5 ms·

Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

26 points by dwwoelfel 17y ago

wmf 17y ago
TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
- SlyShy 17y ago
  Quite. I looked up some other articles by this guy, and his viewpoint is very evident.
- api 17y ago
  ISPs networks are not (totally) private property though. They are in many cases publicly subsidized, and they operate with a state-backed grant of monopoly or oligopoly within each region. IMHO, regardless of what you think of Objectivism or libertarianism, the standard libertarian critique of government interference does not apply to net neutrality. It would apply if telecom were actually a free market and if telcos did not receive large amounts of state support. Conservatives and most libertarians usually fail the see the distinction between actual private businesses that operate in a free market (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.) and state-backed quasi-private enterprises like telcos. The latter are aptly called "Soviet bureaus."
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I don't think they fail to see the distinction, but instead of further cementing government control they in fact argue that telcos should lose their government privileges and be left to compete in the market. Sure at first they will have significant advantages but as time goes on competition should be able to function.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Yeah, because if I have a problem with my ISP, I'll just head to the bank, borrow a few hundred billion and build my own backbone.
      - jquery 17y ago
        This is sort of funny, but despite receiving many more upvotes than its parent, it displays a startling lack of understanding of the capitalist system. More likely than you borrowing a few "hundred billion," large, midsize, and even small corporations would invest a "few million" in a city or neighborhood somewhere and use the profits to continue investing in other profitable areas. They might even collaborate and start connecting entire cities together (oh look, a backbone). I find this a much more desirable outcome than a government-run or (the current) psuedo-government run scenario.
        jbooth 17y ago
        Well, ok Mr. Capitalist, why hasn't that happened yet? It's certainly not because the existing cable companies' sterling customer service leaves no room for improvement.
        dantheman 17y ago
        It hasn't happened because most communities grant a monopoly to their cable provider so their can only be one legal cable company in a given area.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  That might be true but it's irrelevant. I'd have no objection if you left out the introductory clause. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - wmf 17y ago
    Actually I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that you probably don't need to read this (long-winded) article because it simply reiterates a well-known and well-worn position.
    - chasingsparks 17y ago
      Sorry. I didn't notice your TLDR tag.
- tkahn6 17y ago
  That's not an argument and it adds very little to the discussion. I don't know why you're being voted up. If you disagree with his points, state your reasons.
- jquery 17y ago
  Ultracapitalist? You mean an entrepreneur? Or were you just trying to slur someone for having a different viewpoint?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pyre 17y ago
> Were it not for net neutrality, a start-up ISP might compete against Comcast by configuring its fledgling network to favor Bit Torrent’s peer-to-peer data packets, thereby earning it the business of serious movie downloaders without having to match or exceed Comcast in expensive infrastructure. Really? If someone advertised their ISP as 'BitTorrent-friendly' they would have to contend with the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc trying to sue their company back into the stone-age. > If an ISP were left alone to manage the transmission of data packets across its property, it could profitably improve the speed of its network, it could profit from charging more for more bandwidth consumption, and it could profit from providing special services to certain customers, such as smoothly streaming high-definition video feeds. But because none of these things is possible under net neutrality’s rules, the property of Internet service providers is worth considerably less to them in terms of its profit potential. Accordingly, their incentive to expand and improve the infrastructure on which the Internet relies is greatly diminished. The government poured billions into the country's major ISPs to 'upgrade infrastructure' and there was little to no return on that investment. Infrastructure was not upgraded and we are now at a point where ISPs are trying to claim that their networks can no longer handle capacity, so they are forced to do filtering and 'QoS.' Where did all of that money go? Shouldn't the free market have allowed the ISPs to use that money to improve their networks so that they could reap larger rewards from those better built networks? The problem with trying to treat Internet Service Providers as some sort of 'free market' is that it isn't. There are huge barriers to entry in the market, and well-established incumbents. Most places in the USA only have 1 or 2 choices for internet service. How is this in any way a 'free market' that the government should say out of? In fact, the governments created this mess in the first place by creating phone company and cable company monopolies. Now these telcos preach about how 'the market should be free' just because they have a huge advantage (i.e. established customers and deep-pockets) against any possible competitors. Which is a hypocritical stance seeing as they are where they are today due to government-granted monopolies. tl;dr The ISP business model: 1. Get the government to give you a lead in the market through a monopoly 2. Grow your business by leaps and bounds during this monopoly period 3. Government opens market 4. Complain that government intervention in the market is evil and lobby against the government helping out any potential competitors
- dantheman 17y ago
lmkg 17y ago
The problem with a lack of net neutrality is not how ISPs relate to their paying customers, it's how they relate to content providers. That's not to say that I agree with the arguments in the article; I find them extremely distasteful, although there is some reasoning behind them, based on ideas of morality that I disagree with but don't find completely invalid. I'll outline the scenario that worries me. Comcast sends all internet data as second-tier data, unless the content provider pays Comcast to provide it as first-tier data. The difference between the two is small, say one or two tenths of a second in delivery time. The end user doesn't notice a difference. But, as Google has found, the extra tenth of a second has huge impacts on conversion for websites. So, Comcast effectively offers the same experience to users, but now also holds a huge sword over the head of content provides. Effectively, it is in an excellent position to leverage its ISP monopoly to create a massive extortion racket to content providers. And the magical free market isn't going to push back against Comcast, because the experience for the end-user has not noticeably suffered. It's quite possible that under such a system the internet could actually be free, because it's subsidized by corporate content provider partners, and charging the content consumers becomes obsolete, although I doubt Comcast would suddenly drop a revenue source. However, it also raises the barrier to entry for small content providers, because they don't have the spare cash to pay Comcast for non-sub-standard conversion rates. In a (weasel) word, it's less democratic. Not to mention, Comcast can sustain its monopoly on ISPs by giving even shittier third-tier access to its competitors. The end result is a less-free internet, Comcast enriching themselves by abusing a monopoly, and all of this done without Comcast delivering a higher-quality internet to users. I think I'll take my stupid pipes, please. I agree with the author insofar as I accept that his conclusion is consistent with Objectivism, although it's still debatable if owning the wires means owning the data that goes through the wires. Fortunately for me, I'm a pragmatist, not an Objectivist, and I think the loss of property rights (if any!) is perfectly acceptable for the benefits to expression and communication.
