Net Neutrality For Dummies

[lar]

Dec 16, 2017 10:27:40 GMT -5 fauxmaha said:

Dec 16, 2017 9:35:40 GMT -5 dradtke said:

NN as a regulation was only needed in the last two years. NN as a concept and a reality was baked into the internet since it started. The regulation was only needed after corporations started to fuck with it.

That's not true.

From the beginning of time through 2015, companies operated in an environment of pricing model and operational freedom. The results were glorious.

NN took that freedom away. It is a classic move: Powerful corporate interests (Amazon, Netflix, etc) use the government to protect their commercial interests and lock in their competitive advantage. This is classic 'crony capitalism'. I'm missing something here. I'm not arguing your point about crony capitalism. I'm just not seeing how Amazon and Netflix derive a competitive advantage in the NN environment. I thought that was the whole idea behind NN. It prevents a new company from being frozen out.

The thing that NN advocates are missing is that they dismiss how real people with real money make investment decisions. I think we can agree that nothing is more important to the ongoing growth and quality of the internet than continuous new investment in physical infrastructure. Where does that money come from? Does NN increase or decrease the incentive to invest in that infrastructure? Something else I'm not getting. It's been argued that NN prevents infrastructure investment and innovation. During the time that NN has been in place my ISP has moved me from a copper connection to a fiber optic connection.  My connection speed has increased by several hundred percent.  In that same environment we've seen the development of systems that allow users voice control over a wide variety of things including locking doors, turning lights on and off, and regulating the temperature in their homes. Now you can have packages delivered and arrange for the UPS guy to unlock your door and put them inside your house. It's a whole new world and the internet has played a huge part. My thought is that all of those things require investment. What investments haven't been made because NN was holding investment at bay?

When I read NN advocacy arguments, what I hear is something like 'we've had 25 or so years of freedom, and it's been cool, but we've arrived at the end point and it's time to freeze it in place'.

I get that those advocates probably don't think that's what's motivating them, but having spent considerable time working inside the state and federal regulated utility world, I can say with some confidence that that's what they're going to get.

[millring]

Dec 16, 2017 10:55:53 GMT -5 patrick said:

Now, with the loss of NN, you will only get access to those parts of the internet that have the money to bribe the ISPs...

...because that's exactly how it was for the first few decades before NN corrected the situation.

[millring]

"Net Neutrality" brought to you by the folks who brought you the "Fairness Doctrine".

[millring]

What do you have to be afraid of? ....we'll give you access too. We promise.

[millring]

The government promises to mete out access and content without political considerations. No, really. If the government can't be politically neutral, who can?

[Russell Letson]

John, you keep posting things that suggest that net neutrality amounts to the government controlling what goes through the internet or who has access to it. That's not the case--instead it limits differential treatment of those who do have access to the system. It is nothing like the Fairness Doctrine, which was content-driven.

The opposition to NN is driven by the biggest players in the heavily-consolidated data-delivery market--which is also becoming a consolidated content-provider market (e.g., Disney buying most of Fox). It's about who gets to play in an environment that is already characterized by monopoly or duopoly control. In such an environment, it is precisely the role of government regulators to represent the interests of non-corporate persons.

[fauxmaha]

Dec 16, 2017 11:03:10 GMT -5 lar said:

Dec 16, 2017 10:27:40 GMT -5 fauxmaha said:

That's not true.

From the beginning of time through 2015, companies operated in an environment of pricing model and operational freedom. The results were glorious.

NN took that freedom away. It is a classic move: Powerful corporate interests (Amazon, Netflix, etc) use the government to protect their commercial interests and lock in their competitive advantage. This is classic 'crony capitalism'. I'm missing something here. I'm not arguing your point about crony capitalism. I'm just not seeing how Amazon and Netflix derive a competitive advantage in the NN environment. I thought that was the whole idea behind NN. It prevents a new company from being frozen out.

The thing that NN advocates are missing is that they dismiss how real people with real money make investment decisions. I think we can agree that nothing is more important to the ongoing growth and quality of the internet than continuous new investment in physical infrastructure. Where does that money come from? Does NN increase or decrease the incentive to invest in that infrastructure? Something else I'm not getting. It's been argued that NN prevents infrastructure investment and innovation. During the time that NN has been in place my ISP has moved me from a copper connection to a fiber optic connection.  My connection speed has increased by several hundred percent.  In that same environment we've seen the development of systems that allow users voice control over a wide variety of things including locking doors, turning lights on and off, and regulating the temperature in their homes. Now you can have packages delivered and arrange for the UPS guy to unlock your door and put them inside your house. It's a whole new world and the internet has played a huge part. My thought is that all of those things require investment. What investments haven't been made because NN was holding investment at bay?

