4 ms·

The point of my post is not "Hooray for me!", but was to point out that my good service comes from competition, and that the focus on rate-limiting of net neut

by greggyb 12y ago

The point of my post is not "Hooray for me!", but was to point out that my good service comes from competition, and that the focus on rate-limiting of net neutrality is just a red herring. The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious, and once created becomes very difficult to get rid of. Let's walk through a hypothetical: Rate-limiting becomes illegal today, and simultaneously some arbitrarily effective incentive is put in place that will provide opportunities for new entrants to the market within 5 years. Now fast forward a few years. New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader. Say a new firm figures out that it can gain a lot of customers with a specific strategy - a cheap plan that is very restrictive on total bandwidth, except for Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix. For a huge number of people this would be a great deal - limited bandwidth for most things, but unlimited for the services they use the most. Unfortunately for this potential entrant to the market, their most effective tool for displacing an entrenched competitor has been deemed illegal. A regulation that solves a short term problem may limit our options in the future negatively. If there must be regulation, I would prefer to see regulation that does not limit my choices. Given a low enough price, I would be very happy to have a throttled internet connection. Again, my point in the parent was not to brag or say hooray for me. My point was that I have great service because I have choices. In proportion to the limits of my choices, there are limits to my happiness with the service. I do not intend to speak for you, but I'd like to rephrase your sentiment - not to argue with you or your experience, but to put it in the context I am interpreting the situation in. You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan. While in the short term eliminating that choice may improve your situation (or maybe Comcast offers worse service or raises the price or otherwise adjusts its behavior in a way that makes you feel worse off), in the long term it is impossible to make people better off by reducing the options which they may consider.

