This can't be good (political, kind of)

[rgraham666]

I've been getting e-mails about the U.S. House of Representatives voting on Net Neutrality.

From what I can gather, the bill that was just passed will allow telecom companies to 'prioritize' Web sites. Traffic from particular websites will be move quicker and others will be moved slower. Or possibly not at all.

This can't be good.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I've been getting e-mails about the U.S. House of Representatives voting on Net Neutrality.

From what I can gather, the bill that was just passed will allow telecom companies to 'prioritize' Web sites. Traffic from particular websites will be move quicker and others will be moved slower. Or possibly not at all.

This can't be good.

Son-of-a------! Did they pass that!??!?!?!?!

GODDAMNIT! I wrote all my senator/representatives AND signed the petition...

this is bad.

BAD bad bad bad bad.

Damnit.

 

[rgraham666]

Should have sent some money.

Congress accepts MasterCard and Amex these days, you know.

 

[rgraham666]

It still has to get past the Senate, so send in another note.

I would say there's a possibility of it being vetoed, but can you imagine the current administration vetoing a bill highly favourable to large corporations.

 

[minsue]

It still has to get past the Senate, so send in another note.

I would say there's a possibility of it being vetoed, but can you imagine the current administration vetoing a bill highly favourable to large corporations.

Fucking House. Can't trust those people with anything.

 

[rgraham666]

Fucking House. Can't trust those people with anything.

Yes, you can.

You can trust them to remain paid for.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

You could always do what The Pirates' supporters did...

(If you don't know the story: when the police made a raid against the Pirate Bay and seized a large amount of servers; supporters all over Sweden visited the websites of the police and the government, and downloaded protocols and other files that were available to the public. The massive number of visits overloaded the servers, and both sites shut down for a long time. Everything perfectly legal, but embarrassing as hell to the police and the government...)

 

[Liar]

Ok, but in the name of fair trade and truthful advertising, those who sell crippled Internet access should be forced to call it that. happened here in Sweden in the 90's. A company sold "Internet access", but they only provided access to web browsing through their gateway and a protocol of their own to clients to limit anything else. You couldn't even use POP email. Saved them bandwidth and money. But other providers sued them for calling it Internet. Which is wasn't.

On the other hand, if all major net providers kills the traffic to godhatesfags(dotcom), and Fred sues them, I'll take bets.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As you might imagine, there are two sides to the story, and it's not as simple as the one side makes it out to be. This should not be a left/right issue. At root it is a turf battle between different interests. The interest of the public is served by increased investment in telecom. Imposing a whole new regulatory regime on the Internet will reduce the amount of new investment. Beware of trading short term policy preference victories for long-term reduction in overall benefits. A lot of the populist rhetoric surrounding this issue is an insincere confection baked up by a special interest seeking to use government to gain market advantage. You should be very skeptical and cautious, keeping eyes and minds wide open.

from Cato:

“Net Neutrality”
Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?
by Adam D. Thierer
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-507es.html

Executive Summary

A heated dispute erupted in late 2002 between corporate giants in the high-tech sector over how the networks owned by cable and telecom companies will be governed in the future. Several major software and e-commerce firms have formed the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators to petition the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules ensuring that cable and telephone industry broadband operators will not use their control of high-speed networks to disrupt consumer access to websites or other users. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Net users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. CBUI claims such preemptive, prophylactic regulation is necessary because the current market is characterized by a cable-telco "broadband duopoly" that threatens Internet users.

Such rhetoric and calls for preemptive regulation are unjustified. There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all, and no one has any idea what the future market will look like with so many new technologies and operators entering the picture. In the absence of clear harm, government typically doesn't regulate in a preemptive, prophylactic fashion as CBUI members are requesting.

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.

 

[rgraham666]

As you might imagine, there are two sides to the story, and it's not as simple as the one side makes it out to be. This should not be a left/right issue. At root it is a turf battle between different interests. The interest of the public is served by increased investment in telecom. Imposing a whole new regulatory regime on the Internet will reduce the amount of new investment. Beware of trading short term policy preference victories for long-term reduction in overall benefits. A lot of the populist rhetoric surrounding this issue is an insincere confection baked up by a special interest seeking to use government to gain market advantage. You should be very skeptical and cautious, keeping eyes and minds wide open.

from Cato:

“Net Neutrality”
Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?
by Adam D. Thierer
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-507es.html

Executive Summary

A heated dispute erupted in late 2002 between corporate giants in the high-tech sector over how the networks owned by cable and telecom companies will be governed in the future. Several major software and e-commerce firms have formed the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators to petition the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules ensuring that cable and telephone industry broadband operators will not use their control of high-speed networks to disrupt consumer access to websites or other users. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Net users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. CBUI claims such preemptive, prophylactic regulation is necessary because the current market is characterized by a cable-telco "broadband duopoly" that threatens Internet users.

Such rhetoric and calls for preemptive regulation are unjustified. There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all, and no one has any idea what the future market will look like with so many new technologies and operators entering the picture. In the absence of clear harm, government typically doesn't regulate in a preemptive, prophylactic fashion as CBUI members are requesting.

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.

Uhm, Roxanne?

There was once no evidence that the power generators in California were gaming the system there. And yet they did. Which cost the taxpayers of California billions of dollars and due to blackouts and brownouts didn't do the businesses of California much good either.

