Net Neutrality

[G.A. Heath]

I'm very much in the smaller government camp, and I still see a need for Net Neutrality although the concept of more regulation scares the daylights out of me. Lets say AT&T and Google merge or simply make a deal that causes all AT&T customers to loose access to Microsoft unless they payup for a "Premium Access" package. Now users of Microsoft Operating systems can no longer get updates, and when a user goes to Microsoft.com they get directed to "Google Software Services". Suddenly when their computer is completely infested with malware an AT&T rep shows up and says "You must fix or replace your computer before we turn your internet back on because it is sending spam and/or attacking other machines. Among the papers he leaves is a CD with Google's Chromium OS that can be installed and will get their internet turned back on for Free.

Here's the rub: this scenario is possible, but we already have regulations and laws that will prevent it if applied correctly. We can use the existing anti-trust and monopoly laws/regulations to prevent this kind of abuse. So whats my position on Net Neutrality? I think that it is currently a solution in search of a problem. When the problem actually happens we should address it then and in a manner that minimizes government growth, preferable by using laws and regulations already in place to make things happen.

So you're for it, but think that existing laws are sufficient? I can respect that. I might even agree with it, but I'd have to research existing laws first, and it's laundry night.

I'm not for it because the system isn't in a position where we need it yet, but I understand both sides and I think that we need to leverage our existing laws and regulations rather than grow the government. But lets take a look at the other side, imagine something akin to the radio fairness doctrine but for the Internet. A website must promote both liberal and conservative view points equally if there is any kind of political content. How many pro-gun forums, websites, and podcasts would that kill overnight? Especially when politically incorrect content gets hit before politically correct content. The potential for abuse of regulatory power is too great for any preventative measure to allow new regulatory actions.

[BigGuy]

Resurrecting an old thread with new information.

The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

My ignorance of the legal process must be legion. The FCC voted? Am I correct in my understanding that appointed bureaucrats simply declared themselves to have authority over the Internet? Is it that naive to think that there has to be some legislative process by elected representatives?

[stroo]

The FCC has been knocked down by courts in the very recent past on exactly this issue. Assuming one of the big carriers like ATT or Verizon file suit, I expect the courts to reject this decision by the FCC.

[mojo84]

I tried to access the this forum earlier today and kept getting a message that it wasn't found. I just assumed it was because of the new net neutrality.

[treadlightly]

I don't understand how a private entity can be told what to allow over its network. On the one hand we have folks wanting terrorists kept from communicating, and on the other we must have net neutrality.

In an earlier life I built an ISP in my back bedroom, eventually serving high speed access, pre-DSL, with wireless delivery. It nearly drove me under to support the cost and upkeep of the wireless network, but I couldn't stand to pass up a way to provide something faster than dial-up.

A local business discovered internet radio, and would stream to eight or ten computers. In present times, that doesn't seem like so much, but each computer was getting a separate copy of the stream. They were using a megabit per second or so on a one megabit wireless link.

Wireless systems are typically half duplex - but wait, there's less.

The tower is half duplex just like clients, so it can only 'talk' to one client at a time. It's not a bunch of links, each half duplex, but a half duplex system.

The short answer, a single endpoint could impact all the clients on a single tower with a little creative bandwidth hogging.

Then I implemented this thing called stochastic fair queuing, which ensured that everyone got a shot at their slice of the pie. Most users thought i got more bandwidth, and because of adaptive buffering, the folks streaming all that audio now worked without killing those not streaming.

Please tell me they didn't just make traffic shaping and bandwidth allocation unlawful.

[cb1000rider]

I don't understand how a private entity can be told what to allow over its network. On the one hand we have folks wanting terrorists kept from communicating, and on the other we must have net neutrality.

In an earlier life I built an ISP in my back bedroom, eventually serving high speed access, pre-DSL, with wireless delivery. It nearly drove me under to support the cost and upkeep of the wireless network, but I couldn't stand to pass up a way to provide something faster than dial-up.

A local business discovered internet radio, and would stream to eight or ten computers. In present times, that doesn't seem like so much, but each computer was getting a separate copy of the stream. They were using a megabit per second or so on a one megabit wireless link.

Please tell me they didn't just make traffic shaping and bandwidth allocation unlawful.

I work in the business and have mixed feelings about this too. I want smaller government and free market, but too much of that can be a bad thing - think about the banking implosion.
The internet works only if a bunch of unrelated parties "play nice" with each other. As soon as we allow these companies to hold each other hostage or play favorites, it becomes massively complicated. And I have absolutely no doubt that some company will start to take advantage.

Simple legislation that states that any network decision has to be made "pro consumer" might work... That is, the legislation is vague, but actionable, and not entirely overbearing.

In regard to the FCC overreach, maybe... But look, without it, we'd still have phone monopolies and you and I would be paying 0.50 for "long distance" to the next county... Anyone remember that? The infrastructure has to be shared, but not burdensome, so it's a tough question.