lbenes 12y ago
> New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader. We could more than make up for this hypothetical disadvantage by regulating the big players to share their last mile infrastructure like we've done with cell towers and land lines. A MUCH bigger issue than ISPs startups is that the next Facebook, Twitter, or Netflix will never even get their chance because they can't compete on an Internet that doesn't offer net neutrality. Netflix paid off Comcast for their "high speed track". But no small startup could have afforded this extortion. > The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious Yes, regulations and big government suck. I get it. But how do you propose to fix the deeper problem that we're mostly all living under a monopoly? How long will this take? > You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan. Yes, I don't have a choice. Thanks again for the reminder. So what's you solution again? You remind me of my family in Florida calling to today to tell me how bad the snowstorm is outside my house. Wouldn't it be so much better if we all lived in Florida with multiple broadband ISPs to choice from?
- greggyb 12y ago
  First, offering an alternative solution is not a necessary component of arguing that a given proposal is objectively bad. Here's an excerpt from another point in this thread: >If regulation must occur, then I would prefer to see it happen in a manner that increases rather than decreases my choices. Forbidding a certain pricing strategy does not increase my choices. If regulation must occur, then I'd like to see something along the lines required sale of excess infrastructure capacity. This could happen in terms of utility pole access (the majority of which are not owned by telecoms to my understanding[0]), or through sale of excess bandwidth in an ISP's network. This is definitely an "if" for me though. It seems that the majority of ISP monopolies we see grew out of the exclusive cable franchises offered by many (most?) municipalities when cable TV was becoming a thing. Since public rights of way were/are (depending on current status of these franchises) and pole access can be granted without adding new regulations, and permission from the city is all that's needed to bury wire, it would seem that these are the best first steps. If it turns out that the advantage granted to incumbents by their past franchises are too great (i.e. we do not see improvements in ISP service/quality), then the idea above of mandatory leasing of excess infrastructure capacity starts to make more sense.
  - lbenes 12y ago
    First of all, I don't buy your argument that the proposal is bad. Your hypothetical situation where net neutrality could harm startups is so contrived it almost sounds like you are trolling. The odds of a future ISP competing by brokering a deal with the big content providers to undercut the established ISPs is never going to happen. The government failed to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. It's a bitter pill to swallow but the only solution is regulation. If you want to sunset net neutrality rules after 90% of Americans have a real broadband choice, fine. But until that day comes, internet startups and broadband customers alike need net neutrality regulations.
    - greggyb 12y ago
      The government did indeed fail to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. In most cases by municipal governments granting exclusive franchises to cable (television) providers who have become our ISPs. The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. Access to utility poles, granting rights-of-way to lay wire, or if positive action must be taken, enforcing excess bandwidth leases all address the issue much better. As I began the thread with, the rate-limiting argument that makes up the thrust of the argument of net neutrality is at best a red herring. Edit: Also, I did not suggest in my hypothetical that a startup ISP would broker a deal with major web companies, only that they might offer free bandwidth to consumers for those services as a loss leader. I further did not intend to suggest that without rate-limiting we would see no ISP startups. I was suggesting that disallowing the practice removes one tool (out of multiple tools) that a new entrant could use to effectively compete with an incumbent. Removing effective tools of competition can hurt consumers.
greiskul 12y ago
And once this new company that limits everything that is not Facebook, Twitter and Netflix gains a large market share, how will any new company ever compete with Facebook, Twitter and Netflix?
- greggyb 12y ago
  How did HBO compete with NBC? How do we have any channels besides PBS for that matter? How does any paid app compete with any free app? Why do we have netbooks when a a Raspberry Pi costs $35 and (the 2 at least) can do everything most consumers do on a computer? Your question carries with it the assumption that an ISP should be responsible for ensuring the success of application and website developers. Would you make the analagous argument that cable (television) providers have a responsibility to ensure high production values of television shows? Would you argue that a road-crew is responsible for the quality of your destination? These are all means of accessing something, and the content you get via the means of access need not be the purview of the provider of the means of access. Furthermore, my hypothetical is only to show a possible consequence of limiting the bargaining choices of multiple firms in a market with competition. To go a bit broader, your question makes it clear that we have very different views on net neutrality. I view rate-limiting as entirely neutral. There is a price at which I would be happy to accept a rate-limited connection. There is also a ceiling at which I would not choose a completely unthrottled connection. I would not like a rate-limited connection to be my only choice, but depending on price, I would also not like a completely unthrottled connection to be my only choice. Ultimately, though, my stance comes down to choice. I want more choice. By limiting the terms which I may legally choose to enter into a contract with a service provider, I am made worse off.
  - comex 12y ago
    A closer analogy in the road-crew case would be a crew introducing obstructions to or closing lanes in roads that exit toward particular destinations, based on how much money the owners of businesses located at those destinations paid them. If the crew wanted to do their job and maintain the roads as the road conditions required, keeping their sights on the piece of infrastructure under their purview rather than butting into the logistically irrelevant question of the drivers' ultimate destinations, then sure, they shouldn't be responsible for the experiences at those destinations. But if they do butt in, one may certainly look askance at their business practices. Indeed, to take the analogy even more literally, you'd practically be saying that it wasn't a certain governor's responsibility that drivers suffered from his decision to arbitrarily close bridge lanes as a political move. To be fair, obviously roads are maintained by the government and thus form a monopoly, while you're arguing that these decisions can be positive only in the presence of competition. But I find it hard to see why such dysfunctional maintenance would be encouraged in any situation.
pbz 12y ago
And then everybody would switch to this new and cheaper service. Then your website, which isn't on the list, wants a fast connection too. For a fee the ISP would gladly make your service faster. However, many could not afford this and would go out of business. This, ironically, would limit your "choice" on the other side.
- greggyb 12y ago
  No, those consumers who judge that that level of service is a better deal for them would switch. To step back a bit, what I posited was only a hypothetical to show how such a choice might limit competition down the line. To step back even further, your post makes it clear that we have an ideological difference here. I do not view rate-limiting as inherently bad. There is a ceiling above which I would not be willing to pay for a completely unthrottled connection. There also exists a price at which I would be happy to take a throttled connection. My general preference would be for an unthrottled connection, but my preferences do not exist in a vacuum. The price difference where I would choose the throttled connection would have to be quite large, and the throttled vs unthrottled rates would also come into play. Further, some of my favorite websites would not be much affected at all. This site, for example places a miniscule load on my connection and minimal data transfer in a month. I don't generally frequent multimedia sites. I utilize an RSS reader for blogs, so that bandwidth is also fairly minimal (especially if I choose to omit images). Email is text for the most part. A website could compete very well with minimal bandwidth for any of these purposes. Furthermore, you assume that the bandwidth would be throttled always, and I've gone along with that. There are other rate-limiting strategies that might be chosen. One might be a data transfer cap, beyond which the bandwidth is throttled. Another might be peak-hour throttling, in which case my late-night browsing would be unaffected (and I do a lot of that). One plan that would be pretty tempting for me is unlimited Netflix and Pandora with a reasonable data cap (I haven't tracked my monthly transfer rates lately so couldn't say what would be reasonable here). Further, I've not suggested that this be the only plan available. I merely suggested it (hypothetically) as a manner in which a new entrant might gain enough market share to establish itself as a player. The more ISPs there are, the more likely one is to offer service you like. The more you restrict the terms an ISP may offer, the harder it is for them to compete. I hope this thought process helps clear up where I am coming from. Finally, I ask whether you consider toll roads immoral, or whether you hold your cable (television) provider responsible for the (production/acting) quality of the television shows you watch, or if you want to stick up for HBO and how downtrodden it is by NBC? The provider of the means of access has no moral imperative to provide equal access to all content.