When I read NN advocacy arguments, what I hear is something like 'we've had 25 or so years of freedom, and it's been cool, but we've arrived at the end point and it's time to freeze it in place'.

I get that those advocates probably don't think that's what's motivating them, but having spent considerable time working inside the state and federal regulated utility world, I can say with some confidence that that's what they're going to get.

"I'm just not seeing how Amazon and Netflix derive a competitive advantage in the NN environment."

That takes a bit of unpacking.

(TL/DR: Amazon and Netflix benefit from government-enforced pricing models that allow them to sell content without directly paying the infrastructure cost of delivering that content.)

(I'm not going to bother Googling up exact dates. Just going by memory here, but the dates will be close enough. Also understand that I am glossing over this, leaving countless corners un-dusted.)

All of this starts with the basic reality that every connection is inherently limited. You can only send so much information over any given connection.

Go back to, say, 1998. At that time, the common arrangement was to have a cable TV service where the company who sold you "the wire" also sold you a bunch of content (ie, HBO, etc.). The presence of that cable TV package revenue (ie, the revenue they expected to get from you by selling you channels) was an integral part of (really, all of) the investment decision that resulted in that wire getting to your house.

Along the way, the internet started getting traction, and those same services started multiplexing an internet feed on their cable wire. Of course, back then, the internet was largely text based and really didn't consume a lot of the (inherently finite) bandwith on the wire. The cable companies (and in some locations, the phone companies) thought of the internet service as a nice add-on: New revenue that didn't really put much of a strain on their infrastructure.

Then the internet started getting heavier. More content. Richer content. Much higher levels of bandwidth consumption. The internet connections that the cable companies sold stopped being an incidental physical burden on their system and started being something they really had to pay attention to.

Then Netflix etal came along and really increased the bandwidth burden. What's worse (from the cable company's point of view) is that the same customers who were streaming movies were also more likely to cancel their high-margin, premium cable services.

So from the point of view of the cable companies, Netflix was "free riding" on the infrastructure that they (the cable company) had built...Infrastructure that literally would not exist were it not for their now-obsolete business assumption that they could use it to generate premium revenue.

What are the cable companies going to do about that?

A) They can see that there is a need to constantly increase network capacity.
B) The revenue model that they previously used to cover the investment necessary to increase capacity was in decline.
C) They look around and see Netflix/Google/Amazon turning into zillion dollar companies by selling content over their connections.

I assume there is no disagreement from anyone here on the basic proposition that (a) The desire for faster speeds is unlimited and (b) Consumers will always be the ones who pay for that speed.

So, someone had the idea that what they could do was charge Netflix for access to their customers. Take all the emotion-laden thinking out of the equation ("fuck it up", "screw the consumer", etc) and that is not an inherently unreasonable idea.

Naturally (here I am, finally getting around to your question), Netflix didn't like that idea one bit. So they and others got aggressive about lobbying the government to take their side on the question, and the Obama administration complied.

Here's where I get to what I think is important on all this: The underlying question here is economic, not technical, and it has to do with how the ongoing need for investment in incremental physical infrastructure gets paid for. Economically, all of the following are equivalent:

a) CableCo charges Netflix $5/mo for access to it's network and customers.
b) CableCo increases the monthly bill for users who stream Netflix by $5/mo.
c) CableCo increases the monthly fees for all users such that the aggregate amount of revenue generated is equivalent to (b).
d) ? ? ? ? ? ? 

The question thus becomes what makes us think that that economic question is actually a political question? There is an infinite number of ways that business arrangement can get sorted out. NN, among other things, reduces that to one...the one that Netflix prefers.

My view on that is that we are foolish to think it is possible to define the one and only one "right" way of answering that question, and then codifying that answer into regulations. Not only is there no single "right" answer, there every reason to think that our individual and collective understanding of "right" will change over time as technology and internet based applications evolve.

Last thought, which I shouldn't include because it's a tangent, but it is important: The quality of the discussion here (SH, that is) is demonstrable proof that the Obama administration tactic of finding an antiquated law and thing ramming this through in a unilateral manner is simply bad government. There are lots of considerations, and reasonable points on all sides. This is precisely why there is a Congress...where different representatives with different perspectives can hash this out and find areas of agreement, and some horse trading, and all the rest. If you decide that you don't want that...that you dismiss the congress and do these things unilaterally inside the executive, this is exactly what you get. No consensus. No stability. No permanence. "Rules of the game" are nothing more than "whatever they last guy who won an election wants them to be".

That is a disastrously bad way to run a government.

I could go on, but that's long enough.

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2017 19:22:02 GMT -5 epaul said:

And it's also called Democracy. The vote to dump Net Neutrality on the FCC commission was 3 to 2. Three Republicans voted to dump, two Democrats voted to keep. Obama's guy got dumped and Trump's guy took his place. 3-2.

