11 ms·

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers vs private corporations? Any good sources you'd suggest reading on the pros and cons of each side of the argument?

shanusmagnus 9y ago
1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig? 2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  I think hardware stores are maybe not the best comparison because if a hardware store was doing that then it would be pretty easy for a competitor to open a hardware store across the street and undercut the first on shovels and steal all the business. I think this might be a better solution than a law that specifically mandates the price at which a hardware store can sell shovels, since I think that law would only address a very specific problem caused by a larger underlying issue. I think the shovel case at least, when the market can sort something out then it's "better" to let it do so. For Amazon/Netflix, at least on the surface, I would say that the ISP and the content provider can ask for whatever they want and whether or not they get it will be a function of how much each one needs the other. Perhaps ironically a very similar system to how internet peering currently works (the little guy pays the bigger guy for transit).
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    To agree with your initial point: hardware stores do sell different kinds of shovels, for different digging tasks.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      They do. But that's not the question being asked. It is, should a hardware store be able to charge different prices for the same kind of shovel?
opportune 9y ago
These ISP companies use legal shenanigans, coupled with the unavoidably large startup costs of creating a new/competing ISP, to effectively run regional monopolies. Google kind of gave up their master plan for Fiber after they were litigated in multiple jurisdictions essentially over bullshit that they were legally within their right to do, such as use shared lines - and that was Google, which had a ton of cash to throw at the problem. These monopolies aren't so bad by themselves; we have similar monopolies with power and water. But those are regulated so that their monopolies can't be blatantly abused. ISPs are trying to roll back regulations that, in the minds of pro-NN people, will allow them to abuse consumers using their monopolies. The problem with what these network providers are doing is that they own both the lines and the content. For example, if your ISP is a shareholder in Hulu, they're going to charge way more for Netflix to stream than Hulu, so they can essentially use this new ruling in an anti-competitive manner. I'm not sure what most of the anti-net neutrality side's supporting arguments are aside from the fact that the regulations are unfairly limiting ISP's abilities to make money. They will mention that these regulations are affecting the free market, but in my opinion other existing regulations are much worse about limiting the effects of the free market, except those would make it easier for ISPs to be competed against, not harder.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  Thanks for the detailed reply. It seems like a lot of the disagreement hinges on the fact that ISPs have a monopoly and many people cannot easily "vote with their wallet" if the ISP does something they don't like. I wonder if focusing on making it easier for competitive ISPs to start up would do more towards bridging the gap between the two sides. I think a lot of the anti-NN crowd is based on a more philosophical argument, that if the ISP built the infrastructure then they own it and they should be able to charge $1 million per day for access if they want (they would obviously not do that because nobody would pay it) I wonder what is the biggest impediment to setting up a legitimately competitive ISP? Presumably the (ostensibly wasteful) cost of duplicating the last-mile infrastructure? As an aside, do you have more info on the legal challenges to google fiber?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
dawnerd 9y ago
In theory that makes sense but if you build a network and actively fight to prevent any one else from also running lines, thats where we have a problem.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mozumder 9y ago
It's because you're already charging the end-user the rights to access all of the Internet. It's paid for by the user, not the taxpayer. Limiting websites they can access is a violation of that agreement with the end user.
Delmania 9y ago
> What is the actual reason they shouldn't? In many areas of the United States, there is only one ISP available. Part of this is due to the high cost of entry, but the ISPs also have a past filled with rather shady activity. Verizon was given federal money to expand their network, did a fraction of the work, and then used their influence to pocket the rest. Comcast will throw lawsuits at new ISPs in order to bankrupt them. Because of this the ISPs already use their monopoly position to take as much money as possible via data caps and bandwidth. I believe Comcast is on record as saying data caps aren't needed, but no one can stop them. The reality is ISPs are some of the most greedy, unethical companies around that exploit their monopoly position for their bottom line. Either regulation needs to be in place or the government needs to incentivize and protect new ISPs.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  I think maybe this (barriers to entry) is the crux of the issue. Can you help me find more info on verizon and comcast doing these things?
  - todayiamme 9y ago
