7 ms·

Network Neutrality

224 points by tweakz 12y ago

jonallanharper 12y ago
"Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality" http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/ http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulati... Article is from 2011, but still pertinent.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Judd is deeply stupid. So… greedy companies “might” restrict us from things, or they “might” prioritize content delivery to the highest payer. in the sense that they are (to also use stupid quotes) "already" doing "just that" Further: One problem with the diagram above is that our homes are not connected to just one big ISP. The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers oh, wow, two (maybe four) isps! Ignoring, of course, that for most of us there are only two (cable + telephone) and everyone else has to pay to run on those wires. And for many, telephone line delivered internet is very slow, so now we're down to one actual isp. And comcast costs $65/mo where I live for just internet. And they're looking at neflix and google and all those other internet businesses and chomping at the bit to steal some money from them. Also, weirdly enough, my internet bill keeps going up but the speed doesn't. Feel the competition!
  - smokinjoe 12y ago
    Also, just because a zip code has 2 broadband providers, does that mean the entire population residing within that zip code has that access?
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Not at all. dsl speed strongly varies based on distance from who-knows-what; all I know is that it tops out at 1.5MB/368K where I live in the peninsula (in Belmont, CA -- between the valley and sf for people not from the area).
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Article is from 2011, but still pertinent. Except for the whole part where what he decries as non-existent (ISPs slowing down traffic for non-payers) which thus does not need regulating is happening right now.
- altcognito 12y ago
  > FACT: The Net Neutrality cause is a response to a hypothetical problem. Except, it's out of date as we've had ISPs intentionally manipulating their networks to their own advantage (and more importantly their customers disadvantage) for at least a year. Even when this article was written, overzealous throttling of select services was/is common. (Youtube in particular) The condescending tone of the article is pretty entertaining given the level of ignorance he willfully displayed even then.
toddsiegel 12y ago
Even if this plan is not approved this is not over. Telecoms will just try again and again.
happyscrappy 12y ago
This is the most succinct explanation I have seen, most attempts make people's eyes glaze over from specifics.
tolmasky 12y ago
"We’re building a platform ourselves, and we work hard to ensure that Stripe treats businesses of all size neutrally." Since they set up the comparison themselves, I wonder if Stripe would be in favor of legislation that forced them to forever treat all their customers neutrally vs. us just trusting them to "work hard to ensure" that end. Perhaps making it illegal to offer sweetheart deals to bigger clients for example? Arguably payments is the next most fundamental piece to a functioning internet after bandwidth, so its not unreasonable to request. If MegaCorp A received much lower rates on credit card processing than little Startup B, how could we have fair competition after all?
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Since they set up the comparison themselves, I wonder if Stripe would be in favor of legislation that forced them to forever treat all their customers neutrally vs. us just trusting them to "work hard to ensure" that end. ISPs already do that all the time with in-network CDNs, dedicated ports and the like. And nobody cares because it does not make things worse.
- silverbax88 12y ago
  I'm not sure how equal your analogy is. It would require that All Payment Processors, not just Stripe, would have to treat all users neutrally. Which would be awesome, because Stripe would beat the heck out of the competition. Plus, to be a fair comparison, it would mean regulation so that payment processors couldn't actively make it HARDER for you unless you pay them. Which again, they should be in support of. It's more like the DMV throwing down nails and tacks in your driveway and telling you that you can have them removed if you pay them more.
  - tolmasky 12y ago
    Yes, just like the current rules would affect all ISPs. Sorry if it wasn't clear that the law would apply to all payment processors and not be written to solely affect Stripe.
    - neura 12y ago
jusben1369 12y ago
"We’re building a platform ourselves, and we work hard to ensure that Stripe treats businesses of all size neutrally." One assumes larger customers get more favorable processing rates than smaller customers. So if two services do largely the same thing and both use Stripe and one is substantially larger than the other then I suspect Stripe is directly, even if inadvertently, favoring one over the other. Stripe's in the payments business and they favor one set of customers over the other based on their size and pricing power. My issue isn't with Stripe. It's with the language around net neutrality. Basically 1000+ entrepreneurs and VC's who generally bemoan all things government are now asking that this area be protected from market forces. Very awkward. Any half way decent free market economist will tell you that every non Netflix user is subsidizing the crap out of Netflix users under the current set up and that's not very free marketish.
- silverbax88 12y ago
  They are asking that this area be protected from artificial scarcity (which is illegal in all markets), not 'market forces'.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "Any half way decent free market economist will tell you that every non Netflix user is subsidizing the crap out of Netflix users under the current set up and that's not very free marketish." Can you explain the reasoning of this statement?
  - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
