79 replies to this topic

[EcoGraphic]

I just don't see how this theoretical degredation actually leads to prevention. Internet Protocol is exactly designed for this purpose, it still works over a degraded system. And it's not like they are "de"-grading you, they are simply not "up"-grading you to first class. Everyone who flies is at the least in coach... but some pay more for first class.

Here is another analogy:

You are small business person who relies on fast, affordable mail delivery to get your product to your customer. For 10 years, you have been using USPS to deliver your packages reliably and affordably and this service is a large part or your business staying profitable.

One day you go to the post office, to mail a package, the same as you have done every day for the past 10 years, only to find that the USPS is now run by Fedex, and they have decided to cut back on standard first class mail delivery. Now if you want your product delivered to your customer on time, you will have to pay 10x the amount of money to send your package, because Congress has just ruled that Fedex will not be required to provide equal access to fast package delivery through affordable first class mail. Since they make more money charging for overnight Fedex delivery, they just can't be bothered to offer quality First Class mail service anymore, regardless of the fact that your business depends on it. Sure you can still send your package by First Class, but now that only goes once every two weeks, and your package will take a month to get to its destination. Sorry.

[benbakelaar]

Net Neutrality does not favor the traffic of certain paying providers. It keeps everyone on a level playing field.

We have always had Net Neutrality.

Sorry, in my original post I meant to say "Opponents of Net Neutrality".

[benbakelaar]

One day you go to the post office, to mail a package, the same as you have done every day for the past 10 years, only to find that the USPS is now run by Fedex, and they have decided to cut back on standard first class mail delivery. Now if you want your product delivered to your customer on time, you will have to pay 10x the amount of money to send your package, because Congress has just ruled that Fedex will not be required to provide equal access to fast package delivery through affordable first class mail. Since they make more money charging for overnight Fedex delivery, they just can't be bothered to offer quality First Class mail service anymore, regardless of the fact that your business depends on it. Sure you can still send your package by First Class, but now that only goes once every two weeks, and your package will take a month to get to its destination. Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think datonn hit this one on the head with his comments earlier. At this point, a new company would presumably fill the void to provide "first class" service at a standard price point. Or if not, consumers would then find another way around it... FedEx would feel the financial sting of consumers no longer using them.

And besides, these charges are going to companies, not consumers. As far as I understand, the Net Neutrality vs. tiered system issue is not about whether consumers will have to pay more to be able to download video/IP tv/etc... it's the service providers themselves who would have to pay the network providers.

[EcoGraphic]

And besides, these charges are going to companies, not consumers. As far as I understand, the Net Neutrality vs. tiered system issue is not about whether consumers will have to pay more to be able to download video/IP tv/etc... it's the service providers themselves who would have to pay the network providers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's fine if you view the net as just another form of cable TV delivering on demand TV from ABC, CNN, etc............ But what if you are an independant media producer? What if you are the next up and coming folk singer who decides you would like to try recording your own videos and distributing them over the net? Now you have to pay exhorbitant fees to AT&T in order for the right to "use the same pipes" as ABC and CNN to deliver your content? What if Sony pays huge fees to AT&T to deliver their content online and has signed an exclusivity agreement with them? Would you even be able to get your content delivered?

That is exactly why this is such an issue. The internet as it stands now is the only level playing field for everyone.

I think datonn hit this one on the head with his comments earlier. At this point, a new company would presumably fill the void to provide "first class" service at a standard price point. Or if not, consumers would then find another way around it... FedEx would feel the financial sting of consumers no longer using them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, unfortunately only a handful of major telecom companies control access to the internet in the US at the moment, because they own the cables.

That's the problem.

They are waking up to the power they would hold if they can just get rid of the Net Neutrality rule.

[Rob]

very interesting discussion. I don't know much about the debate overall, pluses and minuses, etc, but would throw some initial thoughts out there.

Well, unfortunately only a handful of major telecom companies control access to the internet in the US at the moment, because they own the cables.

That's the problem.

-The Internet is not a God given right. Companies have poured billions and billions of their own money to create the networked infrastructure in the hope that they would be able to make money; that's what they do. This isn't a problem, it's a wonderful opportunity to connect the world in new ways, and cheaper and faster than other institutions would have done it.