- jbooth 17y ago
  It's worth saying, that if the ISPs are taxing the content providers, and are totally free to do so on a discriminatory basis... We actually have a much-less-free market for everyone except the ISPs, who operate in a totally-not-free market to begin with. Way to go, free marketeers. Don't let those details fool you, just stick with the ideology.
sshumaker 17y ago
There is one critical flaw with the reasoning of all these opponents of Net Neutrality. They claim the ISPs should have the right to regulate traffic to remain 'competitive', and that users who aren't happy with the regulation can simply choose another ISP. That's how the free market works. Except this isn't really a free market. In most locations, consumers only have a single choice for broadband access (or two at most). Most ISPs have a regional monopoly. So if your local cable provider decides to charge you extra to access wikipedia, you're SOL. You can't appeal to the 'free market' when there really isn't one. Your only choice is to create one, which is exactly what net neutrality aims to do.
- wmf 17y ago
  Since the lack of broadband competition may be caused by government regulation, the author would prefer total deregulation rather than Net Neutrality or the status quo: "The key to competition in the Internet is less regulation, not the added regulation entailed by net neutrality. ... We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet..."
  - necubi 17y ago
    Except that it's not created by government regulation, tt just doesn't make economic sense. Broadband is very much a natural monopoly, like electricity or water. In a free market, the first few incumbents (usually the phone provider and the cable provider) who have already built out their infrastructure for old services (phone and cable TV) have a huge advantage over any other company, which would have to spend billions to lay their own wires. Thus market forces prevent any other company from entering the market. Furthermore, it's not really clear that the socially desirable outcome is to promote competition at the line level. Because each producer has to spend billions on infrastructure to serve fewer people (because the more providers there are, the fewer customers for each), costs will be higher and profits lower the more companies enter the market. The best solution is in fact government regulation. Instead of promoting competition at the line-level, governments should (and most OECD countries do, with the exception of Mexico, the Slovak Republic and...the US) require local-loop unbundling, whereby the incumbent telco is given a monopoly on laying lines to houses but is required to lease their lines to competitors at a set price. For more information, read the Berkman Center's Broadband report, which was commissioned by the FCC and is presently the more thorough empirical look at these topics. It's available here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/.
rbranson 17y ago
Just because someone owns property does not mean that they have unending rights to do with that property what they wish. Go buy a piece of land in the middle of the city, build a giant bonfire, and see what happens. Due to state "regulation," your landlord can't just barge in on his/her property whenever he/she wishes. Laws like this have existed to protect the weak or meek for ages. In a sense, "property" does not exist. Property only exists because laws exist to protect it. If the country you live in is invaded by a more powerful nation, how much do you think your "property" matters at that time? It's just a set of limited rights granted to you by the government, not unlimited license to do whatever you wish.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  What you are suggesting depends entirely on the source of rights. If rights are granted by men and can be removed then you're right. If your rights are inherent or granted by God then you are incorrect. If my rights are granted by God (and included in those rights is the right to private ownership) then if someone invades my land they are violating God's law. Private property is the basic requirement of wealth. It is defined by law to codify what existed for the protection and benefit of everyone. I'm basically quoting Aristotle here.
  - hugh3 17y ago
    If God has laws to protect our rights, then He really should be way more vigilant about enforcing them. Rights aren't granted by men, they're asserted by men. We have the right to free speech because we assert that we have the right to free speech, and the collective will of those who wish to assert the right to free speech is (currently, in this country, for the most part) greater than the will of those who wish to restrict it. This is why it's so important that we all agree on what rights we do have, and that we all spend a lot of time vigourously asserting them.
    - rbranson 17y ago
      ^^^ This is mostly exactly what I'm getting at, but said in a much more eloquent way. Thank you.
rapind 17y ago
Bittorrent invented P2P... Stopped reading when I hit that. --edit-- Read it again and he says "developed p2p" which could be construed as further developed I suppose. Benefit of the doubt.
dionysiac 17y ago
Government control of private property - this is how some public utilities operate. Private industry builds the infrastructure, but the government aims to bring stability through regulation to what a large part of the general population sees as an essential service. This article makes the analogy to the printing press; that the Internet is changing our worldwide society dramatically. Those who are for net neutrality (myself included) would likely agree - that this transformation is a positive thing and should move towards becoming an essential service. How this is accomplished - either through private industry or government ownership - is really just a matter of culture. Many countries have significant government ownership of network infrastructure.
- jonallanharper 17y ago
  Many countries gradually cannibalize themselves in the name of the "public good" as well. USA has been the only experiment in capitalism so far (and a raving success until the income tax was instituted)... why re-model on failed socialist principles?
avdempsey 17y ago
I wonder if there's a simile to make with electric utilities. A "smart grid" could potentially distinguish between surcharge-able electrons, just as a "smart internet" (one without net neurtrality) could distinguish between good and bad packets. Would you want an electric utility to be able to charge you more because you bought the wrong brand of refrigerator? Or were charging an imported electric car? Of course utilities will charge more for peak hour usage right now, but at least every electron is charged the same at that time. What do you think?