The power generators deliberately shut down plants in order to keep prices high.

And your little blurb there did not relief my worry. That the communications companies will be able to decide who and what goes through their networks. I regard this as a blatant danger to freedom of speech.

Or do property rights overshadow that?

 

[rgraham666]

My bad. Should read more carefully.

Try again.

Not sure how a regulatory system will allow 'gaming', but people are smart and undoubtedly will find a way.

In which case we can change the rules. That's what democracy is all about. Changing the rules to prevent unfairness and to make better use of changing times.

But I'll stick to my guns on the main problem.

The communications companies will be able to determine what's available on our computer screens, how quick it loads and how much it costs.

This gives them more power than I think they should have.

 

[Liar]

from Cato:

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

I can't for the life of me imagine how. I read a summary of the net neutrality proposal, and all it does as far as I can tell is limiting the ability to cripple the consumer's access to publically available technologies and services. It says nothing about the company's freedom of choice to keep it's own technologies and services exclusive to it's own customers.

If it does, please let me know.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that it should be forbidden. They are the roviders of a service, and they should have the right to choose how that service functions. HOWEVAH...they should them be required to provide every consumer with a list of sites that will preform poorly and/or not at all with their net subscription. In a standardized, easy-to-read-and-comprehend document. And they should be requitrd to call the access service they provide "Almost Internet" or something.

I mean, a phone company CAN (or should be able to) chosse to say "We're cheap, and you get a toaster oven when you sign up, but if you choose us, you can't call numbers in Florida, Delaware, Ohio or anywhere domestic." But that would be freaking bad business and they wouldn't get many customers.

If net access consumers get to make an informed choice, and still sign away freedom of access, that's their loss.

 

[minsue]

I can't for the life of me imagine how. I read a summary of the net neutrality proposal, and all it does as far as I can tell is limiting the ability to cripple the consumer's access to publically available technologies and services. It says nothing about the company's freedom of choice to keep it's own technologies and services exclusive to it's own customers.

If it does, please let me know.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that it should be forbidden. They are the roviders of a service, and they should have the right to choose how that service functions. HOWEVAH...they should them be required to provide every consumer with a list of sites that will preform poorly and/or not at all with their net subscription. In a standardized, easy-to-read-and-comprehend document. And they should be requitrd to call the access service they provide "Almost Internet" or something.

I mean, a phone company CAN (or should be able to) chosse to say "We're cheap, and you get a toaster oven when you sign up, but if you choose us, you can't call numbers in Florida, Delaware, Ohio or anywhere domestic." But that would be freaking bad business and they wouldn't get many customers.

If net access consumers get to make an informed choice, and still sign away freedom of access, that's their loss.

I couldn't agree more. On all counts.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Uhm, Roxanne?

There was once no evidence that the power generators in California were gaming the system there. And yet they did. Which cost the taxpayers of California billions of dollars and due to blackouts and brownouts didn't do the businesses of California much good either.

The power generators deliberately shut down plants in order to keep prices high.

And your little blurb there did not relief my worry. That the communications companies will be able to decide who and what goes through their networks. I regard this as a blatant danger to freedom of speech.

Or do property rights overshadow that?

Oh, there was plenty of evidence that the CA generators were gaming the system. They admitted it, although some of them lied by saying they weren't gaming it in an illegal way. But no one was fooled. It was inevitable, given the system the legislature created.

No, you should be worried about free speech, but not yet, and in this case probably never, so long as there is real competition. Which mostly happens between different platforms, now, not between providers using the same platform. So you have cable vs. dsl and even regular phone lines. And perhaps wi-max soon. And perhaps power lines being used to transmit internet. There is all kinds of innovation and things are moving fast. A new regulatory regime will slow things down, and consumers will suffer. Let it all shake out for a while in an unregulated environment. After the technology and market matures for a while, if there are abuses or "market failures" that damage consumers then you can talk about regulations if need be.

 

[Liar]

I couldn't agree more. On all counts.

provided then of course that there are enough of us "freedom freaks" to make the non-restricting provider financially sustainable. Of which I have no doubt.

 

[rgraham666]

But shouldn't we be careful, Roxanne?

Given past history of businesses with either a monopoly or oligopoly control of a market wouldn't it be wise to take precautions?

One economist I read has said that the highway system is the wrong paradigm to use for broadband access. The railroads in the 19th Century is a better model.

If you were a farmer in the 19th Century you were pretty much stuck with one railroad if you wanted to ship grain or whatever to market. And the railroads severely abused this power. A lot of farmers were forced into bankruptcy because the sale price of their goods fluctuated and shipping costs only went up. This didn't end until the government regulated the railroads, and trucking became useful. Which the government helped by building roads, especially the interstate highway system.

Hmm. I wonder if the government should build a proper information highway?

 

[R. Richard]

Should have sent some money.

Congress accepts MasterCard and Amex these days, you know.

Not me man! Nowadays, when you deal money with Cogress, you risk getting a nasty case of frostbite when they put the money in the freezer.

 

[minsue]

provided then of course that there are enough of us "freedom freaks" to make the non-restricting provider financially sustainable. Of which I have no doubt.

Oh, I have doubts. We Americans can't seem to give our freedoms away fast enough these days. But I'm enough of a believer in free markets to find your idea the most palatable.