-No one controls access to the internet; it is more accessible than every before. Open a laptop at Starbucks; plenty of access.

-Regarding the priority issue, squelching ideas/webpages is never a good thing to do, but I'm not completely conviced that such evil ends would automatically happen. I think Gillian's highway analogy makes this case perfectly, although I don't think she was trying too. Different markets have different bandwidth needs for different customers. If a company wants to buy more BW to deliver huge content, they should have the option. Such an offering doesn't, on it's own, require that my website gets less bandwidth. And I don't think I will ever be able pay an ISP more money so they stop letting my competitor's traffic through. I just don't see that in the cards, although it could make things interesting...lol

[EcoGraphic]

-The Internet is not a God given right.  Companies have poured billions and billions of their own money to create the networked infrastructure in the hope that they would be able to make money; that's what they do.  This isn't a problem, it's a wonderful opportunity to connect the world in new ways, and cheaper and faster than other institutions would have done it.

The content which makes up the internet and a connection to the internet are two entirely different things. The telecom companies did not create the internet, they just provide access to it. You and I create the content which people access. Then we pay $29.95 (or whatever) a month to logon and view our content/communicate.

No one controls access to the internet; it is more accessible than every before.  Open a laptop at Starbucks; plenty of access.

And that is the way it needs to remain.

Shaw Cable in Canada has already been accused of charging more for the right to use a competing internet phone service.

Different markets have different bandwidth needs for different customers.  If a company wants to buy more BW to deliver huge content, they should have the option.  Such an offering doesn't, on it's own, require that my website gets less bandwidth.  And I don't think I will ever be able pay an ISP more money so they stop letting my competitor's traffic through.  I just don't see that in the cards, although it could make things interesting...lol

This is how it works right now. If you use more bandwidth, you pay for more bandwidth, because all the information is delivered "through the same pipe". The plan is to physically "split the pipe" so that there is high speed content delivery and slow content delivery. Now who gets delivered through which pipe? And who decides? Are they going to automatically deliver every online video through the high speed pipe? Or will you be automatically relegated to the slow pipe unless you pay for enhanced content delivery?

Will they start blocking access to Joe's Pizza Shop website in Hicksville,USA? No, why would they, that would be stupid. (Although it could get relegated to the slow lane for content delivery, so it would be slower to access.) But if you happen to be an independant online journalist or blogger with a political opinion unappreciated by the powers at be, the door would now be open to quietly block access to your website. Telus (my own ISP in Canada) quietly blocked access to any website posting information supporting its employee strike.

Unfortunately, apart from the Net Neutrality discussion there is also a move to declassify online journalism as journalism, which would remove it from "freedom of the press". Couple that with an ISP having the right to differentiate between quality of service, and you have the perfect recipe for shutting down a political website at will. Bloggers are now a huge threat to politicians, because they can spread their views so quickly.

The question is also about having the right to create the next Google, Yahoo etc. If Net Neutrality is not upheld, the minute you get too profitable your ISP would be able to step in and demand a larger cut for ensuring quality service.

You know, when I first saw a video on this a few months ago, I watched it and thought "Yah, right!" Because it just seemed so implausable. We are just so used to the way things run right now. Then I started really looking into it.

Here is some reading for you:

Protecting the Net from Corporate Welfare Bums

Net Leaders: Descrimination is Bad for Business

If you want a good laugh, you should listen to Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens addressing the US Senate on the topic of Net Neutrality:

Ted Stevens Speech

He obviously has no clue what net neutrality is, or what he is even talking about for that matter. He is trying to explain why he voted against Net Neutrality, and ends up defending it.

[Rob]

is it fair to think of a two pipe internet kinda like how's there is broadcast and cable television in the U.S.?

everyone gets the broadcast for free, but then companies like Disney and MTV buy extra access from the cable companies to be able to channel other priority programing to viewers. and i'm only stuck with the option of producing a community access show which is subsidized by users via a tax. kinda like that?

in this mindset, the 1st amendment would protect the speech and a company probably wouldn't be able to discriminate to the point of shutting them down or making it practically impossible to access a site. just like I can produce whatever cable access show I want and it is delivered over Time Warner's pipes at the same speed as ESPN. I'd think somehow the free speech issues would be protected, at least in the United States of America. of course it would take someone suing someone else to find out for sure.

