net nuetrality

This is the way they want you to look at it, but I don't think regulations will be restricted to this issue, or even much interested in it. And also, unlike electricity and water, the value represented by each meg of content is not the same and subject to degradation. I don't care about band width per say, I care about the value of the content delivered and how much it has been degraded by the transmission. Degradation and the fact that data isn't a commodity is why the internet is not a zero sum game.

Of much more interest to me is what led to that sum being available at this instant? And what is the value of the product that sum represents? I think those are the issues that are the main concern to the consumer.

Going forward, the sum will increase. How that is done depends on the regulatory environment. At any instant, I believe the value of the product that is being received is best left to the customer to decide.

I do agree that ISPs should not receive money for interfering with content transmission. They should not be allowed to enter into exclusive agreements with any entity. But as an absolute minimum, they should be able to hold an auction of premium services if they want to.

Another weird thing about the FCC ruling is that traditional utilities are obligated to act in the community's best interest. And that meant they were required to consider the community's values and prioritize service accordingly. Your local hospital receives priority status from the electrical utility, water board, and trash collection. Even gas stations are considered to be an essential service provider to the community and get priority. This is basic to the idea of a regulated utility. It is not clear how they are going to write regs on network neutrality that also allow the internet to function as a utility. This is doable, but I'm not much encouraged by the direction taken so far. Are high value community assets going to be allowed by regulation to contract for a minimum throughput at all times? How do I tell the FCC that I want my local hospital and EMS to have damn good internet even during the Olympics or a Katy Perry concert.

If the regulations can be written where the consumer or community does indeed retain the ability to set priorities then this could work. I just don't see that happening. It's all those bags of cash that will be doing the talking.

The FCCs primary ambition appears to me to be to facilitate corruption. If this becomes a widespread view, what will they do? Change directions? Or hide from us?

 

Phil,

But what you aren't taking into account is thatthe customers don't have any choice. Outside a few places in the country there is no competition for services. For instance in New Orleans I have the option of exactly one broadband company. I either use Cox or I don't get internet. This has developed in large part because the isp's prefer to work in monopoly markets which is why the U.S. has some of the slowest and most expensive Internet in the developed world (and we are slipping into the non-developed world).

All Net Neutrality does is prevents your ISP from throttling bandwidth to non-favored services, or speeding up connections from prefered providers. This has actually been seen, so it isn't theoretical. The best example is TimeWarnet that ownes huge amounts of content (TV, movies, ect) as well as being a huge Internet provider. They were intentionally slowing down access to Netflix and speeding up access to their own on demand service.

And their customers had no say in it, and what was their option? Cancel their service and not have high speed internet?

The ISP's have created a monopoly world for themselves, and now have to livin in that world. Where the services they provide are too important to allow them to self regulate, particularly since they have proven themselves to be willing to engage in unfair trade practices in the past.

 

@stumble,

I don't think the new FCC ruling actually changes that much (I could be wrong of course). Throttling was already being handled by the FTC. The FTC actually won their arguments in court. Now that the FCC takes over, I wonder if they can do as well as the FTC did. Throttling has been used to describe a number of different practices. So we have to be careful.

I gather that the current state of affairs is that there isn't any real difference between any of the following throttling practices - they are all forbidden.

1. Throttling (a competitor's) content. (And then charging them to resume at the previous rate or volume.)

2. Prioritizing closely held content.

3. Selling prioritized bandwidth.

4. Exempting content from a capped volume service.

5. Offering credits to consumers in exchange for throttling at certain times.

6.<edit. added this one> Throttling after a certain volume to "unlimited" contracts (ATT)

These are all very different activities, some involving content providers and some involving consumers, and I fail to see why they should be lumped together.

In a conventional utility, there are a bunch of presumed rules. One is that there is a declining demand curve and that households all have a fairly similar demand curve. That works for water and gas and electricity. In the case of the internet, my neighbor might very well value his 20th gig of content more than I value my second gig of content, and there is no reason I can think of for the government to come in and try to level the system of supply in the face of a very unlevel demand.

Why is it illegal for an ISP to now auction a set number of streams of the Olympics to consumers at a guaranteed quality. It's something that could be set up weeks in advance. All your neighbors could come over and watch. It would be like pay per view boxing 20 years ago. The only reason I can think of is what PAR pointed out. Others have invested heavily in being able to do that and they are looking for protection.

If you wanted to regulate in the public interest, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure certain minimum delivery to the subscribers rather than regulate the big providers at the front end.

 

The FCC is acting in the public interest and is the whole point of the proposed regulatory changes. Because as we all know, no self respecting business would dare poison the air, water, land, consumers or employees, just for the sake of profit or service protection. So, got some laminate flooring installed in recent years? Any three headed babies among the latest additions to the family?