    Here's a map of the major players carving up territory like cartels; https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer-choices-europeans https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet... Notice how almost none of the service areas intersect? Internet competitiveness in the US is measured by census zones, and they know that. So they carve up territory block by block, allowing them to be engage in "competition" without competing. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-to-tell-the-fcc-exactly-where-they-offer-internet-service/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-t...) And here's one of the many, many court cases and lobbying efforts they've engaged in to keep rivals from getting a toe hold in their territory; https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...
- matt4077 9y ago
  No, no, no! This is not the problem with net neutrality. This is some generic argument for the regulation of monopolies, and as such, it is fine. But net neutrality is devious beyond the abuse of a local monopoly. It doesn't matter if there are ten ISPs available to any given consumer. The problem is that creates a new monopoly: that of access to an ISPs subscriber. See my aunt-comment (to this) for the full argument.
nathan_long 9y ago
> What is the actual reason they shouldn't? Imagine there's no Netflix yet. People are using the web, and ISPs are selling tiny-bandwidth plans. Along comes a streaming movie service and people love it. All of a sudden, ISP customers are saying "I want more bandwidth and I'll pay more for it." Can the ISP say, with a straight face, that Netflix is costing them money?
ball_of_lint 9y ago
In the US the internet has become a utility. You can possibly live without it in the same way that you could possibly live without running water, but to be a functional and normal member of society you need access to it. It is used for everything from communication to shopping. Giving cable companies control over what people can/cannot see on the internet or how much websites cost to view allows them to extort any one that uses the internet to conduct or attract business. Furthermore, the internet has now become a public meeting place. Many people communicate with each other solely through the internet and voice their opinions there. Giving cable companies the ability to legally prevent two IPs from communicating is akin to preventing mail between them. Basically, because of the ways that the internet has come to be used and the basic expectation of privacy that people have when it comes to similar things such as mail, many people would consider it wrong to remove any semblance of privacy or fairness from the internet, which is what repealing net neutrality does.
SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
Your argument would be valid if it were possible for alternate internet providers to pop up. However there isn't anything comparable to cable right now that you could call an alternative.
kharms 9y ago
Looking past the financing question, all (major) telecommunications networks are built via eminent domain, and as such must necessarily serve the public good.
matt4077 9y ago
The problem is that the price you (as the ISP) choose to charge some new startup is not subject to competition. That's because you're not charging your customers. You're selling them to that startup. The startup has no choice but to pay if they want to have a chance of reaching these potential customers. That means ISPs will have to ability to milk every cent of value generated out of startups, limited only by their ability to measure it. The normal mechanisms of a market don't kick in, because the customers will be unaware of what's happening. They're not going to change providers only because that provider is shaking down some startup they've never heard of.
zipwitch 9y ago
Something that seems to be forgotten in this day and age is that corporations exist at the pleasure of the citizens (aka taxpayers) because said corporations offer them things that are deemed to be net public goods. Why should you be allowed to build your network in our country in the first place? (Especially when we could do it ourselves at cost and not give you a percentage off the top?)
- webXL 9y ago
  I think you're conflating a legal term with actual people, who do the existing, offering, and building. These people (who work under a legal entity with rights, protections, and regulations) pay taxes while they exchange their product or service for our dollars. The service can be anything people want or need. Grocery, clothing, book stores, bars, cafes, airlines... Ignore the "percentage off the top". Why is that a concern of yours? Do you not tip at restaurants or give to charity? Part of your gain can be someone else's. It's all voluntary in the free market. Not only are you free to not to give money to these corporations, you are free to start your own non-profit service, with a similar legal structure. You have to appeal to investors' altruism rather than their self-interest. A big challenge, but not outside the realm of possibility depending on the market you 'd like to cater to.
xenadu02 9y ago
Building a network requires laying cables on other people’s private property. Without the government giving them the right to do this they would never be able to negotiate with each individual land owner and networks would not be possible. Wireless has the same problem: use of the airwaves, a public good no one can own. We issue licenses for them otherwise it would be a tragedy of the commons situation where no one would be able to successfully use them. The internet (and most of its popular protocols) was invented and established due to public funding and released to the world for free. So quite literally ISPs would not have a business whatsoever without free public assistance. As a result they owe us a lot more than the average business.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Why should you get paid more because your users were streaming Netflix as opposed to doing anything else with the traffic? You, as a network provider, are already peering with other network providers, and so you're getting paid for (and paying for) the bandwidth that's getting used. What you're after is an extra slice of the pie from Netflix.

