual could access to the content from each. The proponents of net neutrality maintain that it would prevent unpopular speech from being stifled, and it would allow a free market of ideas and trade to flourish online (as no ISP could limit access to information or products it didn't like).

The arguments against Net Neutrality come mostly from the political right, and I'll try to sum them up as fairly as possible:
The internet has not been regulated, and should not be regulated.
As private companies, the ISP's should be allowed to do what they wish, and if you don't like it, you can find another ISP.
Limiting bandwidth to things like video games frees up bandwidth for everyone else; a policy of net neutrality would make internet access more sluggish for everyone.

Each side's arguments have their validities and their flaws, but I'm not going to go into them in this introductory post; I'd rather those come out in discussion. Do you, reader, have other ideas? Can you see more problems with net neutrality? Can you see more problems without it? Am I completely wrong in what net neutrality is? What's your take?

[IBCoupe]

I should add in some information about the Google-Verizon proposal. Google and Verizon have come together to offer a compromise: net neutrality should flourish on wired internet access, but on wireless access (like the iPhone), ISP's should be allowed to limit, by content, what loads and how fast.

[themadscientist]

The thing to note is "net neutrality" is a vague concept that can be interpreted differently. The T people beleive government is the problem so any expansion of government is see as intrusive. I share their belief that government tends to abuse any power you give them. On the flip side I don't trust the ISPs to play fair and I can't see how the market can apply enough influence to keep them from pursuing a rapacious business model. When caught between fat cat corporate type and fat cat politicians we lose, always.

[IBCoupe]

I would agree, but it looks like this time the government is regulating a form of deregulation. Whereas a lot of the times we get upset when government tells us what individuals can and can't do, the government is doing so in such a way as to say, "Individuals can do whatever the hell they want."

[bigbadberry3]

I like net neutrality as I believe consumers will come out on the short end of the stick. I could see how this may potentially reach into the world of politics by allowing or slowing access to some sites and or news....

What's next, TV signals get weak when cable companies don't like a particular show being broadcast?

[IBCoupe]

You don't like net neutrality? It sounds like you do like net neutrality. Net neutrality is the government regulation that says ISP's can't discriminate based on content when providing bandwidth.

[bigbadberry3]

IBCoupe, I misspoke, I'm in favor of net neutrality.

[stebo0728]

I would be in favor of net neutrality so far as I can imagine, but lets remember a few things here.

1. What is the internet? Its a collection of servers, some public, some private, but all linked through the TCP/IP set of protocols. Alot of people have a misconception that the internet is one "thing" in its entirety, and that is not the case.

2. Whether you agree or disagree with net neutrality, and whether its is passed or not, its not particularly needed with our current internet status. The only way an ISP could take the measures that are feared is to either place firewall filters on specified IP addresses, or specified TCP/UPD ports. Both of these measures are easily side stepped, thus any attempt to really enact such biased manuevers would not last long. We all know that IT professionals (hackers) are always one step ahead of anything thats going on our there. Now if we were to do a massive overhaul of the internet, which is drastically needed because in its current status it was designed only as a military implement, and was then just "opened up" to the public, but its not very well designed to suit public use, hence all the spam, viruses, malware, etc. that we have floating around today. If the redesign allows for such stifling of data to be accomplished easily, then perhaps net neutrality will become a bigger issue.

Now you said you were first introduced to the issue by way of ISP limiting of bandwidth. Do you mean on the general pipeline, or do you mean that limiting was occuring on a more specified scope? Generalized bandwidth limitation is well within the rights of any ISP to do, as long as it falls within contract specifications that exist with the customer.

[heliochrome85]

I would be in favor of net neutrality so far as I can imagine, but lets remember a few things here.

1. What is the internet? Its a collection of servers, some public, some private, but all linked through the TCP/IP set of protocols. Alot of people have a misconception that the internet is one "thing" in its entirety, and that is not the case.

