|
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning.
So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns?
Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company.
It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
modified 16-Jan-14 11:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
I think one of the main points is that only the big companies will be able to afford the expected exorbitant fees they are going to charge for a 'fast' connection, so small companies and start ups are basically going to get squeezed out.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
You're probably right, but that's the way a free market works.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be curious if Verizon owned the land upon which their networks travel or are they offered easements by the government. In this case the market would not be entirely free.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a particularly good question. If the government offers the telecom/power/cable companies special protection/access, then there is a question of if that creates a further societal requirement for those industries.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's a free market and capitalism. But it's not always that simple.
We (in the U.S.) have state laws that prevent gasoline from being sold too cheaply so other mom-and-pop stations can compete with the big boys. In many states it's illegal to sell items below cost in stores. This effectively prevents Wal-Mart from undercutting everyone in town until they are the only ones left. We see lawsuits against price fixing in books taken against Apple. There are dozens of examples like this.
My point is that state and federal governments have many rules in place on what type of services can be provided, what must be included in those services, and also the price those services can cost. I see no reason they should not do the same to the Internet providers. That's just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes.. maybe so. but do you use google?
The way the net neutrality was written would prevent your browser from EVER GOING TO GOOGLE or probably bing or any other site that has a reference to a copyrighted image that could be downloaded and used in a school project by your kids - who didn't pay the copyright fee.
The bill is SCARY. It should not be allowed. The copyright laws are enough.
Net Neutrality will put us all in an Orwellian society (assuming you dont think that the governmnet's little project in Utah that captures EVERYTHING YOU DO ON THE ITERNET into a GIANT DATAWARHOUSE for analysis and datamining has not already done so.
The thought police are living with us today and this just gives them more power than ever.
Net Neutrailty is a VERY VERY SCARY thing. KILL THE BILL!
|
|
|
|
|
You're thinking of SOPA, not Net Neutrality. NN is pretty much the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
gardnerp wrote: In many states it's illegal to sell items below cost in stores.
And laws against price gouging as well.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that Internet carriers are very close to a monopoly in most places. In large cities, there may be two or even three carriers, but they are so large and so much in control of so many types of communications in so many places, that they will inevitably establish similar restrictive rules that gives the consumer or the start-up no real choice at all. The free market is not always free. And that is why regulations are needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Who, exactly, do you think creates the monopolistic situation to begin with? Governments are most frequently the unholy partner in alliance with business to create the situation in the first place.
This precisely describes the situation that led to the Robber Baron's in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Regulation, in and of itself is no barrier to monopolies and big business.
Some laws are indeed required to keep the field fair.. but over-reliance on government (also made up of fallible/greedy people) is also not a good choice.
Ideally you want a situation where barrier to entry in a marketplace is low so that competition is maintained. That is NOT what the internet is right now. Its still only a few really large carriers that own a ton of wire. I think that is to be expected given the frightful amount of capital required to build out a network (in this way the telecoms resemble the railroads I refer to above), but we should not lose sight of how government magnifies the problem where monopolies are concerned.
modified 16-Jan-14 20:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If the government had not broken up one particular monopoly, you would still be coding in COBOL on punched cards. Government is a problem when the monopolies take it over, as they have done in the United States. In order to stop such behavior, we don't really have any recourse, except individual purchasing "power", and sometimes even that is under control. So where do you go?
|
|
|
|
|
The right answer is not regulations.. its law.
Regulations are rules that have the force of law but created by a bureaucrat. When that happens, the public has no chance to respond other than during a lawsuit, which is WAY too late to stop bad regulations. When regulations are created, no one in Congress ends up risking their re-election by creating the regulation. We need to get the bureaucracy OUT of the business of creating regulations, and leave that to lawmakers in Congress so that they are risking their rear-ends when creating laws that might be bad.
The original restrictions in place in the Constitution were good ones. We need to get back to that.
We'll never completely rid ourselves of the necessity to consider that big government can be as big a problem as big business.. but if we keep only the lawmakers making laws, we have a better chance of keeping their own desire to grab power in check.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I get your point. Good luck at finding and electing lawmakers with what it takes to understand and write their own regulations properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Where is it written that experts in some non-law field can't be consulted regarding the making of a law? I just want the legislative power where its supposed to be.. so that the public can make their voice known before a law is passed.. rather than silently having it foisted on us by a bureaucracy that answers to no one?
|
|
|
|
|
Squeezed out?
How?
