6 ms·

Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

by sna1l 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago
We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is not so: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-o... http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040
- secabeen 9y ago
  In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
  - jkollross 9y ago
    Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major threat in the 2000s.
  - eli 9y ago
    And indeed it arguably was in force in 2007, when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling bittorrent. Though of course Comcast eventually was successful in challenging the basis for that order in court.
- triplesec 9y ago
  This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. The capability is only in the past decade and in the years to come something where we have to be seriously concerned. Even then, there were serious anticompetitive breaches beforehand. See this article: https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-neutrality-spee-1794717829 https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-...: 'One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix in order to extract a payment deal from the streaming video provider, which it eventually agreed to pay. And in 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones, claiming it was using too much bandwidth. In this case, critics argued it was an attempt to block a service that competed with its own voice services. And as the biggest ISPs keep gobbling up content-producers, like AT&T buying DirectTV and then providing free access to itscontent, the risks that ISPs will start prioritizing traffic only increase.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
      - smsm42 9y ago
- tzs 9y ago
  > We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015 2010 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
  - smsm42 9y ago
    That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". Also, was shut down by courts, so not sure if one can say it was actually in place since 2010, as I imagine having it under threat of being overturned (which eventually happened) prevented effective enforcement of it.
    - tzs 9y ago
      > That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to: • No blocking, • No throttling, • No paid prioritization, • Explicitly allows "reasonable network management". The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed. Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290. https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > • No throttling, > • No paid prioritization, That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
- smsm42 9y ago
  also: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 In the authors' shared opinion, the economic evidence does not support the regulations proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices (the “NPRM”). To the contrary, the economic evidence provides no support for the existence of market failure sufficient to warrant ex ante regulation of the type proposed by the Commission, and strongly suggests that the regulations, if adopted, would reduce consumer welfare in both the short and long run. To the extent the types of conduct addressed in the NPRM may, in isolated circumstances, have the potential to harm competition or consumers, the Commission and other regulatory bodies have the ability to deter or prohibit such conduct on a case-by-case basis, through the application of existing doctrines and procedures. Hence, the approach advocated in the NPRM is not necessary to achieve whatever economic benefits may be associated with prohibiting harmful discrimination on the Internet.
krrishd 9y ago
Came here to say this, especially in the context of his Portugal argument -- sure, consumers in that context can pay less and have restricted access to a select few services. But that's the exact anti-competitive problem -- it's effectively incentivizing non-usage of new services that'd effectively compete with the packaged ones if given a level playing field to do so. If I buy the Netflix package because all I use the Internet for is streaming movies/films, a startup that'd somehow give me that utility in a better way wouldn't be worth switching to the full/unlimited package for.
- eli 9y ago
  Imagine Google trying to get off the ground when it costs extra or is artificially slow, but Yahoo Search is free and fast.

Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

by sna1l 9y ago

Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

smsm42 9y ago

We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is not so: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-o... http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040

secabeen 9y ago
In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
- jkollross 9y ago
  Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major threat in the 2000s.
- eli 9y ago
  And indeed it arguably was in force in 2007, when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling bittorrent. Though of course Comcast eventually was successful in challenging the basis for that order in court.
triplesec 9y ago
This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. The capability is only in the past decade and in the years to come something where we have to be seriously concerned. Even then, there were serious anticompetitive breaches beforehand. See this article: https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-neutrality-spee-1794717829 https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-...: 'One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix in order to extract a payment deal from the streaming video provider, which it eventually agreed to pay. And in 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones, claiming it was using too much bandwidth. In this case, critics argued it was an attempt to block a service that competed with its own voice services. And as the biggest ISPs keep gobbling up content-producers, like AT&T buying DirectTV and then providing free access to itscontent, the risks that ISPs will start prioritizing traffic only increase.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
    - smsm42 9y ago
tzs 9y ago
> We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015 2010 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
- smsm42 9y ago
  That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". Also, was shut down by courts, so not sure if one can say it was actually in place since 2010, as I imagine having it under threat of being overturned (which eventually happened) prevented effective enforcement of it.
  - tzs 9y ago
    > That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to: • No blocking, • No throttling, • No paid prioritization, • Explicitly allows "reasonable network management". The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed. Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290. https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > • No throttling, > • No paid prioritization, That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
smsm42 9y ago
also: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 In the authors' shared opinion, the economic evidence does not support the regulations proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices (the “NPRM”). To the contrary, the economic evidence provides no support for the existence of market failure sufficient to warrant ex ante regulation of the type proposed by the Commission, and strongly suggests that the regulations, if adopted, would reduce consumer welfare in both the short and long run. To the extent the types of conduct addressed in the NPRM may, in isolated circumstances, have the potential to harm competition or consumers, the Commission and other regulatory bodies have the ability to deter or prohibit such conduct on a case-by-case basis, through the application of existing doctrines and procedures. Hence, the approach advocated in the NPRM is not necessary to achieve whatever economic benefits may be associated with prohibiting harmful discrimination on the Internet.

krrishd 9y ago

Came here to say this, especially in the context of his Portugal argument -- sure, consumers in that context can pay less and have restricted access to a select few services. But that's the exact anti-competitive problem -- it's effectively incentivizing non-usage of new services that'd effectively compete with the packaged ones if given a level playing field to do so. If I buy the Netflix package because all I use the Internet for is streaming movies/films, a startup that'd somehow give me that utility in a better way wouldn't be worth switching to the full/unlimited package for.

eli 9y ago
Imagine Google trying to get off the ground when it costs extra or is artificially slow, but Yahoo Search is free and fast.