2. Whether you agree or disagree with net neutrality, and whether its is passed or not, its not particularly needed with our current internet status. The only way an ISP could take the measures that are feared is to either place firewall filters on specified IP addresses, or specified TCP/UPD ports. Both of these measures are easily side stepped, thus any attempt to really enact such biased manuevers would not last long. We all know that IT professionals (hackers) are always one step ahead of anything thats going on our there. Now if we were to do a massive overhaul of the internet, which is drastically needed because in its current status it was designed only as a military implement, and was then just "opened up" to the public, but its not very well designed to suit public use, hence all the spam, viruses, malware, etc. that we have floating around today. If the redesign allows for such stifling of data to be accomplished easily, then perhaps net neutrality will become a bigger issue.

Now you said you were first introduced to the issue by way of ISP limiting of bandwidth. Do you mean on the general pipeline, or do you mean that limiting was occuring on a more specified scope? Generalized bandwidth limitation is well within the rights of any ISP to do, as long as it falls within contract specifications that exist with the customer.

are you saying its not a series of tubes?

too soon?

[stebo0728]

I would be in favor of net neutrality so far as I can imagine, but lets remember a few things here.

1. What is the internet? Its a collection of servers, some public, some private, but all linked through the TCP/IP set of protocols. Alot of people have a misconception that the internet is one "thing" in its entirety, and that is not the case.

2. Whether you agree or disagree with net neutrality, and whether its is passed or not, its not particularly needed with our current internet status. The only way an ISP could take the measures that are feared is to either place firewall filters on specified IP addresses, or specified TCP/UPD ports. Both of these measures are easily side stepped, thus any attempt to really enact such biased manuevers would not last long. We all know that IT professionals (hackers) are always one step ahead of anything thats going on our there. Now if we were to do a massive overhaul of the internet, which is drastically needed because in its current status it was designed only as a military implement, and was then just "opened up" to the public, but its not very well designed to suit public use, hence all the spam, viruses, malware, etc. that we have floating around today. If the redesign allows for such stifling of data to be accomplished easily, then perhaps net neutrality will become a bigger issue.

Now you said you were first introduced to the issue by way of ISP limiting of bandwidth. Do you mean on the general pipeline, or do you mean that limiting was occuring on a more specified scope? Generalized bandwidth limitation is well within the rights of any ISP to do, as long as it falls within contract specifications that exist with the customer.

are you saying its not a series of tubes?

too soon?

Well tubes are certainly part of it, but those tubes are useless without the servers, likewise the servers are useless without the tubes. The data is not "in" the tubes, its "in" the servers. The tubes are merely the method of transmission. And its becoming less tubes as wireless is increasing in availability. Of course I would imagine tubes will always be part of the approach to data transmission as wireless signals cannot carry the same bandwidth as others.

Yes I am saying too soon, or really more not necessary with the current set of protocols used. There are far more pressing matters to deal with in regards to the internet, such as data security, data integrity, but then these are all private sector matters, with a bit of military research dashed in there.

[heliochrome85]

and here i was trying to make a funny. i guess i dont have enough semetic blood in me

[themadscientist]

are you saying its not a series of tubes?

too soon?

Nope!

[AZhitman]

I oppose net neutrality and have since it was first bandied about.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, I was first introduced to the discussion by a conversation about a Comcast pilot program in Texas that basically charged users by byte. As I said before, that wasn't really part of net neutrality, but it's what introduced it to me.

Also, you mention that part of the reason you don't care too much about the issue (if I'm reading you correctly) is that people will find ways to bypass the blocks put in place by their ISP's. While I've no doubt that this is true (there are, after all, individuals who will go to great and dangerous lengths to get free cable), it seems as if this argument misses the point: whether there are people who will find nefarious means around the barriers to certain content isn't really that relevant to the question of whether those barriers to certain content should exist at all.



Greg,
Why?

[AZhitman]

The problem is, neither side really understands the definition.