[EcoGraphic]

is it fair to think of a two pipe internet kinda like how's there is broadcast and cable television in the U.S.?

everyone gets the broadcast for free, but then companies like Disney and MTV buy extra access from the cable companies to be able to channel other priority programing to viewers.  and i'm only stuck with the option of producing a community access show which is subsidized by users via a tax.  kinda like that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yah, I think that is probably a good analogy.

[Rob]

if that's a good analogy, then maybe they should be making sure that everyone has the basic access to other people sites (like broadcast) and then you can buy into the second, faster pipe that someone has to pay to build for superior access/service or to deliver bigger products. like i said early, someone probably gotta get sued before all this really works itself out, especially if speech is being stopped.

[EcoGraphic]

if that's a good analogy, then maybe they should be making sure that everyone has the basic access to other people sites (like broadcast) and then you can buy into the second, faster pipe that someone has to pay to build for superior access/service or to deliver bigger products.  like i said early, someone probably gotta get sued before all this really works itself out, especially if speech is being stopped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The minute you do that however, you are placing the decision in the hands of the telecom companies as to what they charge, and who gets preferred treatment. The internet stops being what it is, and becomes no more than another form of Cable TV.

They are whining about not getting paid, yet they already get paid. They get paid for content access and content delivery. They just have to ensure that each website is treated equally.

They just want to be able to charge content providers twice instead of once.

Unfortunately who are you going to sue if there is no rule that says they can't descriminate. This August a two year legislated non-descrimination rule expires for the telecom companies. After that they will be free to start charging what they want.

If you want to compare this to broadcast vs. cable you also have to ask just how bad access and delivery through the "broadcast" version is going to be. If they are making most of their money off the "cable version" you can bet they won't bother upgrading the quality of the broadcast version. This just creates another incentive for people to switch.

There are also multiple telecom companies in the US, delivering to different regions of the US. Not only would you be paying to have your content carried on the "cable" version of the network, but you would be required to have a deal with each of the different telecom companies, because they each represent a different group of subscribers.

You can start to see the problem. Internet users are now treated like a captive audience rather than simply communication users.

The whole concept of what the internet is starts to fall apart.

This quote is good:

"It's a dumb idea to put the plumbers who laid a pipe in charge of who gets to use it. It's a way to ensure that incumbents with the deepest pockets will always be able to deliver a better service to the public, simply by degrading the quality of everyone else's offerings. If you want to ensure that no one ever gets to creatively destroy an industry the way that Amazon, eBay, Google, Yahoo, and others have done, just make paying rent to a phone company a prerequisite for doing business.

"Practically everyone agrees on this. Only the carriers oppose it, and their opposition is so lame it'd be funny if it wasn't so scary. The core argument from the carriers is that Google and other Internet companies get a "free ride" on their pipes. AT&T and others take the position that if you look up a search result or stream a video from Google using your DSL connection, Google profits, but the carriers don't get a share of the proceeds.

"That's wrong."

[Rob]

"It's a dumb idea to put the plumbers who laid a pipe in charge of who gets to use it.

i see both sides of it, but wonder Why would a plumber spend tons of money to lay pipe if she WOULDN'T have some say on how it's used? I don't see how one can expect companies to front the billions in capital to create a system that they aren't going to be able to manage and make money from.

[EcoGraphic]

i see both sides of it, but wonder Why would a plumber spend tons of money to lay pipe if she WOULDN'T have some say on how it's used?  I don't see how one can expect companies to front the billions in capital to create a system that they aren't going to be able to manage and make money from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So your telephone company should get a percentage of every business deal you close over the phone? Fedex should have the right to charge a commission for delivering a high price item as opposed to a low price item to one of your customers? After all you rely on their service to deliver your product. They had to invest heavily in planes, trucks, etc. Why shouldn't they get a larger piece of the action?

They already get paid. They already charge more for high speed access. That's the point. Now they just want a bigger cut. Unfortunately that will come at the price of squeezing out online innovation. I guess you have to ask yourself if you support the internet being handed over to telecom companies which had absolutely nothing to do with its creation. Its not their content, they just see huge profits in being able to control it because unfortunately they already have a monopoly on content access and delivery.