    I second the motion. I think he means that people who pay for internet access and then barely use it subsidize the people who do use it. Just like gym memberships that aren't used subsidize those that are. But it's a specious argument. Just because some users are more profitable than others doesn't mean that it's OK to charge money to providers to not degrade the pipe that I'm paying for. If I want to download at full speed 24/7, I should be able to do that (barring any specific limits in my contract with the ISP). Yes, I will be a less profitable customer than one who sends an email once a week, but those are the breaks: Either change the contract so its limits are clear, or make sure that the average profit stays enough in the black to cover the cost of the outliers. I'm paying for a service. If they aren't providing that service, and they are limiting my connection to try to shake down providers, they're doing it by hurting my service experience. And if they're doing that in a market where there are no ISP options, then it's an abuse of monopoly power. And any "half way decent free market economist" should recognize that monopolies can and should be regulated. Especially when the monopoly is on something that the UN has declared to be a human right. [1] [1] http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wik...
Alupis 12y ago
Typically I'm very anti-regulation -- but it seems proven ISP's need to be regulated to some degree. An ISP should do nothing more (or less) than just pass data from point A to point B (aka. "dumb pipes"). We are in the Information Age and unhindered access to information should be a commodity. It's a conflict of interest to be both an ISP and a content provider.
moskie 12y ago
Comparing themselves to an ISP does not do anybody any favors. It just confuses the issue. ISPs should treat all their customers (and their traffic) the same for reasons that do not apply to Stripe, and do not apply to the market Stripe is in.
- pc 12y ago
  For sure; they're different -- our argument isn't that ISPs should treat traffic equally for reasons that apply to Stripe. In mentioning Stripe, I think Jon was simply saying that we spend a lot of time thinking about platform neutrality in general since it's an issue that does (in other ways) have a bearing on what we do.
nakedrobot2 12y ago
the vote is tomorrow, but I haven't seen a widespread, concerted effort to make a visible and effective protest online, as was done successfully with SOPA. I wish all interested players (including the huge ones, especially Google!) had agreed to slow down all USA internet users to "dialup speed" for the day, explaining why it is being done, and prompting people to phone/email the FCC about it.
JDDunn9 12y ago
The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and Netflix. The giant corporations have convinced average people to join their cause so they don't have to pay for their bandwidth hogs (which does cost ISPs more money than small sites).
- jpwagner 12y ago
  Sure, but that means a small site needs more money to become widespread. This will force earlier decisions to raise revenue. Whether it be desperate attempts at ad-based revenue, premature fundraising, or hurting adoption by asking for paying customers, it all amounts to stifling innovation.
  - JDDunn9 12y ago
    This is the misinformation mentioned. Small sites won't pay until they reach the size of YouTube/Netflix.
- widdershins 12y ago
  No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? Otherwise there's no incentive for YouTube etc. to pay.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? By selectively throttling YouTube and Netflix.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Why are there customers getting an internet connection other than "YouTube and Netflix"? The reason they and other services are "bandwidth hogs" is because they are popular and people want them. Those bytes just don't show up at customer's computers without the request.
theoh 12y ago
It's all very well to talk about "platforms", but wanting to separate mechanism and policy is one thing, outlawing policy is something much more serious.
danielweber 12y ago
Where is the primary source for the actual proposal the FCC is voting on?
- ewams 12y ago
  Meeting information: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-hold-open-commission-meeting-thursday-may-15-2014 http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-hold-open-commission-meeting... Related Topic Info: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet
fayyazkl 12y ago
Until we find a way to truly achieve network neutrality which also means (from service provider's perspective) to throttle and keep in reasonable usage limit applications such as video streaming, specifically illegal torrent usage which chokes carriers bandwidth and prevents normal users too, this debate will continue. I don't see any thing principally wrong with providers point of view (i might be biased because i work in the industry that provides these tools/software. But logically, the word "neutral" to me should equate both sides - not prioritizing some high paying customer's traffic, but at the same time not allowing a regular user to eat every one else's bandwidth to download his favorite pirated content. I feel the discussion on the topic is mostly targeted at the former only. A side effect of such capability could also be better utilization of network resources i.e. charging customers ONLY when and what they use - there by decreasing costs as well.
adventured 12y ago
The Internet is already divided into fast lanes and slow lanes. Netflix is currently paying Comcast for a fast lane, after previously having been cast into the slow lane. Whether the FCC plan goes forward or not, will change nothing about what Comcast and others are doing. Courtesy of an extremely accommodating Obama Administration, Comcast has joined the government protected monopoly crew, with Verizon and AT&T. They are now untouchable, which is why there is nearly zero political opposition to their acquisition of a cable monopoly. They're going to continue to degrade major services as they see fit to exact fast lane tolls, and there is no political group that is going to stand up and do anything about it. The people fighting this fight, are waging a war they lost a long time ago. An entirely new approach to dealing with the FCC, the Internet, and the monopoly telecom providers is necessary.