26 points by dwwoelfel 17y ago

wmf 17y ago

TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.

SlyShy 17y ago
Quite. I looked up some other articles by this guy, and his viewpoint is very evident.
api 17y ago
ISPs networks are not (totally) private property though. They are in many cases publicly subsidized, and they operate with a state-backed grant of monopoly or oligopoly within each region. IMHO, regardless of what you think of Objectivism or libertarianism, the standard libertarian critique of government interference does not apply to net neutrality. It would apply if telecom were actually a free market and if telcos did not receive large amounts of state support. Conservatives and most libertarians usually fail the see the distinction between actual private businesses that operate in a free market (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.) and state-backed quasi-private enterprises like telcos. The latter are aptly called "Soviet bureaus."
- dantheman 17y ago
  I don't think they fail to see the distinction, but instead of further cementing government control they in fact argue that telcos should lose their government privileges and be left to compete in the market. Sure at first they will have significant advantages but as time goes on competition should be able to function.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Yeah, because if I have a problem with my ISP, I'll just head to the bank, borrow a few hundred billion and build my own backbone.
    - jquery 17y ago
      This is sort of funny, but despite receiving many more upvotes than its parent, it displays a startling lack of understanding of the capitalist system. More likely than you borrowing a few "hundred billion," large, midsize, and even small corporations would invest a "few million" in a city or neighborhood somewhere and use the profits to continue investing in other profitable areas. They might even collaborate and start connecting entire cities together (oh look, a backbone). I find this a much more desirable outcome than a government-run or (the current) psuedo-government run scenario.
      - jbooth 17y ago
        Well, ok Mr. Capitalist, why hasn't that happened yet? It's certainly not because the existing cable companies' sterling customer service leaves no room for improvement.
        dantheman 17y ago
        It hasn't happened because most communities grant a monopoly to their cable provider so their can only be one legal cable company in a given area.
chasingsparks 17y ago
That might be true but it's irrelevant. I'd have no objection if you left out the introductory clause. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- wmf 17y ago
  Actually I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that you probably don't need to read this (long-winded) article because it simply reiterates a well-known and well-worn position.
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    Sorry. I didn't notice your TLDR tag.
tkahn6 17y ago
That's not an argument and it adds very little to the discussion. I don't know why you're being voted up. If you disagree with his points, state your reasons.
jquery 17y ago
Ultracapitalist? You mean an entrepreneur? Or were you just trying to slur someone for having a different viewpoint?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pyre 17y ago