If Net Neutrality turns out poorly for most consumers, the fix is simple, vote in more Democrats and Net Neutrality will be back and Republicans won't dare touch it ever again.

And if it works (or if its effect isn't noticeable) then it will stay because there won't be much of a push to dump it.

You get what you vote for.

Didn't the opposite thing occur to implement it, however? I don't trust well intentioned people who force their agenda on me, whatever it may be. We'll get screwed either way, most likely but which side will use some KY? Oh wait! I'm back in Canada. You'll love net neutrality. Here it means the left government controls everything you hear and see for your own good. The CRTC drove Sun News (Canada's version of FNC) off of the air. It's more like nyet neutrality. Das Pravda comrades. 

   

[Deleted]

Dec 16, 2017 11:27:40 GMT -5 millring said:

The government promises to mete out access and content without political considerations. No, really. If the government can't be politically neutral, who can?

Well, I've been watching the attempted bureaucratic coup d'etat from a far and getting great entertainment from it. Can't have the wrong side winning an election, they may change things.    

[Marshall]

I'm reminded of how Microsoft cut Lotus 123 and WordPerfect out of the playing field. They used their control of the operating system to kill the competition. Was that a good thing? Or bad thing? I don't know.

Now there's only two universes to choose from; Apple and Microsoft. They both maintain rigid control. Is that good, or bad? I don't know.

[fauxmaha]

Dec 16, 2017 14:15:59 GMT -5 Marshall said:

I'm reminded of how Microsoft cut Lotus 123 and WordPerfect out of the playing field. They used their control of the operating system to kill the competition. Was that a good thing? Or bad thing? I don't know.

Now there's only two universes to choose from; Apple and Microsoft. They both maintain rigid control. Is that good, or bad? I don't know.

Linux.

[brucemacneill]

Rumor has it that Apples going to drop the Mac line. I think that will just leave PCs unless you want to go completely cloud with a tablet. That's what they'd want because then they own all your data too.

[Dub]

Dec 16, 2017 1:33:09 GMT -5 lar said:

Dub, I read the articles. I agree with you. They are technical. For me, they are not easy to understand. Despite the fact that one of the articles is kind enough to tell me what DNS stands I have no idea of what it means. Of the two articles the only thing I really understood was that my internet service includes the ability to transmit data but that the FCC doesn't understand that. The data transmission part seems logical because that's what I'm doing right now. The rest of it was way over my head.

I disagree that the articles aren't political. One of them is headed by a graphic that shows several people in front of the White House and holding up cards with letters on them that spell out "Save the Internet". To me that's a political statement. I don't object to them voicing their opinion nor do I object to the method they've chosen. The message, however, is clear. Abandoning net neutrality will mean the death of the internet. Starting the conversation with that premise leaves little middle ground for discussion. I think that's political. At the end of the article the writers implore Congress to support net neutrality because if they don't it might cost them at the ballot box. That seems political to me.

I understand that both of the articles that Russell linked are likely very helpful to people who are technically capable. I am not.

None of that, however, has anything to do with the bookstore analogy. It may not be perfect from a technical standpoint but it was meant for consumption by people like me who are never going to grasp the technical aspects of this argument. As I understand it, at the highest level, net neutrality says that a providers cannot decide to slow down certain content or deny access to certain content. I'm not preaching for it or against it. That's just my understanding. What does the bookstore analogy say? It describes a regulation that forces a bookstore to provide equal access to all books not just the ones that are selected by the bookstore owner. It's a simple and succinct example that I can relate to. Since I can't relate to DNS, packets, or caching the bookstore will have to suffice. I do understand bookstores.

Dub, one of the things you wrote was "Abandoning Net Nutrality is like allowing the electric utility to charge you more than your neighbor because you don't use as much power (or because you use more.)" The fact of the matter is that my electric company is allowed to charge me for the amount of electricity I use. If I use more than my neighbor, I pay more. Lots of businesses base their prices on the volume of product that is being purchased. My take on what you wrote is that getting rid of net neutrality puts the ISPs on the same footing as the electric company or companies that offer lower prices for bulk purchases. If my neighbor is streaming Netflix 24 hours a day and I'm just writing a few emails, it seems logical that he should be paying more. Since you are an advocate of net neutrality I think I may have misunderstood what you wrote.

I'll finish by saying that this entire issue is fraught with politics. It's part of Trump's belief that over regulation by the Federal government is stifling business. To that end he appointed an FCC Chairman who agrees with him and overturning net neutrality is the result. As with many of Trump's statements there is some kernel of truth to what he says. Unfortunately, he begins with the idea that there is some over regulation and he seems to end with the idea that ANY regulation is too much. It is possible that net neutrality, as it has stood until now, is too much regulation but that no net neutrality at all is too little?