It is really a question of the fundamental right to communicate, and freedom of speech. For non-profit grassroots organizations to have their message heard as easily as CNN or ABC. For new artists to publish their music videos on line and have them distributed as well as anything put out by Sony.

I have zero interest in having my computer hooked up to another version of Cable TV. Sorry.

[Derek Tonn]

It is really a question of the fundamental right to communicate, and freedom of speech. For non-profit grassroots organizations to have their message heard as easily as CNN or ABC. For new artists to publish their music videos on line and have them distributed as well as anything put out by Sony.

Gillian,

That very point is where I think you are losing some folks around here though. Is it a fundamental right to have basic TV? Basic cable TV? 60 channels? 150 channels? All the premium channels? Is it a basic right to have television at all? The problem here is that if we have 10 people in a room with one another, you'll probably have 11 different opinions of what is actually a "basic, fundamental right". We all will agree about wanting protections under the first amendment, but what does the first amendment actually guarantee?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So we know we are free to speak our minds. Okay. However, the first amendment does not specify what vehicles/means we are entitled to use in order to get our beliefs and views across. I think the core of the issue lies in economics moreso than the Bill of Rights. Some people think corporations are evil, blood-sucking vampires whose only purpose in being is to create sweatshops and pay folks minimum wage so they can afford to buy more yachts and summer homes. Other people think that the vast majority of corporations have good intentions...and that if they developed a new product/service and/or the hardware/software that supports it, they are entitled to reap the financial rewards of that technology....for their employees and shareholders.

We are all free to develop any business that we want to, provided we are not breaking any laws in the process. We are free to tell others about our businesses in any variety of forms. However, somewhere along the line, we all thought that we ALSO had the right to "FREE" (or cheap) access to the internet and using said internet to grow our businesses.....and as web content becomes heavier and heavier, chewing up ever increasing amounts of bandwidth, SOMEBODY is going to have to pay for that added delivery method (fiber optic cable, satellites, etc.). Should the telecoms pay for it, while we all continue about our merry way? Probably not....as much as I don't want to pay a dime more to promote my business on the 'net.

Heck, I'd love some 30-second spots during the Super Bowl to advertise mapformation.com, but is it my "right" to have those spots.....or should they go to the highest bidder? I think the difference is that you are looking at this issue from a "social" perspective...while several others in the thread are looking at this as an "economic" issue. I also look at this as an economic issue.....and believe that if telecoms started to take things beyond that realm and more into "social engineering", there would be both legal AND economic repercussions. Consequently, I tend to side on the issue of economics when it comes to this particular issue. If you designed a map and own its copyright, you should be compensated for its use....and if someone wants to pay you a premium to develop a better, custom version of that map, you AND they should have that right. How is that any different from telecoms, bandwidth and its supporting infrastructure? From the standpoint of ECONOMICS?

[benbakelaar]

The content which makes up the internet is hosted by telecoms as well as third-party hosts. "Land" on the internet is hard drive space... costs money. There is a fundamental difference between the real world and the internet. If you were implying that the Internet should be free because we "create" the content, I have to say I disagree. When we access the internet, we are using a vehicle created by companies and users, using tools created by companies and users.

The content which makes up the internet and a connection to the internet are two entirely different things. The telecom companies did not create the internet, they just provide access to it. You and I create the content which people access. Then we pay $29.95 (or whatever) a month to logon and view our content/communicate.

[EcoGraphic]

The content which makes up the internet is hosted by telecoms as well as third-party hosts. "Land" on the internet is hard drive space... costs money. There is a fundamental difference between the real world and the internet. If you were implying that the Internet should be free because we "create" the content, I have to say I disagree. When we access the internet, we are using a vehicle created by companies and users, using tools created by companies and users.

Actually, I am in no way implying that the internet should be "free". I pay to host each and every website I manage, included in that payment for hosting is a certain bandwidth allocation for each website, if I go over that, I pay more for the bandwidth I use for my content delivery. On top of that I also pay to connect to the internet each and every month. My ISP also allocates a certain amount of bandwidth for my high speed access plan, if I go over this I pay for the extra bandwidth I use. So in no way is the internet "free" to use. It never has been, and I am in no way implying that it should ever be.

With that however, is the right to search the net without hinderance, and the right to connect to any website I choose, and use any search engine I prefer to use, in order to find what I am looking for.

