Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- WResonance (not verified)
- Eddie (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- RobbL
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- We swear, we had NOTHING to do with this...
- Alexander Aan: 'God Does Not Exist'
- 'Should Californians be allowed to register and vote on election day?'
- 'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America
- D-Day
- Earl Scruggs Was The Coolest Man Ever
- Remember, Remember...
- Five Perfect Collections of Outtakes
- Jerry Brown for President
- Turns Out, Californians May Not Be the Craziest Voters in America
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 19 guests online.
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
Where's the harm, you say?
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 08:07 — RobbL
I’m not saying there should be federal intervention, but this Google-Verizon thing is EXACTLY what legislated Net Neutrality advocates warned about. Corporatists who opposed Net Neutrality regulations liked to ask, “Where’s the harm?” Well it’s right here.
So step-up, you so-called “libertarian” advocates of unrestricted freedom for the corporate beneficiaries of government largesse. Are you going to write scathing articles criticizing the behavior of Google and Verizon, urging consumers and businesses to “vote with their wallets” and support providers who stand up for the end-to-end principle? Or will you turn a blind eye to the shenanigans of giant corporations who made their billions on the back of that principle, and now wish to deny it to the next generation?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7306
- RobbL's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Google-Verizon
It should be noted that the Google-Verizon "agreement" is really just a suggestion to regulators on how to proceed as far as NN regulations go, as opposed to an explicit plan to prioritize traffic, at least on the surface (I haven't had a chance to read the whole document yet, or delve into the commentary).
Also, the two big loopholes are "mobile" and "new technologies" which pretty much means they are proposing that virtually everything be off limits to regulators come 5 years (or less).
Golly ... Khabalox talks some sense, at least a bit
Walk back from the ledge, Robb. I hate the Google-Verizon "deal," too. But, I see, we hate it for different reasons. (I'm still shocked that the most doctrinaire libertarian around here is jonesing for more regulation ... but that's a different conversation. And for someone who says there should be no "federal intervention" here, you sure seem want some.)
I used to rip Big Internet for negotiating the method of its own execution with the government. After reading a bit about this, I've amended that view. It's seems Big Internet is not only negotiating its own execution, but volunteering to sharpen the ax. Perhaps a better analogy is that Big Internet is feeding "wired" Internet to the federal alligator, hoping it eats wireless last. Good luck with that.
I'm no blanket apologist for every corporate abuse, no matter what you might think. But everything you buy, Robb, comes from "the corporate beneficiaries of government largesse" — from your cheap food, relatively cheap gasoline, music, electronics (Best Buy, anyone), to beer, to ... well, everything. And, somehow, the market that brings you all these great products at acceptable prices can't manage to bring you the Internet the way you want it and can afford it.
If you believe that, you're either of little faith in free markets, or you're uninformed, or you've been suckered by a lefty-propagated panic. A "deal" between Google and Verizon should scare you as much as a "deal" between McDonald's and a large frozen burger company. I still await genuine, measurable "harm" inflicted upon us poor, benighted Netizens before I get my dander up.
Re: The Ledge
(I'm still shocked that the most doctrinaire libertarian around here is jonesing for more regulation ... but that's a different conversation. And for someone who says there should be no "federal intervention" here, you sure seem want some.)
Please cite the sentence (or even phrase) where I suggest more government regulation.
My point, as I made in our podcast on the subject, is that those who criticize legislated net neutrality don't take the actual problem seriously. They claim it's federal regulators with a solution in search of a problem. That is naive. History has shown us that regulation tends to appear most aggressively when the market doesn't police itself. Fans of truly free markets should not just be attacking the regulators, they should be vigorously encouraging non-government forces to influence the big players toward practices that address the problems of the market in a free-market way. If that does not happen, then the regulators will come in and pass a bunch of rules that will not negatively impact the dominant players one bit. Google, Verizon, AT&T, and the others will get their way. But the regulations will crush competition from startups. Then EVERYBODY loses. Lovers of the free market should be encouraging these behemoths to pledge to observe the end-to-end principle, and then punishing them economically if they don't.