The bottom line is the FCC if a bit slow, isn't stupid about what has and is happening, but more importantly what these large telecoms have in mind, in the near future. The industry is changing rapidly, some keeping up, others holding dear to what they've got, while others hoping to sneak in with innovation and new ideas or concepts. The recent industry trends haven't been in favor of the giant telecoms, in fact they're pretty pissed about the "up starts", weaseling into their margins. I'm telling you folks, cable TV is dieing and they know it. They're seeing video streaming for the major news and information sourcing, from the under 40 age group. They're also seeing continued exponential growth, in online sales and information storage, all from devices and requiring services, that have nothing to do with cable.

Locking folks into bundled contracts will only last a few more years, before the mass exodus begins (it's already started) to newer forms of up/download and streaming. Hell, municipalities are seeing the writing on the wall too, making upgrades to new communities, with communications hubs at the community center (or wherever), so they can get a piece of the pie. Look mom, lets move her, free WiFi for every household. In most major cities, you can walk around downtown and surf on free for miles. This is the future and the telecoms hate it, because they can't expect you to wait all afternoon for the cable guy to not show up any more. I suspect eventually Wal-Mart will become the nation's biggest WiFi supplier, setting up networks in all the communities they're in and having the pockets to make the initial investment, without having to go broke buying up local and regional service suppliers, like the telecoms have. I also suspect some countries will provide web access for free, as part of their "public works" programs, considering it an essential staple for their citizens.

 

You are setting up a straw man argument. I never said the internet was a zero sum game, I said that at any one time the bandwidth available was a zero sum game. If you prioritise some content, by definition you de-prioritise other content - IOW you slow it down.

As for value of content delivered, who decides that value? I cannot abide watching commercial sport so given a choice I'd throttle it into oblivion. I'm sure there are a lot of religious people who'd choke off the **** if they could. I'm not a real big fan of online gambling either, and online role-playing games can be pretty unsavoury. Let's slow them right down - except for the few who'll pay us big bucks for faster packet transport. Oh look, those dudes are the ones doing really, really well in the games now. I wonder why....

That's the point of the net neutrality rules. I don't get to eliminate stuff I don't like, nor do you. ISP's should get paid by the packets they transport along their infrastructure, nothing more or less. They don't get to speed some up & slow others down.

The fact is, a lot of data *is* a commodity. What else is streaming video if not a consumable commodity?

I note you've dropped your milkman analogy now I've thoroughly trashed it.

I'm actually really surprised that any end user is arguing that ISP's should have the right to decide on what gets prioritised over what. That's a really interesting position to take, not one I'd expect given the typical behaviour of companies with monopolistic market positions.

PDW

 

Phil, they aren't all lumped together. Some have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. The others are mostly just specific examples of the same thing. Prioritizing specific content over others, not in the best interest of the consumer, but in their own short term best interest. To the extent that these things are being regulated now we're already prohibited until Verison recently won their law suit that tossed the method the FCC past the last set of rules, and was invited by the court to regulate ISP's under rule 2 as common carriers.


What you have described in your last three paragraphs however is still legal. An ISP can still charge different amounts for different bandwith demands, the same way the electrical/gas companies do for their services. Try pulling down 60MW into your house and you will be quickly shut down, but a foundary can easily contract for this services. The same is true for your internet speed.

Continuing the analogy what ISP's can no longer do is cut a deal with GE that anyone that uses GE appliances will get electricity at the normal rate, but anyone who uses Whirlpool appliances will have to pay extra for the same electricity.

As for your specific examples...

1, 2, this is now prohibited
3 - depends on the specifics. A consumer can buy higher speed. It is unclear if you could pay for lower latency.
4, 5, - no FCC limitations. So long as the max usage is in the contract I don't see a fair trade issue either
6 I don't think is a FCC issue so much as a Fair Trade issue. Possibly a contract violation.

 

you guys are all acting like the government motivation is their publicly stated goal. It has become obvious in recent years that the puropose of the government is to safegaurd the monopolies of the worlds largest corporations. This does not appear any different.

It has become clear we can not trust anything any government agency says or does. I am not a conspiracy nut, it is just the factual known history of our government. The current ISPs already have government enforced monopolies, the reason you do not have any choice is becasue the larger provider got law passed that would not allow you to have a choice.

If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP. Unless we decided you can not because it does not meet our standards.

Why is more government always the way to "fix" a problem?

 

Petros,

In this case there are two huge lobbies in conflict so there was a chance that the consumer would be protected. The ISP's on one side, and content owners and producers on the other. Both groups are able to toss massive amounts of money around. So at the end of the day even if you accept your premise either side of the argument was equally good for a politician with his hand out.

 

The FCC's Universal Service Fund gave rural and expensive to service areas telephone service. Otherwise many places wouldn't have been profitable to run lines. "Universal service is a cornerstone of the law that established the FCC, the Communications Act of 1934."