224 points by tweakz 12y ago

"Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality" http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/ http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulati... Article is from 2011, but still pertinent.

x0x0 12y ago
Judd is deeply stupid. So… greedy companies “might” restrict us from things, or they “might” prioritize content delivery to the highest payer. in the sense that they are (to also use stupid quotes) "already" doing "just that" Further: One problem with the diagram above is that our homes are not connected to just one big ISP. The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers oh, wow, two (maybe four) isps! Ignoring, of course, that for most of us there are only two (cable + telephone) and everyone else has to pay to run on those wires. And for many, telephone line delivered internet is very slow, so now we're down to one actual isp. And comcast costs $65/mo where I live for just internet. And they're looking at neflix and google and all those other internet businesses and chomping at the bit to steal some money from them. Also, weirdly enough, my internet bill keeps going up but the speed doesn't. Feel the competition!
- smokinjoe 12y ago
  Also, just because a zip code has 2 broadband providers, does that mean the entire population residing within that zip code has that access?
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Not at all. dsl speed strongly varies based on distance from who-knows-what; all I know is that it tops out at 1.5MB/368K where I live in the peninsula (in Belmont, CA -- between the valley and sf for people not from the area).
masklinn 12y ago
> Article is from 2011, but still pertinent. Except for the whole part where what he decries as non-existent (ISPs slowing down traffic for non-payers) which thus does not need regulating is happening right now.
altcognito 12y ago
> FACT: The Net Neutrality cause is a response to a hypothetical problem. Except, it's out of date as we've had ISPs intentionally manipulating their networks to their own advantage (and more importantly their customers disadvantage) for at least a year. Even when this article was written, overzealous throttling of select services was/is common. (Youtube in particular) The condescending tone of the article is pretty entertaining given the level of ignorance he willfully displayed even then.

toddsiegel 12y ago

Even if this plan is not approved this is not over. Telecoms will just try again and again.

happyscrappy 12y ago

This is the most succinct explanation I have seen, most attempts make people's eyes glaze over from specifics.

tolmasky 12y ago

"We’re building a platform ourselves, and we work hard to ensure that Stripe treats businesses of all size neutrally." Since they set up the comparison themselves, I wonder if Stripe would be in favor of legislation that forced them to forever treat all their customers neutrally vs. us just trusting them to "work hard to ensure" that end. Perhaps making it illegal to offer sweetheart deals to bigger clients for example? Arguably payments is the next most fundamental piece to a functioning internet after bandwidth, so its not unreasonable to request. If MegaCorp A received much lower rates on credit card processing than little Startup B, how could we have fair competition after all?

masklinn 12y ago
> Since they set up the comparison themselves, I wonder if Stripe would be in favor of legislation that forced them to forever treat all their customers neutrally vs. us just trusting them to "work hard to ensure" that end. ISPs already do that all the time with in-network CDNs, dedicated ports and the like. And nobody cares because it does not make things worse.
silverbax88 12y ago
I'm not sure how equal your analogy is. It would require that All Payment Processors, not just Stripe, would have to treat all users neutrally. Which would be awesome, because Stripe would beat the heck out of the competition. Plus, to be a fair comparison, it would mean regulation so that payment processors couldn't actively make it HARDER for you unless you pay them. Which again, they should be in support of. It's more like the DMV throwing down nails and tacks in your driveway and telling you that you can have them removed if you pay them more.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  Yes, just like the current rules would affect all ISPs. Sorry if it wasn't clear that the law would apply to all payment processors and not be written to solely affect Stripe.
  - neura 12y ago

jusben1369 12y ago

"We’re building a platform ourselves, and we work hard to ensure that Stripe treats businesses of all size neutrally." One assumes larger customers get more favorable processing rates than smaller customers. So if two services do largely the same thing and both use Stripe and one is substantially larger than the other then I suspect Stripe is directly, even if inadvertently, favoring one over the other. Stripe's in the payments business and they favor one set of customers over the other based on their size and pricing power. My issue isn't with Stripe. It's with the language around net neutrality. Basically 1000+ entrepreneurs and VC's who generally bemoan all things government are now asking that this area be protected from market forces. Very awkward. Any half way decent free market economist will tell you that every non Netflix user is subsidizing the crap out of Netflix users under the current set up and that's not very free marketish.