> Were it not for net neutrality, a start-up ISP might compete against Comcast by configuring its fledgling network to favor Bit Torrent’s peer-to-peer data packets, thereby earning it the business of serious movie downloaders without having to match or exceed Comcast in expensive infrastructure. Really? If someone advertised their ISP as 'BitTorrent-friendly' they would have to contend with the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc trying to sue their company back into the stone-age. > If an ISP were left alone to manage the transmission of data packets across its property, it could profitably improve the speed of its network, it could profit from charging more for more bandwidth consumption, and it could profit from providing special services to certain customers, such as smoothly streaming high-definition video feeds. But because none of these things is possible under net neutrality’s rules, the property of Internet service providers is worth considerably less to them in terms of its profit potential. Accordingly, their incentive to expand and improve the infrastructure on which the Internet relies is greatly diminished. The government poured billions into the country's major ISPs to 'upgrade infrastructure' and there was little to no return on that investment. Infrastructure was not upgraded and we are now at a point where ISPs are trying to claim that their networks can no longer handle capacity, so they are forced to do filtering and 'QoS.' Where did all of that money go? Shouldn't the free market have allowed the ISPs to use that money to improve their networks so that they could reap larger rewards from those better built networks? The problem with trying to treat Internet Service Providers as some sort of 'free market' is that it isn't. There are huge barriers to entry in the market, and well-established incumbents. Most places in the USA only have 1 or 2 choices for internet service. How is this in any way a 'free market' that the government should say out of? In fact, the governments created this mess in the first place by creating phone company and cable company monopolies. Now these telcos preach about how 'the market should be free' just because they have a huge advantage (i.e. established customers and deep-pockets) against any possible competitors. Which is a hypocritical stance seeing as they are where they are today due to government-granted monopolies. tl;dr The ISP business model: 1. Get the government to give you a lead in the market through a monopoly 2. Grow your business by leaps and bounds during this monopoly period 3. Government opens market 4. Complain that government intervention in the market is evil and lobby against the government helping out any potential competitors

dantheman 17y ago

lmkg 17y ago

The problem with a lack of net neutrality is not how ISPs relate to their paying customers, it's how they relate to content providers. That's not to say that I agree with the arguments in the article; I find them extremely distasteful, although there is some reasoning behind them, based on ideas of morality that I disagree with but don't find completely invalid. I'll outline the scenario that worries me. Comcast sends all internet data as second-tier data, unless the content provider pays Comcast to provide it as first-tier data. The difference between the two is small, say one or two tenths of a second in delivery time. The end user doesn't notice a difference. But, as Google has found, the extra tenth of a second has huge impacts on conversion for websites. So, Comcast effectively offers the same experience to users, but now also holds a huge sword over the head of content provides. Effectively, it is in an excellent position to leverage its ISP monopoly to create a massive extortion racket to content providers. And the magical free market isn't going to push back against Comcast, because the experience for the end-user has not noticeably suffered. It's quite possible that under such a system the internet could actually be free, because it's subsidized by corporate content provider partners, and charging the content consumers becomes obsolete, although I doubt Comcast would suddenly drop a revenue source. However, it also raises the barrier to entry for small content providers, because they don't have the spare cash to pay Comcast for non-sub-standard conversion rates. In a (weasel) word, it's less democratic. Not to mention, Comcast can sustain its monopoly on ISPs by giving even shittier third-tier access to its competitors. The end result is a less-free internet, Comcast enriching themselves by abusing a monopoly, and all of this done without Comcast delivering a higher-quality internet to users. I think I'll take my stupid pipes, please. I agree with the author insofar as I accept that his conclusion is consistent with Objectivism, although it's still debatable if owning the wires means owning the data that goes through the wires. Fortunately for me, I'm a pragmatist, not an Objectivist, and I think the loss of property rights (if any!) is perfectly acceptable for the benefits to expression and communication.

jbooth 17y ago
It's worth saying, that if the ISPs are taxing the content providers, and are totally free to do so on a discriminatory basis... We actually have a much-less-free market for everyone except the ISPs, who operate in a totally-not-free market to begin with. Way to go, free marketeers. Don't let those details fool you, just stick with the ideology.

