• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Net Neutrality - thoughts?

The way I understand it net neutrality was the policy until ISPs challenged it.

As with anything there are informal expectations. Then when some asshole tries to take advantage of the system then you have to lay down formal rules to get back to the way things were before.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Point being?
Click to expand...

If government was interested in heavily regulating the internet including content, they would have done it from the start. Instead, the government interest in the internet has been to keep it open. This week's actions have been consistent with that interest.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Yes, which belies the earlier contention that the government has had any sort of policy at all (to include "net neutrality") until now, or when they tried to step in a few years back.
Click to expand...

the fact that they had no policy is the problem here
 
EatLeadCommie said:
And how does that demonstrate net neutrality for the entire history of the Internet until that decision?
Click to expand...

The reason for this is primarily a technical one, not a policy one. There's no policy that says the electric company can't degrade all the electricity in your house that's not being sent to GE appliances. It's technically impossible given current infrastructure.

The internet, particularly across the span of an ever-changing ISP space, networking standards, extreme growth, etc. - the ability simply didn't exist to do what can be done today in traffic manipulation. We're not talking about "your IP is X and Netflix is Y and we're slowing it down" stuff. We're talking about network appliances that can dynamically inspect packets for content and alter the routes which those packets take in real time. Five or so years ago reliably streaming something at an HD resolution to millions was borderline impossible, and the network protocols and software updates to make that happen were racing with hardware to keep pace.

Around 3 years ago depending on who you ask, they basically caught up, and what was previously advanced security hardware (and incredibly expensive) became commodity networking capabilities. If you're in the industry, those capabilities alone demanded net neutrality laws. Before the Comcasts of the world had even figured out who or what they would do with packet manipulation, everyone knew the potential for it and that there really weren't any scenarios that would favor the consumer (overall congestion is a red-herring - that's basic stuff managed through pricing tiers and overall traffic monitoring/switching).
 
tjcmd said:
Listen to this podcast from a techie that knows all about the internet.

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-333-could-there-have-been-an-internet-without-the-state/
Click to expand...

ITIF (the organization that Richard Bennett is associated with now) is an extremely libertarian think tank focused on technology. The vast majority of the technology world disagrees with ITIF completely in this area, but I doubt you'll hear that on Tom Woods (lol, seriously - TOM WOODS is what your linking here?) show.

The technology world in general is extremely libertarian - probably moreso than any other industry in the United States or maybe even globally. It's a land of rebels, misfits and dreamers. And the fact you can find support for it from Tim Berners-Lee (head of the World Wide Web Consortium and the inventor of the WWW) all the way to Lawrence Lessig and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and even further fringes of the libertarian world (with the exception of ITIF) should say something.

This isn't a red v. blue political issue, and anyone painting it as such is flat out creating it out of thin air. There should be plenty of debate around this (Internet peering is an extremely complex process that changes extremely rapidly with technological advances and law written for telephone or power networks isn't going to work whole cloth) ... but the general concept has enormously broad support within the entire industry.
 
We can't consider the views of a libertarian techie think tank? Only what Netflix and Google want. The arguments R. Bennett make seem sound to me. Hope somebody is able to thwart the bureaucrats on this one, but I doubt it. Fifteen years from now people will complain about the cost of internet "access" but no one will bring up how cheap it was before 2015.
 
DCDeac said:
The reason for this is primarily a technical one, not a policy one. There's no policy that says the electric company can't degrade all the electricity in your house that's not being sent to GE appliances. It's technically impossible given current infrastructure.

The internet, particularly across the span of an ever-changing ISP space, networking standards, extreme growth, etc. - the ability simply didn't exist to do what can be done today in traffic manipulation. We're not talking about "your IP is X and Netflix is Y and we're slowing it down" stuff. We're talking about network appliances that can dynamically inspect packets for content and alter the routes which those packets take in real time. Five or so years ago reliably streaming something at an HD resolution to millions was borderline impossible, and the network protocols and software updates to make that happen were racing with hardware to keep pace.

Around 3 years ago depending on who you ask, they basically caught up, and what was previously advanced security hardware (and incredibly expensive) became commodity networking capabilities. If you're in the industry, those capabilities alone demanded net neutrality laws. Before the Comcasts of the world had even figured out who or what they would do with packet manipulation, everyone knew the potential for it and that there really weren't any scenarios that would favor the consumer (overall congestion is a red-herring - that's basic stuff managed through pricing tiers and overall traffic monitoring/switching).
Click to expand...

Just the kind of post I was looking for. Thank you.
 
tjcmd said:
We can't consider the views of a libertarian techie think tank? Only what Netflix and Google want. The arguments R. Bennett make seem sound to me. Hope somebody is able to thwart the bureaucrats on this one, but I doubt it. Fifteen years from now people will complain about the cost of internet "access" but no one will bring up how cheap it was before 2015.
Click to expand...

What would a libertarian Internet look like?
 