silverbax88 12y ago
They are asking that this area be protected from artificial scarcity (which is illegal in all markets), not 'market forces'.
protomyth 12y ago
"Any half way decent free market economist will tell you that every non Netflix user is subsidizing the crap out of Netflix users under the current set up and that's not very free marketish." Can you explain the reasoning of this statement?
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  I second the motion. I think he means that people who pay for internet access and then barely use it subsidize the people who do use it. Just like gym memberships that aren't used subsidize those that are. But it's a specious argument. Just because some users are more profitable than others doesn't mean that it's OK to charge money to providers to not degrade the pipe that I'm paying for. If I want to download at full speed 24/7, I should be able to do that (barring any specific limits in my contract with the ISP). Yes, I will be a less profitable customer than one who sends an email once a week, but those are the breaks: Either change the contract so its limits are clear, or make sure that the average profit stays enough in the black to cover the cost of the outliers. I'm paying for a service. If they aren't providing that service, and they are limiting my connection to try to shake down providers, they're doing it by hurting my service experience. And if they're doing that in a market where there are no ISP options, then it's an abuse of monopoly power. And any "half way decent free market economist" should recognize that monopolies can and should be regulated. Especially when the monopoly is on something that the UN has declared to be a human right. [1] [1] http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wik...

Alupis 12y ago

Typically I'm very anti-regulation -- but it seems proven ISP's need to be regulated to some degree. An ISP should do nothing more (or less) than just pass data from point A to point B (aka. "dumb pipes"). We are in the Information Age and unhindered access to information should be a commodity. It's a conflict of interest to be both an ISP and a content provider.

moskie 12y ago

Comparing themselves to an ISP does not do anybody any favors. It just confuses the issue. ISPs should treat all their customers (and their traffic) the same for reasons that do not apply to Stripe, and do not apply to the market Stripe is in.

pc 12y ago
For sure; they're different -- our argument isn't that ISPs should treat traffic equally for reasons that apply to Stripe. In mentioning Stripe, I think Jon was simply saying that we spend a lot of time thinking about platform neutrality in general since it's an issue that does (in other ways) have a bearing on what we do.

nakedrobot2 12y ago

the vote is tomorrow, but I haven't seen a widespread, concerted effort to make a visible and effective protest online, as was done successfully with SOPA. I wish all interested players (including the huge ones, especially Google!) had agreed to slow down all USA internet users to "dialup speed" for the day, explaining why it is being done, and prompting people to phone/email the FCC about it.

JDDunn9 12y ago

The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and Netflix. The giant corporations have convinced average people to join their cause so they don't have to pay for their bandwidth hogs (which does cost ISPs more money than small sites).

jpwagner 12y ago
Sure, but that means a small site needs more money to become widespread. This will force earlier decisions to raise revenue. Whether it be desperate attempts at ad-based revenue, premature fundraising, or hurting adoption by asking for paying customers, it all amounts to stifling innovation.
- JDDunn9 12y ago
  This is the misinformation mentioned. Small sites won't pay until they reach the size of YouTube/Netflix.
widdershins 12y ago
No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? Otherwise there's no incentive for YouTube etc. to pay.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? By selectively throttling YouTube and Netflix.
protomyth 12y ago
Why are there customers getting an internet connection other than "YouTube and Netflix"? The reason they and other services are "bandwidth hogs" is because they are popular and people want them. Those bytes just don't show up at customer's computers without the request.

theoh 12y ago

It's all very well to talk about "platforms", but wanting to separate mechanism and policy is one thing, outlawing policy is something much more serious.

danielweber 12y ago

Where is the primary source for the actual proposal the FCC is voting on?

ewams 12y ago
Meeting information: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-hold-open-commission-meeting-thursday-may-15-2014 http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-hold-open-commission-meeting... Related Topic Info: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

fayyazkl 12y ago

Until we find a way to truly achieve network neutrality which also means (from service provider's perspective) to throttle and keep in reasonable usage limit applications such as video streaming, specifically illegal torrent usage which chokes carriers bandwidth and prevents normal users too, this debate will continue. I don't see any thing principally wrong with providers point of view (i might be biased because i work in the industry that provides these tools/software. But logically, the word "neutral" to me should equate both sides - not prioritizing some high paying customer's traffic, but at the same time not allowing a regular user to eat every one else's bandwidth to download his favorite pirated content. I feel the discussion on the topic is mostly targeted at the former only. A side effect of such capability could also be better utilization of network resources i.e. charging customers ONLY when and what they use - there by decreasing costs as well.

adventured 12y ago

The Internet is already divided into fast lanes and slow lanes. Netflix is currently paying Comcast for a fast lane, after previously having been cast into the slow lane. Whether the FCC plan goes forward or not, will change nothing about what Comcast and others are doing. Courtesy of an extremely accommodating Obama Administration, Comcast has joined the government protected monopoly crew, with Verizon and AT&T. They are now untouchable, which is why there is nearly zero political opposition to their acquisition of a cable monopoly. They're going to continue to degrade major services as they see fit to exact fast lane tolls, and there is no political group that is going to stand up and do anything about it. The people fighting this fight, are waging a war they lost a long time ago. An entirely new approach to dealing with the FCC, the Internet, and the monopoly telecom providers is necessary.