Look at these two articles, outlining each group's "position" - Confusing? Betcher a$$ it is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... neutrality
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp? ... &b=4773657#

One group claims to oppose it, one wants to protect it, yet they're arguing the SAME thing. When the term first came to light, "net neutrality" meant REGULATIONS. Judging from those articles, and others I read recently, I don't think anyone has a firm grasp of what the term itself mean anymore.

So, let me clarify: I support the principle that Internet users should be able to access ANY web content they want, post their own content, and use ANY applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs)... OR the government.

HOWEVER, I strongly oppose governmental restrictions on "big cable" and would prefer that the free market, rather than the Legislature, work out any issues that may arise from ISP's shenanigans.

Make more sense?

[AppleBonker]

Look at these two articles, outlining each group's "position" - Confusing? Betcher a$$ it is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... neutrality
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp? ... &b=4773657#

One group claims to oppose it, one wants to protect it, yet they're arguing the SAME thing

As a (self-proclaimed) huge nerd, I see those two articles arguing polar opposites. I think the problem is that the average consumer does not understand what net neutrality means. Those drafting the laws (and certainly the ISPs) most likely have a firmer grasp upon the issue. While I'm not sure we would agree politically about how big business should be handled, I would be surprised if you, I and all members of the general public were not on the pro-neutrality side of the argument (assuming we all understood it fundamentally).

The ISPs are arguing for no restrictions on what they can do with their services, rather than being forced to remain neutral. To take it to an extreme, what if they decided that youtube/hulu/etc were sucking up too much bandwidth and their infrastructure could not support the demand? They want to be able to block you from accessing them (or at the very least throttle your connection). Or, as these corporate giants increase in size, they will allow faster throughput of data to customers from their partners. For example, say your ISP develops a partnership with Fox. You would then be able to access any Fox affiliated content at faster speeds. All other news sources could have their data rates slowed, effectively making them less accessible to you as the customer. To go even further than this, Comcast (for example) is starting to purchase content. So now they are trying to control the content AND providing it. This strikes me as VERY dangerous to the consumer as Comcast has a huge incentive to promote their own content and eliminate their competitor's.

I think we generally agree that regulations are hairy. I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can or can't do (I'm pro-gun, pro-choice, anti-health regulations even though I strive to lead a healthy life, etc). However, the free market has broken down in this case. Internet service providers are huge. I don't know that there is anyone who has the capital to invest in a start-up company that would not place these restrictions on my internet access (though I would gladly pay them much more money to do so). In my area I'm limited to Comcast, AT&T and possibly satellite. Comcast is the fastest option (the other two don't even come close). And their tactics are VERY anti-consumer. Unfortunately, for the speeds I've grown accustomed to, I don't have much of a choice. For how much I pay in internet costs, I would glady double that monthly charge if an ISP was created that would give identical speeds without restrictions. But again, there aren't too many entities with the ability to invest in that sort of thing.

A lot of the difficulty in regulating these areas deals with the complexity of the issue and the general (I don't want to say misunderstanding) non-understanding of the terminology. The average consumer has no idea what any of this "net neutrality" stuff means. The ISPs are against it because it would increase their operating costs (which they will gladly pass along to you). However, giving them free reign to do as they please may decrease operating costs OR provide additional income by opening them up to partnering with content producers. Do you think they will pass any of those savings on to the consumers? It's possible that you and I disagree on the efficiency of trickle-down economics, but in this case the ISPs are too close to being monopolies for that to work. With the investment required to break into the industry, I don't know that we will be seeing new ISPs anytime soon. Given that, the current offerings may be too big to stop through free market principles so some regulation may be the correct solution.

[IBCoupe]

In some cases, they are a monopoly. I can get home internet from only one source in my apartment, though there are a few different providers in the area.

If I don't like the way Thames Valley Communications (tied up with the local utility company) limits my access to, say negative information about the local utility company, what do I do? Move? Start paying out the butt to Verizon for internet access on my phone for far inferior service?