Lar, People have long paid different prices for different services. That concept isn't at odds with NN. If your neighbor streams movies while you simply use email and The SoundHole, they probably pay a lot more than you do. First of all, they need much higher bandwidth (a bigger faster pipe that can accommodate movies) and telcos, cable companies, and ISPs charge more for that bandwidth. They probably buy something like 10 - 20 Mbps (megabits per second) while you will be quite happy with 1.5 Mbps. No one is saying you and your neighbor should be paying the same amount for different service. On top of that, your neighbor has to pay Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, et al., for content to stream over that bandwidth. None of that is at odds with NN. But suppose you decide to subscribe to Netflix and your cable and Internet services are provided by Comcast. Netflix is it own corporation. Hulu is owned by NBCUniversal Television Group (32%), Fox Broadcasting Company (36%), and Disney-ABC Television Group (32%). Disney has just moved to acquire Fox. NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast as is AT&T Broadband. Now Comcast has a vested interest in ensuring that Hulu works better in your home than Netflix does. They have the technology, and now the legal right, to slow packets coming from Netflix in favor of those coming from Hulu. You probably don't have an option of choosing a different cable and Internet provider or if you do you've viewed that choice as unsatisfactory in the past. So you have a crappy experience watching Netflix even though you've ponied up the money for the bandwidth and the content service.

The bookstore analogy doesn't apply here because the bookstore sells content. What we're talking about here is privately owned toll streets and roads. If the city streets are owned by a large pornography company they can set toll rates so that getting to the “adult” bookstore is fast and cheap but getting to Barnes & Noble or the university bookstore is slow and expensive. This has nothing to do with telling bookstores what they must offer for sale, it has to do with influencing or limiting which bookstores you choose to visit.

Are you and I both free to walk down the same street at the same time or will you have to wait until I'm not using the street?

[Dub]

Dec 16, 2017 15:20:02 GMT -5 brucemacneill said:

Rumor has it that Apples going to drop the Mac line. I think that will just leave PCs unless you want to go completely cloud with a tablet. That's what they'd want because then they own all your data too.

Those bastards! Now where did I leave my torch and pitchfork.

[jdd2]

Dec 16, 2017 15:20:02 GMT -5 brucemacneill said:

Rumor has it that Apples going to drop the Mac line. I think that will just leave PCs unless you want to go completely cloud with a tablet. That's what they'd want because then they own all your data too.

Ah, so that’s why they’ve just announced the new Mac Pro....?

[brucemacneill]

Dec 16, 2017 18:35:05 GMT -5 jdd2 said:

Dec 16, 2017 15:20:02 GMT -5 brucemacneill said:

Rumor has it that Apples going to drop the Mac line. I think that will just leave PCs unless you want to go completely cloud with a tablet. That's what they'd want because then they own all your data too.

Ah, so that’s why they’ve just announced the new Mac Pro....?

Haven't seen any new announcements. They had talked about a new one for 2018 last spring but the rumor I heard was that they were getting out of the desktop market. We'll see.

[Doug]

NN isn't the answer to the problem that the pro NN want to address.  The problem is vertical monopolies. Break the vertical monopoly and problem solved. No content and supply from the same company. 

[dradtke]

Dec 16, 2017 19:11:29 GMT -5 Doug said:

NN isn't the answer to the problem that the pro NN want to address.  The problem is vertical monopolies. Break the vertical monopoly and problem solved. No content and supply from the same company. 

Okay, you're right. Damn, I agree with Doug. Who has the power to break up the vertical monopolies?
The dirty nasty "government?" Or maybe we the people?

[dradtke]

[quote author="lar" source="/post/766889/thread" timestamp="1513390120" But I pay for a certain level of service and the speed at which I can communicate is based on what I pay. [/quote]
That's it right there. You nailed it.

You pay, and you expect to get what you pay for. Damn right. No problem. American way.

Until AT&T, who provides your service, decides that you don't really deserve to get Netfilx - even thought you're paying for it - because AT&T makes more profit if you watch something else. Who are yo going to go with? AT&T, or the American way?

[Doug]

Dec 16, 2017 19:36:03 GMT -5 dradtke said:

Dec 16, 2017 19:11:29 GMT -5 Doug said:

NN isn't the answer to the problem that the pro NN want to address.  The problem is vertical monopolies. Break the vertical monopoly and problem solved. No content and supply from the same company. 

Okay, you're right. Damn, I agree with Doug. Who has the power to break up the vertical monopolies?
The dirty nasty "government?" Or maybe we the people?

Government creates vertical monopolies by having Limited Liability Corps. No LLC no vertical monopolies.