by greggyb 12y ago

lbenes 12y ago

> New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader. We could more than make up for this hypothetical disadvantage by regulating the big players to share their last mile infrastructure like we've done with cell towers and land lines. A MUCH bigger issue than ISPs startups is that the next Facebook, Twitter, or Netflix will never even get their chance because they can't compete on an Internet that doesn't offer net neutrality. Netflix paid off Comcast for their "high speed track". But no small startup could have afforded this extortion. > The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious Yes, regulations and big government suck. I get it. But how do you propose to fix the deeper problem that we're mostly all living under a monopoly? How long will this take? > You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan. Yes, I don't have a choice. Thanks again for the reminder. So what's you solution again? You remind me of my family in Florida calling to today to tell me how bad the snowstorm is outside my house. Wouldn't it be so much better if we all lived in Florida with multiple broadband ISPs to choice from?

greggyb 12y ago
First, offering an alternative solution is not a necessary component of arguing that a given proposal is objectively bad. Here's an excerpt from another point in this thread: >If regulation must occur, then I would prefer to see it happen in a manner that increases rather than decreases my choices. Forbidding a certain pricing strategy does not increase my choices. If regulation must occur, then I'd like to see something along the lines required sale of excess infrastructure capacity. This could happen in terms of utility pole access (the majority of which are not owned by telecoms to my understanding[0]), or through sale of excess bandwidth in an ISP's network. This is definitely an "if" for me though. It seems that the majority of ISP monopolies we see grew out of the exclusive cable franchises offered by many (most?) municipalities when cable TV was becoming a thing. Since public rights of way were/are (depending on current status of these franchises) and pole access can be granted without adding new regulations, and permission from the city is all that's needed to bury wire, it would seem that these are the best first steps. If it turns out that the advantage granted to incumbents by their past franchises are too great (i.e. we do not see improvements in ISP service/quality), then the idea above of mandatory leasing of excess infrastructure capacity starts to make more sense.
- lbenes 12y ago
  First of all, I don't buy your argument that the proposal is bad. Your hypothetical situation where net neutrality could harm startups is so contrived it almost sounds like you are trolling. The odds of a future ISP competing by brokering a deal with the big content providers to undercut the established ISPs is never going to happen. The government failed to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. It's a bitter pill to swallow but the only solution is regulation. If you want to sunset net neutrality rules after 90% of Americans have a real broadband choice, fine. But until that day comes, internet startups and broadband customers alike need net neutrality regulations.
  - greggyb 12y ago
    The government did indeed fail to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. In most cases by municipal governments granting exclusive franchises to cable (television) providers who have become our ISPs. The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. Access to utility poles, granting rights-of-way to lay wire, or if positive action must be taken, enforcing excess bandwidth leases all address the issue much better. As I began the thread with, the rate-limiting argument that makes up the thrust of the argument of net neutrality is at best a red herring. Edit: Also, I did not suggest in my hypothetical that a startup ISP would broker a deal with major web companies, only that they might offer free bandwidth to consumers for those services as a loss leader. I further did not intend to suggest that without rate-limiting we would see no ISP startups. I was suggesting that disallowing the practice removes one tool (out of multiple tools) that a new entrant could use to effectively compete with an incumbent. Removing effective tools of competition can hurt consumers.

greiskul 12y ago

And once this new company that limits everything that is not Facebook, Twitter and Netflix gains a large market share, how will any new company ever compete with Facebook, Twitter and Netflix?

