"Network Neutrality"

[Morgan_Freeman]

A couple of threads have already come and gone on this topic, but they weren't framed very well.

A number of bills are currently in Congress that are aimed at preventing Internet providers from offering multiple transfer speeds for content. This is being referred to as "multi-tiered" Internet. The sponsors of these bills say they are in favor of a "neutral network", wherein Internet providers are forced by the government to provide all content at a single flat rate. They are dishonestly characterizing this an an issue of "free speech" and "openness", when really it is a financial issue. More and more Internet users are uploading and downloading bandwidth-heavy content such as streaming video. This will necessitate infrastructure upgrades in the near future, and lead to increased costs for telecommunications companies. Naturally, these costs will be passed on to the consumers of broadband.

It makes perfect sense to me that if you use more bandwidth, you should pay more for your Internet. Price rationing works in every other market, why not the Internet too?

A rough article is available on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[JohnMK]

What will be the practical changes felt by consumers that occur within the first year of dumping network neutrality? Separately, what are the theorized medium and longer-term effects?

[Jack]

A tiered internet will create as many problems as it may solve.
Like it mentions in your reference, ISPs have already shown what form violations of neutrality may take:

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. Service was restored after FCC intervention. * In 2005, Canadian telephone giant Telus blocked access to voices-for-change.ca, a website supporting the company's labour union during a labour dispute, as well as over 600 other websites, for about sixteen hours. [33] * Shaw Cable, a major Canadian internet provider, offers a "quality of service" upgrade for their VoIP service. A number of competing VoIP providers have issued complaints that Shaw may be down-grading competitor's traffic. * In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. An AOL spokesman called the issue an unintentional "glitch."[34] * In July 2006, Verizon Wireless blocked access to LiveJournal, YouTube, EBGames, This Spartan Life, and Free Press, as well as access to Yahoo! services for a couple of hours. It also kept people from logging on to Second Life

I see it as trying to create an internet that reflects our current society, with its "poor" neighborhoods, a middle class able to use some applications but not others and the rich class who can do what they want. Some of us hoped the interent would introduce a means for all people (who could get connected, granted) around the world to communicate on a level field. It's morphing into something else all together.

[Capitalist Pig]

There's no reason to enforce a law for what is already common practice anyway. Nobody is trying to charge Internet consumers on a per-website basis, "network neutrality" is the status quo already. There's nothing to outlaw with these bills.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It makes perfect sense to me that if you use more bandwidth, you should pay more for your Internet. Price rationing works in every other market, why not the Internet too?

It works? I don't see it in this case.
It sounds more like a way to wring more money out of the consumer and the counter argument is that the telecom companies will freeze out small, unprofitable websites who can't pay the fees that the telecom monsters will surely charge.
My understanding is that when I pay my webhosts, they in turn pays the telecoms money for the hookup. Or, for regular users like AOL customers, they pay AOL which pays whoever owns the "pipes". Either way the carriers are paid, only now they want to get that camels nose under the tent and when they are ABLE to charge the individual websites or ISPs for different levels of access, subject to THEIR definition of what access is to be charged for and how little bandwidth will be allotted to the smaller outfits, they will charge every dime they can get.

It might sound good from the usual "free market is god" angle but there is that one little element the "free market" MUST have to be fair, and that is a competitor to go to if you don't like the service of one company. Since there is no second Internet you must have some kind of restraint on those who provide the connections. Obscene profits while gouging the consumer is already a fact in the case of the oil conglomerates and you have no argument that THIS monopolistic industry will behave any differently.
Remember, some sites like this and other discussion forums may make a buck but almost NONE of them started that way. How many such forums do you think would be around long enough to make a profit if the owners have to pay a hefty fee to start up?

BTW, the Wikipedia entry is disputed" so I wouldn't take it to be the definitive pro telecom argument. HERE IS another take on this debate.