shanusmagnus 9y ago

1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig? 2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
I think hardware stores are maybe not the best comparison because if a hardware store was doing that then it would be pretty easy for a competitor to open a hardware store across the street and undercut the first on shovels and steal all the business. I think this might be a better solution than a law that specifically mandates the price at which a hardware store can sell shovels, since I think that law would only address a very specific problem caused by a larger underlying issue. I think the shovel case at least, when the market can sort something out then it's "better" to let it do so. For Amazon/Netflix, at least on the surface, I would say that the ISP and the content provider can ask for whatever they want and whether or not they get it will be a function of how much each one needs the other. Perhaps ironically a very similar system to how internet peering currently works (the little guy pays the bigger guy for transit).
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  To agree with your initial point: hardware stores do sell different kinds of shovels, for different digging tasks.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    They do. But that's not the question being asked. It is, should a hardware store be able to charge different prices for the same kind of shovel?

opportune 9y ago

These ISP companies use legal shenanigans, coupled with the unavoidably large startup costs of creating a new/competing ISP, to effectively run regional monopolies. Google kind of gave up their master plan for Fiber after they were litigated in multiple jurisdictions essentially over bullshit that they were legally within their right to do, such as use shared lines - and that was Google, which had a ton of cash to throw at the problem. These monopolies aren't so bad by themselves; we have similar monopolies with power and water. But those are regulated so that their monopolies can't be blatantly abused. ISPs are trying to roll back regulations that, in the minds of pro-NN people, will allow them to abuse consumers using their monopolies. The problem with what these network providers are doing is that they own both the lines and the content. For example, if your ISP is a shareholder in Hulu, they're going to charge way more for Netflix to stream than Hulu, so they can essentially use this new ruling in an anti-competitive manner. I'm not sure what most of the anti-net neutrality side's supporting arguments are aside from the fact that the regulations are unfairly limiting ISP's abilities to make money. They will mention that these regulations are affecting the free market, but in my opinion other existing regulations are much worse about limiting the effects of the free market, except those would make it easier for ISPs to be competed against, not harder.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
Thanks for the detailed reply. It seems like a lot of the disagreement hinges on the fact that ISPs have a monopoly and many people cannot easily "vote with their wallet" if the ISP does something they don't like. I wonder if focusing on making it easier for competitive ISPs to start up would do more towards bridging the gap between the two sides. I think a lot of the anti-NN crowd is based on a more philosophical argument, that if the ISP built the infrastructure then they own it and they should be able to charge $1 million per day for access if they want (they would obviously not do that because nobody would pay it) I wonder what is the biggest impediment to setting up a legitimately competitive ISP? Presumably the (ostensibly wasteful) cost of duplicating the last-mile infrastructure? As an aside, do you have more info on the legal challenges to google fiber?
- dragonwriter 9y ago

dawnerd 9y ago

In theory that makes sense but if you build a network and actively fight to prevent any one else from also running lines, thats where we have a problem.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mozumder 9y ago

It's because you're already charging the end-user the rights to access all of the Internet. It's paid for by the user, not the taxpayer. Limiting websites they can access is a violation of that agreement with the end user.

Delmania 9y ago

> What is the actual reason they shouldn't? In many areas of the United States, there is only one ISP available. Part of this is due to the high cost of entry, but the ISPs also have a past filled with rather shady activity. Verizon was given federal money to expand their network, did a fraction of the work, and then used their influence to pocket the rest. Comcast will throw lawsuits at new ISPs in order to bankrupt them. Because of this the ISPs already use their monopoly position to take as much money as possible via data caps and bandwidth. I believe Comcast is on record as saying data caps aren't needed, but no one can stop them. The reality is ISPs are some of the most greedy, unethical companies around that exploit their monopoly position for their bottom line. Either regulation needs to be in place or the government needs to incentivize and protect new ISPs.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
I think maybe this (barriers to entry) is the crux of the issue. Can you help me find more info on verizon and comcast doing these things?
- todayiamme 9y ago
  Here's a map of the major players carving up territory like cartels; https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer-choices-europeans https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet... Notice how almost none of the service areas intersect? Internet competitiveness in the US is measured by census zones, and they know that. So they carve up territory block by block, allowing them to be engage in "competition" without competing. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-to-tell-the-fcc-exactly-where-they-offer-internet-service/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-t...) And here's one of the many, many court cases and lobbying efforts they've engaged in to keep rivals from getting a toe hold in their territory; https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...
matt4077 9y ago
No, no, no! This is not the problem with net neutrality. This is some generic argument for the regulation of monopolies, and as such, it is fine. But net neutrality is devious beyond the abuse of a local monopoly. It doesn't matter if there are ten ISPs available to any given consumer. The problem is that creates a new monopoly: that of access to an ISPs subscriber. See my aunt-comment (to this) for the full argument.