Greg, you write that this should be a matter for free market economics, but I'm concerned that the very infrastructure upon which the internet operates is an insulator against free market economics. If an electric company doesn't like the way you're using your electricity (to, say, power a Church), should they be able to restrict service? Much of the time, it's not as if one can simply shop around for a different internet.

[AZhitman]

I'm not disputing that point. I agree that a lack of regulation creates a potential for abuses.

I'm in essence, agreeing with Bonk - The solution may come down to a lesser of two evils, and I despise compromises for the sake of appeasement.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, I was first introduced to the discussion by a conversation about a Comcast pilot program in Texas that basically charged users by byte. As I said before, that wasn't really part of net neutrality, but it's what introduced it to me.

Most non-wired ISP's have used this model from the beginning. It came from the need to limit the extremely limited throughput of the wireless connection spectrum. Its a tough nut to shell because of some of the things already mentioned, lack of competition being a major one. But then not alot of people realize that there is really only ONE basic underlying connection, the trunk line fiber, owned by original Tel-co companies. Regardless of who you write your check to, they are still brokering access to the same trunk lines. The difference comes in how the connection gets from the trunk line, to your jack. Some use cable, some use old copper lines with higher frequency signals, and now alot more commonly fiber is being run to your house (this is a nice turn of events) This creates a complexity, as it stifles competition because all the ISPs are somewhat bent to use the same sort of model. I believe that an ISP should have the freedom to set a pricing structure as they see fit, but it does make things difficult for the consumer considering the limited sources. Also, I know it seems that the connections for Wired internet are somewhat limitless in bandwidth, lets realize that as more and more rural areas are being penetrated by the signal, more and more users start to tap into the system, and eventually signals to start to get bogged. Perhaps a "per-byte" system could work in these areas to reduce un-necessary transmissions (does every geek on the block REALLY need to run 5 pc's all running SETI at Home?!?) If they pay per byte, maybe they wont.

Also, you mention that part of the reason you don't care too much about the issue (if I'm reading you correctly) is that people will find ways to bypass the blocks put in place by their ISP's. While I've no doubt that this is true (there are, after all, individuals who will go to great and dangerous lengths to get free cable), it seems as if this argument misses the point: whether there are people who will find nefarious means around the barriers to certain content isn't really that relevant to the question of whether those barriers to certain content should exist at all.

True. Getting around something is not a good argument as to whether or not the barrier should exist to begin with. My goal was to lessen whatever fears you may have in knowing that net neutrality is basically a dull butterknife in the hands of the ISP's. It wont go far, and it wont accomplish much on their part. The only people who may suffer are the "dumb-masses" who cant figure out the work around. Getting around ISP blocks are no where near as nefarious as actually hacking a cable signal to come into your house.

[stebo0728]

And another thing. It sounds like multiple issues are being dealt with here, or maybe im just thinking slowly this week, but setting up a sales model seems to be an unrelated issue to having selective access to varying sources of information. It seems to be quite the opposite from the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness doctrine sought to force media outlets to incorporate more programming from each side of an issue. Where as net neutrality seeks to keep opposing information from being sphinctered. I think the companies should be able to set their business model up however they like, but they should stay our of policing what data flows through their pipes.

Both right and left have a pretty good net presence, a "blogopresence" if you will. But then its not like you have to steal money from boy scouts to maintain a blog right?

[AppleBonker]

Where as net neutrality seeks to keep opposing information from being sphinctered

You almost hit the nail on the head. Most ISPs aren't terribly concerned with blocking certain information. Very few of them have strong ties to given news outlets, I just used that as an example. I don't believe they are all that worried about blocking certain information from you, they just want to find a way to get you to use less date (the more you use, the more stress it puts on their networks and the more money they sink into upgrades). Basically what they are looking to throttle is video streaming and piracy. Hulu, youtube and netflix (etc) will place extra strain on their networks. Browsing CNN/Fox news doesn't chew up much data.

