Why Oppose Net Neutrality?
An anti-net-neutrality coalition launched their lobbying site at Hands of the Internet. The best argument on their side: regulation is bad for the internet. THe internet has developed so quickly to what it is today because of the lack of regulation. Any new neutrality regulation will be burdensome and onerous for the pipe owners who will be prevented from making money by such a regulatory scheme.
The advantage of a non-neutral internet (to broadband service providers, that is) is the ability to offer premium services and not simply internet access. Why compete and speed and reliability when you can compete by offering premium services that cost less to implement and offer more potential value to consumers. Let's take a quick trip to the sales pitch in the hypothetically non-neutral internet:
- Consumers…
- Want access to online video? You could download video that with your 5 MB/sec Broadband Basic connection, but for only an additional $7.99/month, you can have FastLane access to video that will let you watch video from our premier content partners (including NBC, Microsoft and MTV) at high-resolution.
- -Want to connect to your office securely? For only $12.99/month more you can run a secure VPN connection.
- Want to use VoIP? On our standard connection, all VoIP packets are blocked, but for only $7.99/month, you can make unlimited voice chats through your computer, or for only $11.99/month, you can connect a standard phone and talk for 1000 minutes per month with no long distance charges.
- Want to download software updates? For an additional $4.99/month, you can use the FTP and BitTorrent protocol on your connection.
- Instant messaging is free to other CableCo users!* *Note: premium connection fees ($0.10/message) may apply to IMs sent to users of other ISPs.
ISPs look enviously at the business of the wireless carriers, who can charge premium rates for access to premium services on their wireless networks, like access to audio/video or news and sports scores. And those wireless networks are resulting in an unprecedented sharing of creative media by individuals. Oh wait, that's the free internet. The advanced services offered by wireless carriers at advanced prices are rarely used. The NY Times reports: Video Handsets Mostly Just Used as Phones
Cellphone companies, especially Sprint and Verizon Wireless, have been aggressively promoting mobile video services, which cost an average of $10.70 a month for access to sports, news and weather clips. More than a quarter of cellphones now in use can play such videos. But only 1 percent of wireless subscribers are using their phones to watch them, according to a recent survey by the NPD Group, a market research firm.
Decisis: "Net Neutrality", the cable industy, universal Wi-Fi, and the collective wisdom embodied in stock prices: "Now, maybe a bundle-happy, cash-ascendant cable industry and net neutrality coexist happily together and I'm being silly to even post on this, and really there's just no conceptual connection. . ."
Will new net neutrality regulation allow the information economy to evolve as freely as it has over the last decade or will such regulation merely freeze the internet in 2006?
Did the internet develop so well because it was first delivered to households through the common carrier phone lines? Or did the internet develop slower than it would have otherwise because telephone companies were prevented from innovating because of the common carrier regulations?
Categories
Net Neutrality5 Comments
5 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why Oppose Net Neutrality?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.iptablog.org/emtee/mt-tb.cgi/3898
1place1sts Read More
diabet1dia . symptoms of diabetes . Read More
diabetes symptoms Read More
diabetes treatment Read More
diabetes type 2 diet hu4ud8 Read More
The mantra of the corporate world is "Damn the consumers, full speed ahead!" (Xref the recording and movie industries on that.)
With that philosophy in mind, can we really trust the market to work things out? IPTAblog talks all the time about the impact of copyright legislation and technological measures that are meant to remove consumer choice and put the consumer at the whim of the content producers. What's going on with respect to network neutrality smacks of the same thing - ISPs take advantage of the limited competition in their arena to limit consumer choice and profit as a result.
If we could all vote with our feet for broadband service, then sure, why bother with network neutrality when we can all ditch Verizon and Time Warner and go with whatever ISP will work on our terms. But it's not like that. Most people are stuck with two choices - their local phone company and their local cable company - and the ISPs know it. That's why we need regulation, to keep the powerless citizenry from falling victim to anticompetitive business practices.
Think of it as the Sherman Act of the 21st century.
good post
Good post, Andrew.
Re: Barry's comment, it's important to bear in mind that we're on the verge of a major revolution in communications technologies where three networks that have grown up in relative isolation -- cable TV, voice, and the Internet -- are converging onto common infrastructures, and we see this on both wired and wireless networks. We don't yet know what the ideal co-existence method is on the network, and we don't know how consumers are going to value these services relative to each other. That being the case, it's wise not to impose government regulation to correct a problem that doesn't actually exist today.
The "net-neutrality coalition" has already decided that the Internet is more important than voice and video, and they don't want infrastructure companies doing anything that might disadvantage it or even make it pay its fair share of the cost of the new systems. That's their consumer preference, but it's not the universal one so they shouldn't be able to dictate to the rest of us how we spend out leisure time.
In other words, the "net-neutrality coalition" is fascist in every way, and must be defeated if Americans are to retain our essential freedoms.
Three comments in and already we've already reached the Godwin point?
But in terms of core values, how does a discriminatory internet promote free speech?
I've been a party to many on-line discussions in which Mike Godwin was called a Nazi, but that's neither here nor there.
Networks don't have "core values" and neither to they have "rights", to free speech or otherwise. Networks are machines that have design principles and design goals.
If free speech is maximized on networks by the principle of treating all packets as equals, so is spam and porn and DOS attacks and free-riding.
IP forwarders examine packets and make forwarding decisions based a multitude of factors, include IP options, origin and destination networks, link state, stream states, and all sorts of other things. That's the way the Internet works today and that's the way it will work tomorrow.
"Net-neutrality" imposes a misconception on the Internet, and adopting it would be a massive mistake.