nathan_long 9y ago

> What is the actual reason they shouldn't? Imagine there's no Netflix yet. People are using the web, and ISPs are selling tiny-bandwidth plans. Along comes a streaming movie service and people love it. All of a sudden, ISP customers are saying "I want more bandwidth and I'll pay more for it." Can the ISP say, with a straight face, that Netflix is costing them money?

ball_of_lint 9y ago

In the US the internet has become a utility. You can possibly live without it in the same way that you could possibly live without running water, but to be a functional and normal member of society you need access to it. It is used for everything from communication to shopping. Giving cable companies control over what people can/cannot see on the internet or how much websites cost to view allows them to extort any one that uses the internet to conduct or attract business. Furthermore, the internet has now become a public meeting place. Many people communicate with each other solely through the internet and voice their opinions there. Giving cable companies the ability to legally prevent two IPs from communicating is akin to preventing mail between them. Basically, because of the ways that the internet has come to be used and the basic expectation of privacy that people have when it comes to similar things such as mail, many people would consider it wrong to remove any semblance of privacy or fairness from the internet, which is what repealing net neutrality does.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago

Your argument would be valid if it were possible for alternate internet providers to pop up. However there isn't anything comparable to cable right now that you could call an alternative.

kharms 9y ago

Looking past the financing question, all (major) telecommunications networks are built via eminent domain, and as such must necessarily serve the public good.

matt4077 9y ago

The problem is that the price you (as the ISP) choose to charge some new startup is not subject to competition. That's because you're not charging your customers. You're selling them to that startup. The startup has no choice but to pay if they want to have a chance of reaching these potential customers. That means ISPs will have to ability to milk every cent of value generated out of startups, limited only by their ability to measure it. The normal mechanisms of a market don't kick in, because the customers will be unaware of what's happening. They're not going to change providers only because that provider is shaking down some startup they've never heard of.

zipwitch 9y ago

Something that seems to be forgotten in this day and age is that corporations exist at the pleasure of the citizens (aka taxpayers) because said corporations offer them things that are deemed to be net public goods. Why should you be allowed to build your network in our country in the first place? (Especially when we could do it ourselves at cost and not give you a percentage off the top?)

webXL 9y ago
I think you're conflating a legal term with actual people, who do the existing, offering, and building. These people (who work under a legal entity with rights, protections, and regulations) pay taxes while they exchange their product or service for our dollars. The service can be anything people want or need. Grocery, clothing, book stores, bars, cafes, airlines... Ignore the "percentage off the top". Why is that a concern of yours? Do you not tip at restaurants or give to charity? Part of your gain can be someone else's. It's all voluntary in the free market. Not only are you free to not to give money to these corporations, you are free to start your own non-profit service, with a similar legal structure. You have to appeal to investors' altruism rather than their self-interest. A big challenge, but not outside the realm of possibility depending on the market you 'd like to cater to.

xenadu02 9y ago

Building a network requires laying cables on other people’s private property. Without the government giving them the right to do this they would never be able to negotiate with each individual land owner and networks would not be possible. Wireless has the same problem: use of the airwaves, a public good no one can own. We issue licenses for them otherwise it would be a tragedy of the commons situation where no one would be able to successfully use them. The internet (and most of its popular protocols) was invented and established due to public funding and released to the world for free. So quite literally ISPs would not have a business whatsoever without free public assistance. As a result they owe us a lot more than the average business.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Why should you get paid more because your users were streaming Netflix as opposed to doing anything else with the traffic? You, as a network provider, are already peering with other network providers, and so you're getting paid for (and paying for) the bandwidth that's getting used. What you're after is an extra slice of the pie from Netflix.