Piracy gets a little trickier. Obviously, pirates consume large quantities of data. Downloading movies, music and games require a large amount of bandwidth. The problem with shutting down some of these methods of file transfers is that legitimate sources may get crippled by it. I'll be honest and say I used to pirate everything. Now that I have a real-world job and and the funds that go with it, I've included these purchases in my budget, so the piracy side doesn't particularly concern me. But, a lot of upstart musicians/artists benefit from some of these sharing sources. While it may be a small percentage, squashing 2% of the legitimate users with the 98% of illegitimate ones does bother me.

So basically, the issues ISPs have isn't WHAT content you are consuming, but rather how much. Either way, my argument is that I pay for the connection, I should be able to use what and how much I want. In fact, my service is "unlimited", but yet has a monthly cap of 250 GB. I am still concerned that services providers are redefining the word unlimited.

Now, if you want to get into more depth, the real concern that brought this issue out is mobile computing. Your land-line connection is probably capable of handling your (and nearly everyone's) needs. But, as we become a more mobile society, people are consuming more data on the go. Streaming video and such to your phones can really cripple mobile networks. Hell, try making a call or sending a text from times square on NYE. The network is so saturated that it's likely that it wont go through. So, making sweeping regulations about data consumption for all ISPs can have negative effects on your cell providers. Now, comcast and other land-based ISPs will get behind the anti-neutrality movement as it will still ease usage on their networks, but the real concern is probably still for cellular data.

[IBCoupe]

Let's complicate the issue further: Asian and European networks don't appear to have these problems. I've even heard that phones in Japan browse the internet easier than many American PCs do, and that the Japanese model of using your phone for everything is probably where we'll end up in a decade or so.

I've heard that Europe doesn't have the issues we do because in Europe, the governments say to the ISP's, "Provide faster service, all of you," and they do it. In contrast, our government says to the ISP's, "Provide faster service, all of you," and they sue.

I think you two are doing a great job of carrying this debate, and I'd like your thoughts on that issue.

[stebo0728]

What do you think those ICKY european VAT taxes are for? The governments in europe apply a more totalitarianism approach to internet. They also fund alot of it. European and Asian nations have traditionally had better connectivity because of this. Should we do that here? I dont know the answer but I would lean toward no. Or perhaps yes, on a temporary basis, sorta like the way phone was done in the 60's thru the 90's.

[AppleBonker]

I think you two are doing a great job of carrying this debate, and I'd like your thoughts on that issue.

Interesting, as I'm not sure I even know where I stand on the topic (entirely). I would love to have requirements for neutrality on my land-based ISP. But cellular gets a lot harder to expect that of.

As far as your comparison to Japan goes, it's pretty tough to use them as a benchmark. With nearly 3.5 times the population of California in slightly less square mileage, there is no way you can expect US cell carriers to match that. Sure, in Japan they need a beefy infrastructure to support the large numbers of users in such a small area, but they don't have to contend with providing access to people out in the sticks. Then, factor in a lot of those countries have cell carriers that use the same cellular technology on the same frequencies, and they can share towers. Additionally, I don't know what kind of zoning restrictions are placed on cell towers in the US in major cities.

This is definitely a challenging debate, and I would love for the issue to be split up into land-based and mobile-based. I see no reason that land-based ISPs wouldn't have the capabilities of supporting the data needs of the population if net neutrality restrictions were put in place. I would be more than happy accepting this as I do the vast majority of my data consumption on wired connections. If that means the restrictions would not be as strict on cellular companies, so be it. I don't know that I really need to be streaming video to my phone all the time anyway. Then again, this is all my opinion. I have unique needs and uses for data, so I cannot expect anyone else to agree with me...

[mattblancarte]

I look at this from a standpoint of who we should be protecting/aiding. Do we want to help consumers by keeping costs down and ISP competition for bandwidth high? Do we want to help corporations restrict access to their infrastructure (be it in the ground or in the air) and stifle entrepreneurship and emerging markets?

Wish I had time to get involved in this debate.