5 ms·

I oppose net neutrality regulation. In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as

• jcfrei 9y ago
  I think the Wired article misses the bigger picture. As you mentioned, the industry of providing network access is one with huge economies of scale. The result (if left unregulated) is always a monopoly or an oligopoly - with certain regions belonging to certain providers. Introducing a new competitor is very, very difficult in such a market, regardless of regulations and lowering prices for right of way. Google learned this the hard way - they have stopped their expansion back in 2016. As a government you can either heavily regulate such markets to make sure the consumers get a fair deal (which is what net neutrality is about) or you can turn it into a public service, ie. allow municipalities to provide internet access (what your third article alludes to).
• losteric 9y ago
  > I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases, or even -- to use an example another commenter made -- an appliance manufacturer contracting with electrical utilities to subsidize the cost of electricity used by their appliances. Strawman argument because zero-rating != net neutrality. Amazon does NOT pay for prioritization, they get volume discounts... meaning they pay less to get their package "into the pipe" but the pipeline treats all packages equally. That is what net neutrality looks like - all content is treated equally in the pipe. The relevant example would be if Newegg packages were put on the broken slow trucks, or shoved in a pile until all the Amazo npackages have been delivered. This is obviously unacceptable and does not happen. I'd love to hear more about your appliance manufacturer example because that sounds very unusual. However, again, that's fair because there's no issue of prioritization. Every appliance gets equal access, and brownouts impact all appliances equally. Electric non-neutrality would be: Chromebooks don't charge during a power outage, but Apple laptops do because they paid the electricity company extra. Also obviously unacceptable. > I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect. > I've heard people argue that zero-rating makes it harder for smaller content providers to compete, since they won't have the resources to subsidize their customers' traffic. As I said in another comment, that's just the nature of business. A practice that makes it harder for smaller content providers is also known as an anti-competitive practice. > As I said in another comment, that's just the nature of business. Being big affords you certain advantages, like economies of scale. This makes it easier to compete on price. Smaller companies have to compete in other ways. True free markets don't have an entry fee, consumers are the only ones to decide who is competitive. For all it's imperfections, the internet is the freest market we have - any idea or product can enter the market, and every consumer has equal unrestricted access to the domain it's located at. > In my view, the real problem with the telecom industry in the United States is a lack of competition [0], a problem caused at least in part by municipal [1] and state [2] governments. With more competition, net neutrality would be a non-issue. This is definitely a contributing factor, net neutrality would be a suicidal proposal if we had competitive ISPs. That says something about the idea. It's a nice hypothetical, but we must regulate based on reality, with the intent of creating freer markets. And the reality is these FCC rollbacks are ment to further undermine competition. The big ISPs don't want to keep investing in network growth and competing on service, they want to auction access to a fixed-capacity network. Remember the good ol' days of Ma Bell and those lovely long-distance fees? I thought we killed the beast but Frankenstein's monster is back.
• scythe 9y ago
  I think that this comment is basically right about the economics of the situation, but because it focuses on economics it misjudges the ideal role of the Internet in society by considering it (only) as an aggregate of capital, i.e. an economic tool. Economic tools in this case work for the benefit of individuals on an individual self-interested basis. However, the Internet also acts as a medium for communication and socializing, which has benefits to society which cannot be explained by direct benefits to individuals from their self-interested exploitation of the medium. As an example, consider a case where a person reads a moral argument online and chooses to act less selfishly than they would have otherwise. This has a negative direct effect on the individual's actual life, but the outcome of many such events is a net positive for society. So too is it a social benefit if, for example, people in an economically undeveloped city learn about the effects of wood fires on air quality and switch to electric or gas cooking. And these are not services that any individual pays for. As such it is important that the Internet is regulated to ensure, among various other goals, that as many people may be socially connected via the network as is possible. However, the ongoing centralization of the network has resulted in the perception among many people that online social activity is becoming increasingly confined to fora in which self-expression is either officially restricted or may cause the poster to be targeted for harassment. In reality, this is a result of the fact that some people just don't get along, and you've either got to keep them on lockdown or separate them, cynical as it sounds. As such, the claim that, for example, big companies having an advantage is "just how business works" must be evaluated in light of the effects it's having on our social environment (which we depend on). In practice, some groups of dissatisfied people (of varying political views but we all know who I'm really concerned about) have started to avoid the mainstream altogether, and because small companies are at a "just business" disadvantage, people unsatisfied with mainstream Western online media often turn to media sources owned by countries such as Russia or Qatar, or subsidized by billionaires with questionable motives, and so forth. It stands to reason that encouraging the network to grow in a way that supports "grassroots" alternatives to social media may limit the ability of unscrupulous actors with capital to influence politics. It's always been my understanding that limiting group size reduces conflict and so if net neutrality gives smaller companies an "unfair" advantage and leads to lower economic growth, I think it would still be a good thing. But primarily, I want to emphasize that the Internet is not just a service provided to individuals.
• croon 9y ago
  > For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases Two things: 1) Net neutrality is about not slowing down transit of all other packages (that don't get paid extra for) 2) Your comparison is flawed. Comcast isn't the mail carrier, Comcast is the (only) road. If Amazon makes a deal with a CDN (if they didn't have their own) or any other middle-man service on the net, that isn't an issue, nor related to net neutrality at all.
  • paulddraper 9y ago
    (1) Sure. Pay more for mail and it goes faster. Amazon helps gets that increase in speed subsidized. (2) Generally incorrect.
    • croon 9y ago
      1) First off, the comparison like I said is flawed, but just to play ball: Other peoples mail doesn't get slowed by you paying for premium shipping. 2) Do you care to expand on that with reasoning or logic?
      • paulddraper 9y ago
        (1) They most certainly are slowed down. Mail services have limited bandwidth (e.g. Christmas), and higher priority package can and do displace low priority ones. (2) Usually ISPs don't have a monopoly.
        • croon 9y ago
          1) Which is either where the comparison gets accurate to bandwidth without net neutrality, or breaks as a comparison with net neutrality, because then it's FIFO regardless of which service/delivery network. 2) When you say usually, do you mean globally or in the US where we're discussing net neutrality? Because there most certainly usually is a local monopoly.
• delazeur 9y ago
  > to use an example another commenter made -- an appliance manufacturer contracting with electrical utilities to subsidize the cost of electricity used by their appliances Is that something you are claiming currently occurs, or something you think should be allowed to occur? IANAL, but I do work in the energy/electricity sector, and that sounds illegal. Utility regulations tend to be fairly strict.