More in my reply to K...
RE Khabalox's sense
It's seems Big Internet is not only negotiating its own execution, but volunteering to sharpen the ax. Perhaps a better analogy is that Big Internet is feeding "wired" Internet to the federal alligator, hoping it eats wireless last. Good luck with that.
How can a libertarian complain about a private company making private choices affecting their private business? ;)
I still await genuine, measurable "harm" inflicted upon us poor, benighted Netizens before I get my dander up.
Comcast already shown the willingness to prioritize (actually, blocking altogether) traffic in actual fact, and in quite an insidious and deceptive way.
Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
It seems now they don't outright block you, but even if you are not exceeding your allotted upload bandwidth, they will de-prioritize your packets.
Comcast's current policy is that anyone using more than 75% of their allotted bandwidth for an extended period of time gets pushed to the end of the line. They don't block your packets, but they'll give them a lower priority.
That's genuine, measurable harm.
Australian ISPs block torrent traffic too.
"I'll sell you 768 kbps of upload bandwidth for $40 bucks a month."
"OK, that sounds like a fair price."
[later]
"When I sold you 768 k up I didn't realize you would be sending files to other people/hosting a small web server/internet game/sharing home movies. You're using 600k of your allotted bandwidth so I'm going to slow down your traffic and not rebate any money even though we are not fulfilling our end of the contract."
"Well, Luckily this is a 'free' market. I'll just go with the one other ISP that services me."
"AT&T has the same policy."
"FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-------------"
In my view, as long as the ISPs' networks run on publicly owned land (or through publicly "owned" airwaves) and are built with tax-payer subsidies, they should be subject to certain rules as decided by the people giving away this land and money, i.e. the tax-payers through our representatives. If AT&T wants to build a truly private network, then they can decide who they want to let transmit on it.
The Internet is greater than the sum of it's parts. It is the public square of today. "Privately" built toll roads are a good analogy. The owners of toll roads should not be allowed to discriminate against certain classes of drivers. The road is a public good - right of way is granted/leased to the company maintaining the road, and they are allowed to collect tolls to operate it. People who use the road more should pay more, but everyone should be able to use the road equally.
Likewise with the Internet. Physical right of way has been granted to ISPs to run their wires, and subsidies given to make running the wire less costly to the company (like toll road companies were given the road originally built with public funds). The ISP is within their rights to collect tolls, and charge more for faster service, or more bits transmitted per month/unit time. But they should not be able to refuse to send my bits (or even degrade the speed) because I am sending a torrent file, or downloading a video from somewhere other than, for example, YouTube.
Re: Sense
K articulates the problem quite accurately here. Due to being early beneficiaries of government (i.e. public) funds and infrastructure, the carriers who now provide access to the Internet are unfairly using their position to crush competition. The toll road illustration is an apt one. The backbone of the internet was built and maintained by the federal government. This is analogous to the Interstate system. While private providers have increasingly expanded the backbone, it is still heavily subsidized by public funds, and the end-to-end principle says that everyone is entitled to use it with equal priority.
The service provided by ISPs like Verizon is analogous to the on- and off-ramps of the freeways. The value of the onramp is not the ramp itself, it is the publicly-funded freeway to which it grants access. Nobody objects if a private company builds and maintains an onramp and makes a modest profit by charging for it - unless that company, because it has been given exclusive control of the primary means of accessing a public resource, starts to discriminate based on unequal criteria designed to boost their incomes while denying access to the very public that funded the freeway. For example, charging for access by the pound or axle might be reasonable, as it translates to consumption without judgment. But let's say the onramp company starts charging extra for foreign-made vehicles, or vehicles that don't have Michelin tires. That's dirty dealing, and it should be smacked down vigorously.