sshumaker 17y ago

There is one critical flaw with the reasoning of all these opponents of Net Neutrality. They claim the ISPs should have the right to regulate traffic to remain 'competitive', and that users who aren't happy with the regulation can simply choose another ISP. That's how the free market works. Except this isn't really a free market. In most locations, consumers only have a single choice for broadband access (or two at most). Most ISPs have a regional monopoly. So if your local cable provider decides to charge you extra to access wikipedia, you're SOL. You can't appeal to the 'free market' when there really isn't one. Your only choice is to create one, which is exactly what net neutrality aims to do.

wmf 17y ago
Since the lack of broadband competition may be caused by government regulation, the author would prefer total deregulation rather than Net Neutrality or the status quo: "The key to competition in the Internet is less regulation, not the added regulation entailed by net neutrality. ... We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet..."
- necubi 17y ago
  Except that it's not created by government regulation, tt just doesn't make economic sense. Broadband is very much a natural monopoly, like electricity or water. In a free market, the first few incumbents (usually the phone provider and the cable provider) who have already built out their infrastructure for old services (phone and cable TV) have a huge advantage over any other company, which would have to spend billions to lay their own wires. Thus market forces prevent any other company from entering the market. Furthermore, it's not really clear that the socially desirable outcome is to promote competition at the line level. Because each producer has to spend billions on infrastructure to serve fewer people (because the more providers there are, the fewer customers for each), costs will be higher and profits lower the more companies enter the market. The best solution is in fact government regulation. Instead of promoting competition at the line-level, governments should (and most OECD countries do, with the exception of Mexico, the Slovak Republic and...the US) require local-loop unbundling, whereby the incumbent telco is given a monopoly on laying lines to houses but is required to lease their lines to competitors at a set price. For more information, read the Berkman Center's Broadband report, which was commissioned by the FCC and is presently the more thorough empirical look at these topics. It's available here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/.

rbranson 17y ago

Just because someone owns property does not mean that they have unending rights to do with that property what they wish. Go buy a piece of land in the middle of the city, build a giant bonfire, and see what happens. Due to state "regulation," your landlord can't just barge in on his/her property whenever he/she wishes. Laws like this have existed to protect the weak or meek for ages. In a sense, "property" does not exist. Property only exists because laws exist to protect it. If the country you live in is invaded by a more powerful nation, how much do you think your "property" matters at that time? It's just a set of limited rights granted to you by the government, not unlimited license to do whatever you wish.

jswinghammer 17y ago
What you are suggesting depends entirely on the source of rights. If rights are granted by men and can be removed then you're right. If your rights are inherent or granted by God then you are incorrect. If my rights are granted by God (and included in those rights is the right to private ownership) then if someone invades my land they are violating God's law. Private property is the basic requirement of wealth. It is defined by law to codify what existed for the protection and benefit of everyone. I'm basically quoting Aristotle here.
- hugh3 17y ago
  If God has laws to protect our rights, then He really should be way more vigilant about enforcing them. Rights aren't granted by men, they're asserted by men. We have the right to free speech because we assert that we have the right to free speech, and the collective will of those who wish to assert the right to free speech is (currently, in this country, for the most part) greater than the will of those who wish to restrict it. This is why it's so important that we all agree on what rights we do have, and that we all spend a lot of time vigourously asserting them.
  - rbranson 17y ago
    ^^^ This is mostly exactly what I'm getting at, but said in a much more eloquent way. Thank you.

rapind 17y ago

Bittorrent invented P2P... Stopped reading when I hit that. --edit-- Read it again and he says "developed p2p" which could be construed as further developed I suppose. Benefit of the doubt.

dionysiac 17y ago

Government control of private property - this is how some public utilities operate. Private industry builds the infrastructure, but the government aims to bring stability through regulation to what a large part of the general population sees as an essential service. This article makes the analogy to the printing press; that the Internet is changing our worldwide society dramatically. Those who are for net neutrality (myself included) would likely agree - that this transformation is a positive thing and should move towards becoming an essential service. How this is accomplished - either through private industry or government ownership - is really just a matter of culture. Many countries have significant government ownership of network infrastructure.

jonallanharper 17y ago
Many countries gradually cannibalize themselves in the name of the "public good" as well. USA has been the only experiment in capitalism so far (and a raving success until the income tax was instituted)... why re-model on failed socialist principles?

avdempsey 17y ago

I wonder if there's a simile to make with electric utilities. A "smart grid" could potentially distinguish between surcharge-able electrons, just as a "smart internet" (one without net neurtrality) could distinguish between good and bad packets. Would you want an electric utility to be able to charge you more because you bought the wrong brand of refrigerator? Or were charging an imported electric car? Of course utilities will charge more for peak hour usage right now, but at least every electron is charged the same at that time. What do you think?