I'm rural and I pay waay to much for internet compared to what I can get 10 miles away. Every now and then I think about bringing in a T1, setting up a tower, and selling it to the neighbors. The big risk in that is if suddenly rural internet becomes a reality (per Obama) - I lose my shirt on all of it... And I'm always looking for a faster internet option.

[maintenanceguy]

I agree. The extent of what should be regulated is preventing ISPs from restricting access to content or giving preferential treatment to it's partners. ISPs should do nothing except provide a connection to the Internet, leaving all content-related decisions to the consumer. Anything less is comparable to what we condemn China for - restricting access to content they don't like.

Except in China, it's the government doing the filtering, not businesses competing in the free market. Unfortunately, as soon as the government starts to regulate the flow of content on the internet, it is the first step to the kind of filtering we see in China. I want the government to keep it's nose out of the internet (and almost every other) business.

[Mel]

Have they checked with Al Gore? After all, the internet is HIS baby!

[jmra]

Neighbor is a manager of some type with AT&T. He has been very vocal about the negative repercussions this would have on end users. I hope his "better get used to dial up speeds" is just a rant.

[treadlightly]

This FCC move reminds me of the fictional Anti Dog Eat Dog Act in Atlas Shrugged. I worry that certain ways to compete have just been made unlawful.

[cb1000rider]

Neighbor is a manager of some type with AT&T. He has been very vocal about the negative repercussions this would have on end users. I hope his "better get used to dial up speeds" is just a rant.

I think we should perhaps not rely on AT&Ts nature in regard to doing what is best for it's customers.... Seems like half of the FCC regulations we have are due to some really anti-consumer behavior that they engaged in at one time or another.

[Keith B]

Neighbor is a manager of some type with AT&T. He has been very vocal about the negative repercussions this would have on end users. I hope his "better get used to dial up speeds" is just a rant.

I think we should perhaps not rely on AT&Ts nature in regard to doing what is best for it's customers.... Seems like half of the FCC regulations we have are due to some really anti-consumer behavior that they engaged in at one time or another.

The breakup (divestiture) of AT&T and the regional operating companies in 1984 was a result of the FCC and DOJ 'making things better for the consumer' and 'promoting competition' It never really lowered any prices that would not have come down anyway. But it did create a couple of monopolies that ended up cheating tons of people out of their money in investments. Even Judge Green who was in charge of the legal breakup stated shortly before it was completed that they had made a mistake and it shouldn't happen, but it was too far along to stop it. In the long run it did allow competition and possibly moved innovation along a little faster, but it sure didn't help the small end POTS consumer out in the rural areas. And neither will Net Neutrality help the regular Internet subscriber out in the rural areas.

I will just ask, when was the last time the government stuck their nose into the middle of anything and 'made it better'?

[mojo84]

Neighbor is a manager of some type with AT&T. He has been very vocal about the negative repercussions this would have on end users. I hope his "better get used to dial up speeds" is just a rant.

I think we should perhaps not rely on AT&Ts nature in regard to doing what is best for it's customers.... Seems like half of the FCC regulations we have are due to some really anti-consumer behavior that they engaged in at one time or another.

The breakup (divestiture) of AT&T and the regional operating companies in 1984 was a result of the FCC and DOJ 'making things better for the consumer' and 'promoting competition' It never really lowered any prices that would not have come down anyway. But it did create a couple of monopolies that ended up cheating tons of people out of their money in investments. Even Judge Green who was in charge of the legal breakup stated shortly before it was completed that they had made a mistake and it shouldn't happen, but it was too far along to stop it. In the long run it did allow competition and possibly moved innovation along a little faster, but it sure didn't help the small end POTS consumer out in the rural areas. And neither will Net Neutrality help the regular Internet subscriber out in the rural areas.

I will just ask, when was the last time the government stuck their nose into the middle of anything and 'made it better'?

Healthcare

[Captain Matt]

I still can't find anywhere the Constitution grants that power to the FCC but this is great news for India.

[stroo]

A couple of people have complained about internet speeds and costs in rural areas. That happens because the population density is low in rural areas.

I remember when I was a lawyer for a telephone company in Missouri a long time ago, we had a guy who built a cabin on a mountain in the Ozarks that was 5 miles from anywhere so that he could get away from things. Then he decided he needed a telephone so he could stay connected to his office. He wanted us to put in five miles of cable to serve him at a cost of something like $15000 dollars. At the rates we could charge him at the time, it would have taken 40+ years to recover our investment No businessman is going to make that investment nor should the taxpayers. We offered to build it for him if he was willing to pay the costs. He refused too.

One of the benefits of rural living is that there are fewer people around. That however comes at a cost whenever you need any kind of network that depends on a certain density of people.