Now, as more and more people develop online video content, will we require faster content delivery via enhanced fibre optic lines? Sure, naturally. Will the price charged to connect to the internet go up in the future to cover the cost of those lines? Sure, that just makes sense. Infrastructure costs money, and costs need to be covered. Will the cost of bandwidth go up? Sure. Again, necessary to keep the service alive and profitable.

But should the handful of Telecom companies which control access and delivery to content and online services be allowed to treat their customers like the crowds at the Superbowl, promoting one service over another? Should you be forced to use Yahoo instead of Google, because your telecom company signed a deal with Yahoo? That is the real issue at stake. Once you start to allow Telecom companies to do that you are starting down a very slippery slope. What is next, access to Craigslist limited (a free service), because it competes with the classified ad sections on the various websites owned by the major newspapers? Access to Digg or Slashdot? Why not? They are popular sites. It just goes on and on.

Up until now this has been off-limits to telecom companies, but now that could very well change if Net Neutrality is not upheld.

Heck, I'd love some 30-second spots during the Super Bowl to advertise mapformation.com, but is it my "right" to have those spots.....or should they go to the highest bidder?

I don't think this has anything to do with the "right" to free advertising for your business on the internet. Right now for example, I pay heavily to advertise my websites by placing ads on other websites which get a lot of traffic. That is part of the cost of doing business online. I pay to develop and host my website, and I pay for traffic through ads and links on specific websites. The whole reason I am willing to pay for those ads however, is because those websites I advertise on, do well in the search engines, because they invest time (and therefore money) in developing quality content and links, and therefore attract targeted traffic through hard work and innovation. By buying an ad on their website, I am supporting their hard work, and paying them for the time they have invested in developing their website. They are simply publishing online instead of offline.

Should my telecom company have the right to go to them and essentially demand a cut of their advertising profits however ( by forcing them to pay for ensured content delivery) simply because they are successful? If they are getting a lot of traffic they are already paying heavily to that very telecom company for bandwidth, and afterall, they were the ones who took a chance and invested in developing their website and business in the first place. Chances are they are also paying heavily for offline advertising to promote their website, so by operating their business online as opposed to offline, in no way is the operation of their business "free" in any sense.

I think the difference is that you are looking at this issue from a "social" perspective...while several others in the thread are looking at this as an "economic" issue. I also look at this as an economic issue.....and believe that if telecoms started to take things beyond that realm and more into "social engineering", there would be both legal AND economic repercussions. Consequently, I tend to side on the issue of economics when it comes to this particular issue.

Unfortunately for any online business to have a fair chance at being economically viable, the social nature of the web must be left unhindered. The right to choose one service over another must be left to the internet user, not influenced by your Telecom company. This is what makes the internet a unique publishing and communication medium.

If you designed a map and own its copyright, you should be compensated for its use....and if someone wants to pay you a premium to develop a better, custom version of that map, you AND they should have that right. How is that any different from telecoms, bandwidth and its supporting infrastructure? From the standpoint of ECONOMICS?

You are talking about the right to develop and publish content. If you design and publish a map and it becomes popular, and your company therefore becomes more profitable, should the guy who distributes your map charge you more for delivery, despite the fact that he is providing you with the same service as he did before your map was popular? Or should a competing map company be able to pay off your delivery service so that you have a hard time getting your map distributed at all? No. They are neutral. Your distribution company simply offers you a service which you pay for, according to the number of maps delivered, regardless of how much you make off those maps.

As you say, you should be compensated for the work you have done and time and money you have invested. Your distribution company (just like your telecom company) will naturally make more money as more and more of your maps are distributed, but it ends there. Without you investing the time and money to develop your map, they would not have anything to deliver, would they? So their service actually depends on you having something to deliver in the first place.

Now if you chose to accept investment money for the development of your map from the same guy who delivers your maps, that would be a different story, because he would then be a business partner, and have assumed some financial risk in the development of your map. This is an entirely different scenario.

If Telecom companies want to to profit from Google and Yahoo, they always have the option to purchase shares in those companies the same as anybody else, but they should not use their role as a content delivery service to hold companies ransom. That would be like your map delivery guy charging you more for "ensured delivery" when your map becomes popular.

That's extortion.