[Jack]

My understanding is, Capitalist Pig, that these bills seek to end the neutrality we now enjoy. It's true we wouldn't need legilation to provide what already exists, though some may be required to assure neutrality continues later on.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Isherwood My understanding is, Capitalist Pig, that these bills seek to end the neutrality we now enjoy. It's true we wouldn't need legilation to provide what already exists, though some may be required to assure neutrality continues later on.

Oh, okay, I had a wrong impression. It's just another example of the government trying to involve itself in areas it doesn't belong, then.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Isherwood A tiered internet will create as many problems as it may solve. Like it mentions in your reference, ISPs have already shown what form violations of neutrality may take:

Ok, so would you support legislation that requires providers to carry ALL content at some minimum speed?

Quote by: Isherwood I see it as trying to create an internet that reflects our current society, with its "poor" neighborhoods, a middle class able to use some applications but not others and the rich class who can do what they want. Some of us hoped the interent would introduce a means for all people (who could get connected, granted) around the world to communicate on a level field. It's morphing into something else all together.

I don't think your analogy is appropriate. We will always be able to communicate, as a basic level, over the Internet. Sites like Volconvo use a minimum of bandwidth. This issue is about bandwidth-intensive applications that will necessitate infrastructure upgrades. Having a tiered system could even make access cheaper for many users.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It might sound good from the usual "free market is god" angle but there is that one little element the "free market" MUST have to be fair, and that is a competitor to go to if you don't like the service of one company. Since there is no second Internet you must have some kind of restraint on those who provide the connections. Obscene profits while gouging the consumer is already a fact in the case of the oil conglomerates and you have no argument that THIS monopolistic industry will behave any differently.

This is the only good counter-argument I'm aware of, but it is a good one. What if the neutrality legislation covered only existing infrastructure, but telecoms were left free to augment it with a new tiered structure? That should make everyone happy.

[Scribbler1]

A "second" internet? That would possibly do the trick, but I am always exceptionally leery of anything Congress does to make things "fair", especially at the behest of the corporations.
On the surface it sounds good but the devil, as always, is in the details and I am not familiar enough with the issue at this time to agree or disagree.

But I trust multibillion-dollar megacorporations as much as I trust the government. I'm sure a lot of people trusted Enron as well.
Perhaps some kind of third party oversight?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 A "second" internet? That would possibly do the trick, but I am always exceptionally leery of anything Congress does to make things "fair", especially at the behest of the corporations.

Are you saying you oppose the Net Neutrality? That's what Congress is "doing". They are intervening in the market to prevent the emergence of a tiered Internet.

Quote by: Isherwood But I trust multibillion-dollar megacorporations as much as I trust the government. I'm sure a lot of people trusted Enron as well. Perhaps some kind of third party oversight?

You seem to be missing the fact that both sides of this issue are being backed up by big corporations. It's essentially Big Content vs. Big Telecom. So either way, you're siding with big money.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Are you saying you oppose the Net Neutrality? That's what Congress is "doing". They are intervening in the market to prevent the emergence of a tiered Internet.

I support it just as it is, but this issue has not YET been decided in the Congress.

What's happening in Congress? Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support. On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) -- a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying. It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality. On June 28, the Snowe-Dorgan bill was introduced as an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) major rewrite of the Telecom Act (S.2686). The committee split down the middle on the measure, casting a tie vote of 11-11.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations? No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes. Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

It isn't settled yet and big telecom will bring out their checkbooks when it comes to a vote. Morgan, don't tell me you believe Congress will do the right thing for the people.

You seem to be missing the fact that both sides of this issue are being backed up by big corporations. It's essentially Big Content vs. Big Telecom. So either way, you're siding with big money.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If big content gets a break by opposing something that will probably affect the little guys (us) then so be it. If big telecom gets their way they make even more money while gaining the power to freeze out the small sites that can't afford to pay to play.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 If big telecom gets their way they make even more money while gaining the power to freeze out the small sites that can't afford to pay to play.

I just don't see this happening. With bandwidth use increasing all the time, we're going to end up paying more no matter what. There's no reason the telecoms would give users LESS than what they pay for now. This is about expanded bandwidth at expanded prices.