greggyb 12y ago
How did HBO compete with NBC? How do we have any channels besides PBS for that matter? How does any paid app compete with any free app? Why do we have netbooks when a a Raspberry Pi costs $35 and (the 2 at least) can do everything most consumers do on a computer? Your question carries with it the assumption that an ISP should be responsible for ensuring the success of application and website developers. Would you make the analagous argument that cable (television) providers have a responsibility to ensure high production values of television shows? Would you argue that a road-crew is responsible for the quality of your destination? These are all means of accessing something, and the content you get via the means of access need not be the purview of the provider of the means of access. Furthermore, my hypothetical is only to show a possible consequence of limiting the bargaining choices of multiple firms in a market with competition. To go a bit broader, your question makes it clear that we have very different views on net neutrality. I view rate-limiting as entirely neutral. There is a price at which I would be happy to accept a rate-limited connection. There is also a ceiling at which I would not choose a completely unthrottled connection. I would not like a rate-limited connection to be my only choice, but depending on price, I would also not like a completely unthrottled connection to be my only choice. Ultimately, though, my stance comes down to choice. I want more choice. By limiting the terms which I may legally choose to enter into a contract with a service provider, I am made worse off.
- comex 12y ago
  A closer analogy in the road-crew case would be a crew introducing obstructions to or closing lanes in roads that exit toward particular destinations, based on how much money the owners of businesses located at those destinations paid them. If the crew wanted to do their job and maintain the roads as the road conditions required, keeping their sights on the piece of infrastructure under their purview rather than butting into the logistically irrelevant question of the drivers' ultimate destinations, then sure, they shouldn't be responsible for the experiences at those destinations. But if they do butt in, one may certainly look askance at their business practices. Indeed, to take the analogy even more literally, you'd practically be saying that it wasn't a certain governor's responsibility that drivers suffered from his decision to arbitrarily close bridge lanes as a political move. To be fair, obviously roads are maintained by the government and thus form a monopoly, while you're arguing that these decisions can be positive only in the presence of competition. But I find it hard to see why such dysfunctional maintenance would be encouraged in any situation.

pbz 12y ago

And then everybody would switch to this new and cheaper service. Then your website, which isn't on the list, wants a fast connection too. For a fee the ISP would gladly make your service faster. However, many could not afford this and would go out of business. This, ironically, would limit your "choice" on the other side.

greggyb 12y ago
No, those consumers who judge that that level of service is a better deal for them would switch. To step back a bit, what I posited was only a hypothetical to show how such a choice might limit competition down the line. To step back even further, your post makes it clear that we have an ideological difference here. I do not view rate-limiting as inherently bad. There is a ceiling above which I would not be willing to pay for a completely unthrottled connection. There also exists a price at which I would be happy to take a throttled connection. My general preference would be for an unthrottled connection, but my preferences do not exist in a vacuum. The price difference where I would choose the throttled connection would have to be quite large, and the throttled vs unthrottled rates would also come into play. Further, some of my favorite websites would not be much affected at all. This site, for example places a miniscule load on my connection and minimal data transfer in a month. I don't generally frequent multimedia sites. I utilize an RSS reader for blogs, so that bandwidth is also fairly minimal (especially if I choose to omit images). Email is text for the most part. A website could compete very well with minimal bandwidth for any of these purposes. Furthermore, you assume that the bandwidth would be throttled always, and I've gone along with that. There are other rate-limiting strategies that might be chosen. One might be a data transfer cap, beyond which the bandwidth is throttled. Another might be peak-hour throttling, in which case my late-night browsing would be unaffected (and I do a lot of that). One plan that would be pretty tempting for me is unlimited Netflix and Pandora with a reasonable data cap (I haven't tracked my monthly transfer rates lately so couldn't say what would be reasonable here). Further, I've not suggested that this be the only plan available. I merely suggested it (hypothetically) as a manner in which a new entrant might gain enough market share to establish itself as a player. The more ISPs there are, the more likely one is to offer service you like. The more you restrict the terms an ISP may offer, the harder it is for them to compete. I hope this thought process helps clear up where I am coming from. Finally, I ask whether you consider toll roads immoral, or whether you hold your cable (television) provider responsible for the (production/acting) quality of the television shows you watch, or if you want to stick up for HBO and how downtrodden it is by NBC? The provider of the means of access has no moral imperative to provide equal access to all content.