Explain this to a noob like me. Netflix utilizes like a third of all internet traffic. Does this cost the ISPs more in operating costs than if say Netflix were to disappear tomorrow? Should an internet user have to pay more for a Netflix package vs. a non-Netflix package or should Netflix be asked to defray some of that cost? Or is the additional marginal cost from Netflix for the ISPs very low? Is there any economic sense to charge users based on data downloaded (similar to mobile packages) or are the costs to the providers mostly fixed? I'm just trying to understand the model and better understand both sides. Everything I've read feels very political and doesn't really break down the operating model.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Explain this to a noob like me. Netflix utilizes like a third of all internet traffic. Does this cost the ISPs more in operating costs than if say Netflix were to disappear tomorrow? Should an internet user have to pay more for a Netflix package vs. a non-Netflix package or should Netflix be asked to defray some of that cost? Or is the additional marginal cost from Netflix for the ISPs very low? Is there any economic sense to charge users based on data downloaded (similar to mobile packages) or are the costs to the providers mostly fixed? I'm just trying to understand the model and better understand both sides. Everything I've read feels very political and doesn't really break down the operating model.
Click to expand...

When you purchase access from your ISP, you can pay more for more bandwidth. It may not explicitly be a netflix vs non-netflix package, but if you're running Netflix, and have a kid connected to XBOX live, and perhaps a work laptop trying to connect to your office network over VPN then all of a sudden the bottom tier TWC package doesn't seem to be fast enough during peak usage hours in the evenings.

The ISP's have already priced in tiered bandwidth plans to account for increased usage.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Explain this to a noob like me. Netflix utilizes like a third of all internet traffic. Does this cost the ISPs more in operating costs than if say Netflix were to disappear tomorrow? Should an internet user have to pay more for a Netflix package vs. a non-Netflix package or should Netflix be asked to defray some of that cost? Or is the additional marginal cost from Netflix for the ISPs very low? Is there any economic sense to charge users based on data downloaded (similar to mobile packages) or are the costs to the providers mostly fixed? I'm just trying to understand the model and better understand both sides. Everything I've read feels very political and doesn't really break down the operating model.
Click to expand...

It tends to break politically because there's no technical roadblock. If you sell fishing line for a living, you don't care if your customers are catching 100 different fish or or 70 tuna and some other stuff. You just want there to be tons of fish. The more the better. You want them to catch them faster and faster, demand more and more. Especially because fishing line is all pretty much the same minus its strength. You actually depend on the fish to a great deal because without them you have no customers.

Don't confuse broadband access with cellular networks. There is no capacity issue in the wired internet world. There are no real technical hurdles. It's relatively inexpensive to increase bandwidth. Other less developed countries have better, faster internet access than major US cities.

Lost in all this commiserating with the broadband company nonsense is that by and large - they all enjoy monopolies. They can charge almost twice what other countries charge and provide slower service at the same time. In the fishing metaphor they could make stronger line or find ways to make it cheaper, but there's no incentive to do so in the US broadband market. That takes investment, resources, etc. But throttling back capacity like they did to Netflix - then charging them to get it back - that's easy money. Despite the fact that Netflix and the like actually drive demand for their product - it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the internet is a commodity and they have a monopoly on it.

But that's the model. It's not a high expense precious limited good that providers are barely meeting margins to deliver. It's a golden goose monopoly of an incredibly cheap resource, so valuable that Comcast can afford to spend more lobbying dollars than Lockheed, Boeing, GE, Dow Chemical, or Koch Industries.
 
Good info. Bottom line is that as a customer with X internet package I don't cost more to the ISP whether I'm a heavy Netflix user or someone that doesn't stream much. Is that right?
 
bmoneydeac said:
Good info. Bottom line is that as a customer with X internet package I don't cost more to the ISP whether I'm a heavy Netflix user or someone that doesn't stream much. Is that right?
Click to expand...

Somewhat. All ISPs depend on customers not using all their bandwidth at all times. If an ISP has 100 customers with a 1Gb package, they don't necessarily have a 100Gb line to feed them.

If they're a monopoly with no competition allowed by legislation, they don't have any reasons to do other than the bare minimum. Increased capacity may not be very expensive, but it's not free.
 
DCDeac said:
Lost in all this commiserating with the broadband company nonsense is that by and large - they all enjoy monopolies. They can charge almost twice what other countries charge and provide slower service at the same time. In the fishing metaphor they could make stronger line or find ways to make it cheaper, but there's no incentive to do so in the US broadband market. That takes investment, resources, etc. But throttling back capacity like they did to Netflix - then charging them to get it back - that's easy money. Despite the fact that Netflix and the like actually drive demand for their product - it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the internet is a commodity and they have a monopoly on it.

But that's the model. It's not a high expense precious limited good that providers are barely meeting margins to deliver. It's a golden goose monopoly of an incredibly cheap resource, so valuable that Comcast can afford to spend more lobbying dollars than Lockheed, Boeing, GE, Dow Chemical, or Koch Industries.
Click to expand...

It should be interesting to see if municipalities start offering cheaper internet access to compete with the big ISPs.
 
The city of Lancaster, PA is set to offer free-public WIFI throughout the city (public spaces) via new fiber lines and offer subsidized rates for businesses and low income households this year
 
Liquid Karma said:
It should be interesting to see if municipalities start offering cheaper internet access to compete with the big ISPs.
Click to expand...

That's the idea behind it. Wilson, NC asked the cable company to offer better service to the city. The company declined and Wilson stepped in with better service. The cable company complained and our legislature banned future municipalities from creating their own ISPs.

ImTheCaptain said:
The city of Lancaster, PA is set to offer free-public WIFI throughout the city (public spaces) via new fiber lines and offer subsidized rates for businesses and low income households this year
Click to expand...

IIRC, the current FCC ruling only affects NC and TN. Dunno how to fold other states in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top