This is what Google-Verizon are doing. They're trying to pretend they're playing fair, but they're really saying they'll treat everyone equally - as long as they're consuming Google's and Verizon's services.
Forget all of this - Khabalox really said it better and more concisely. The Internet is a giant public infrastructure for the movement of packets without discrimination. ISPs don't just lack wisdom when they seek to discriminate based on content, they lack the right to do so.
Some stuff to deal with ...
Robb,
Let me start out by saying that I'm a big fan, and respect you greatly. However ...
So, what are the options? As I see it, it's allowing Google and Verizon to do their worst, and letting market forces work out the kinks — i.e. letting an incredibly sensitive consumer audience offer its feedback and make appropriately punishing choices — or getting the government to play cop. There isn't much of a middle ground, thus my statement. You may believe there is an option that does not involve one of these choices, but in our many parries in posts and conversations, you have yet to offer one.
If you propose allowing the current regulatory regime handle this matter — instead of erecting a wholly new, and inevitably greedy regime — you'll get little argument from me. Why does every consumer/corporation conflict need a new regulatory regime to address it? We have hardly tried applying the current regs on the Net, and everyone wants to erect new rules under the authority of an FCC that is incapable of mastering even it's original mandate.
Franky, I don't have the energy at the moment to go through the full rebuttals of you and our beloved Khabalox point by point — in part, because I'd only be retreading well-worn ground. But I fear you are mistaking me for an apologist for Big Internet, which is regrettable. I get enough of that from the dedicated, Marxist digital left. You should hear what I say about Big Internet when I'm not typing — and I will again on Blog Talk Radio on Saturday evening.
I don't have faith in Google or Verizon to make the right choices for us. I have confidence that the market — us! — will force them to make the right choices for our digital experience. And I prefer that because it has always worked better than government bureaucrats working on our behalf.
Indeed, a big part of the reason I think this Google/Verizon deal is crappy is because it's nothing less than cruddy rent-seeking with a shiny patina. Blech!
RE Some stuff to deal with ...
If you propose allowing the current regulatory regime handle this matter — instead of erecting a wholly new, and inevitably greedy regime — you'll get little argument from me.
I will admit that I don't have a firm grasp on exactly what the "current regulatory regime" is (or what you mean by that), but I would argue that something as new and different as the Internet needs to be treated fundamentally different than broadcast television or print media, whether we are talking about business plans or government regulations and laws. It simply would not make sense to take the laws applicable to telephone companies, movie studios, television networks, etc. and try to copy-paste them onto the Internet and ISPs.
Why does every consumer/corporation conflict need a new regulatory regime to address it?
It doesn't. But this situation satisfies a few key criteria:
That last one isn't strictly necessary, but is another important reason to find some mechanism to prevent the discrimination of IP packets.
I have confidence that the market — us! — will force them to make the right choices for our digital experience.
I would too, if there was a free market. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans experience a duopoly or triopoly when it comes to broadband ISPs. The wireless market is very slightly better, with a lot of people having 4 choices. (Right now you have the choice of buying unlimited data plans on 2 or 3 of them, but not on AT&T. This is a good thing - choice. But it looks like that choice will be going away soon. Few providers = few choices.) How are we - the market - supposed to keep "Big Internet" honest when all of Big Internet is operating the same way?
Khabalox really said it . . . more concisely.
Now that's something I don't hear everyday. :)
More demonstrable harm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015231-38.html
I think it's time for Jim et al to stop claiming that there is no plan by ISPs to prioritize traffic based on who pays the most.
Moderation
Well, I think that regulation, just like anything else, needs to be in moderation. I mean, the problem is that it goes too far, intruding on freedom of speech casino online legali and other rights.
Truth
The problem is that nobody really knows the truth anymore. There always seems to be an ulterior motive behind anything the government does. From the way net-neutrality is being put to the general public one would have to wonder how this situation really applies to everyone having access to broadband. Unless, of course there is a whole lot more to it than that.