If I drive at 90 mph on the motorway, does that mean you are being squeezed out when you (continue) to drive at 60?
Is anybody honestly claiming that if I burn the fuel to drive at 90, I should also pay for everybody else to go that fast too?
The internet is not a zero-sum game.
Extra speed leads to extra routes/roads/lanes, paid for by the money these 'privileged' customers pay.
Look, my boss has a Lamborghini and a £30 million house, because he built the company from nothing.
Does anybody think I should automatically get a Lamborghini upgrade at zero cost, plus a mansion, simply because I drive on the same roads and live in the same county?
|
|
|
|
|
The analogy doesn't quite work because, since the beginning, everyone has been given a 'Lamborghini', as you say. And now it's being taken away.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
Well now; it's true, we were. Assuming our servers were all equal. But selling somebody a Veyron does not take our Lambos away.
|
|
|
|
|
the difference is that you, going fast, and me, wanting to go fast, all have the same access to the roadway. Your simile falls apart unless you put a tollbooth at every on-ramp, leaving only the two-lane country roads 'free' to use. It doesn't sound so bad, until you add in the HOV lanes, with an additional tollbooth to get in to them (as opposed to the multiple rider rule, now), and then start charging lots and lots of money - which only the transport companies can afford, for access to either.
If I truly had a choice of provider for internet (other than whether to use DSL, Cable, or Satellite), then free market can be allowed, because the competition should keep things under control. The way it is now, if I need a Cable connection - my only option (in my neighborhood) is Time Warner. There is no way that I can sign up with Charter... and because we have all been divided up, just like I cannot select my own electric company.. that is why 'free market' doesn't work.
On the bright side, perhaps it will knock the spammers out.. because we know one of the first things they'll do is start a per-email charge...
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like your market isn't free.
Here in the UK it's somewhat different; up until the 1980's the landline network was guberment owned, but when they privatised it, they enforced a policy of allowing other companies to use the hardware.
A better example would be mobile. Mobile started in the 80's without legacy regulation pretty much. We ended up with at least 5 independent hardware bases, offering actual competition everywhere.
Things slowed up a little after the 3G band auction, due to the large amounts bid, but now they're racing each other to provide 4G.
Locally, I only get 2G or Edge, but I don't have to pay anything towards 4G unless it reaches me and I upgrade.
How is this harming me?
It isn't. I 'have' a 3G contract, but by mixing and matching rural land-based hotspots, I can get around 3G scarcity by factoring in no-cost WiFi links.
This is for all mobile devices.
Fixed internet is going to become very much a supporting technology in the next few years, as conventional ISP's who attempt to control the flow will be totally outflanked by mobile.
|
|
|
|
|
Your analogies are poor.
And your comment about mobile is flat out wrong.
First mobile will never be as fast. Nor does it have the bandwidth.
Second, and more importantly, you are ignoring entirely how your mobile traffic actually flows. Despite marketing claims mobile traffic, moves over the same hardware as land lines. It isn't magic.
|
|
|
|
|
My analogies are great.
And 4G is much, much faster than cable.
Get your facts straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote: And 4G is much, much faster than cable.
My cheap home cable has 50 meg down and 10 meg up. And I could pay more and get more.
How much speed exactly do you think "4G" has? Do you think you have an option to get more bandwidth?
How much bandwidth do you think a google farm has?
|
|
|
|
|
From Wikipedia 4G article (you'll like that, it's not-for-profit).
"In March 2008, the International Telecommunications Union-Radio communications sector (ITU-R) specified a set of requirements for 4G standards, named the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification, setting peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users)."
|
|
|
|
|
We all already pay for Internet services with our monthly access fees. There is no business need to charge anyone more than what they are already paying. It is the consumer that initiates Internet activity, so the charges are presently where they ought to be. They should be able to charge for bandwidth, not content. That is what neutrality is all about. If they can charge based on content or who is providing the content, big providers may be able to pay or fight the charges, but anyone wanting to start a business will not be able to without finding big investors. I have a number of websites which may or may not take off. Without net neutrality, I could not do that. Google and Netflix and Amazon all relied on net neutrality to get started. For a while, Verizon blocked Google Maps on cell phones, only allowing their own Navigator on their network, in spite of it not performing as well. I had no choice except to refuse to use any mapping service at all and to call and send emails to complain. I could not move to another carrier, because the other carriers' signals did not serve all of the places where I needed to get and receive calls. If they did, I would switch in a heartbeat. The Internet has become too necessary for communication. It needs to be treated as a utility.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
