Obama ruins the internet

[Francesca R]

I view “solving the monopoly problem” as hand waving. I don’t think there is real solution anymore than there was a way to solve railroad monopolies in the late 1800’s. You don’t need duplicate networks and building them just adds cost to everyone. Sharing them sounds nice, but that’s exactly what net neutrality rules facilitate.

I think you are waving your hand at the elephant in the room, which is effectively showing indifference to it.

Nobody who is informed about arrangements outside the US should be raising the red-herring of duplicate networks and associated costs, it should be fully apparent that these are not required for competitive ISP formation.

Net neutrality is not about sharing local exchange networks, you are incorrect. Sharing local exchange networks is what allows multiple ISPs per customer. Network neutrality in the US is not going to enable this sharing (it is not going to increase ISP choice). NN is proposing to get around the absence of choice by compelling ISPs to be neutral to content providers. That is different, one stage removed, from local loop operators (LECs) being neutral to ISPs.

The bottom line is

1) If you have competitive choice of ISP then demand for neutrality towards content provision will much more likely give rise to ISPs offering that*, but at the same time, demand for non-neutral subscriptions (which exists, and such arrangements are typically cheaper) is not chased away by an angry mob that just outlawed it because they didn't want it themselves. There are good reasons (TM) why ISPs should not have to offer neutral service. Just like there are good reasons why Apple Inc should not be forced to put anybody's app on their store (and they don't, and there does not appear to be a shortage of people buying their platform)

2) If you are indifferent to increasing ISP choice and just want to impose on all of them a neutrality requirement--because that's what most people think they want--then you have a sub-optimal situation to say the least. Monopolistic competition remains and has to be dealt with (because it leads to market failure), and you have reduced diversity of internet service choice, which reduces welfare relative to diverse choice.

In my view the only rational reason for wanting NN is the view, expressed widely here, that anything else will not be politically viable in the US, and NN might just be, so go for it. I take no issue with that beyond other countries have done it (done the competition-enhancing change and not been so minded to implement NN). Several of the reasons why people argue it is uniquely impossible in the US are bogus ("stealing private property", "population density"). The non-bogus reason is political gridlock. OK fine--but that isn't going to cause me to be an NN advocate on this forum, given that it is a considerably worse solution in my view.

*I doubt that anybody can point to a country/region where retail customers have a choice of--say--four or more ISPs and at the same time none of them are neutral.

 

[3point14]

I wonder, if they were allowed, do you think ISP's would block or restrict acces to they hypthetical:

yourISPisripping you off.com

ISPCEOshopliftingscandal.co.uk


Or similar websites.

 

[Francesca R]

I was referring to area. Shetland is kind of small compared to Montana. Lerwick would be in the top 12 cities in Montana.

It really does not matter. If the addresses have a phone, then it is technologically and economically extremely viable for them to have multiple ISP choices. Please see earlier posts about arrangements where the local exchange network is separated from communications companies and the former *is* regulated as a utility.

Existing infrastructure to handle high speed internet?

This is not really relevant. Of course fibre-internet requires new infrastructure. The same governance model can be applied to that (and it is in the UK and New Zealand which are examples that have come up in this thread). And furthermore, this network is frequently part funded publicly, which is appropriate since it is a public good.

 

[Meed]

your question was unclear, both as to what you were asking for and the level of detail you wanted.

I didn't forget. I was putting it simply, which necessitates not going into the details.

My apologies. I can see how my wording might have been unclear. And certainly no one is obligated to answer the question in the first place. It was a lazy question that I should be capable sorting out on my own with a little effort.

I was looking for a brief rundown on what the points of disagreement are ITT. It seems to me some of the points of disagreement are:

-Is network neutrality (NN) good/important?
-What IS NN?
-Would NN have prevented the conflict between Comcast and Netflix?

The idea of more competition being a good thing has been raised a lot also, but I don't recall anyone directly disagreeing with this.

 

[Francesca R]

The constant clarion call of yours for more competition is a possible fix, but it's also impractical to implement in the US or any country with large tracts of rural land (like South Africa).

Like Australia? Most addresses have about six ISPs even in remote parts of the country.

It also will not prevent monopolies from naturally forming over time, at which point you're exactly back where you started. No NN protection and a monopoly exploiting that.

Given that NN does not prevent monopolies forming this seems an odd criticism to make of something else in order to make it seem worse than NN. But this is what pro-competition regulation is for. And since NN is at least as likely to be competition-killing as otherwise (more in my view), I don't think your criticism stands up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The thing is calling for a regulated as a utility is something that could result in what you are looking for. As that is a major part of the system you are talking about.

It is being regulated as a utility but not implementing network neutrality, is really what Francesca is about. She also has a specific model in mind similar to how we run the electrical grid in the US than how we deal with communications, but not impossible.

 

[Francesca R]

As far as I know, NN proposals want to regulate *ISPs* as utilities, not the line itself.

ISPs should no more be utilities than airlines or car rental firms in my view.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I know, NN proposals want to regulate *ISPs* as utilities, not the line itself.

ISPs should no more be utilities than airlines or car rental firms in my view.

The reason for that is that taking away the ISP's ownership/control of the local networks is something that is totally off the political radar in the US and likely politically untenable in the current political climate.

Being able to pick google fiber as my ISP when it is FIOS that has fiber run into my area is so far off the table in the US that americans have problems understanding what you are talking about.

 

[mumblethrax]

You don't even need to look around the world to see how unbundling works. We did do unbundling in the US, back in the late 90s, when DSL was hot ****. The trouble is, we botched it, because we didn't require ILECs to spin off their ISP services. There was nothing in practice stopping Verizon from giving preferential pricing to their own customers, which they did.

Back then, my ISP was Speakeasy, which I selected (from a dozen or more options) precisely because of their more permissive, more 'open internet'-friendly user agreement (which is also how they marketed themselves). But I paid a significant premium over just going with Verizon's DSL service, which few residential customers were willing to do. The remaining CLECs in the US are mostly focusing on business customers--I doubt you'd be able to find one willing to deal with residential customers even if you're unfortunate enough to be stuck with DSL.

That's bad news for us, because it means that unbundling is mostly seen as a failed experiment, without too much attention given to why it failed. But that doesn't mean that our options are limited to net neutrality (which only obliquely addresses the issues raised by its supporters) or nothing.

 

[Francesca R]

We did do unbundling in the US, back in the late 90s, when DSL was hot ****. The trouble is, we botched it, because we didn't require ILECs to spin off their ISP services.

The '96 telecom act in the US wasn't really about internet. In that respect it perhaps suffered from being too early. Moreover FCC moves to require shared/open access to local loops suffered several judicial defeats. Later the FCC pretty much abandoned it.

There is a massive paper from Harvard's Berkman Center (2009) which is a very detailed non partisan survey of regulatory practices and achievements across most countries. The relevant part about the US above is page 82.

 

[mumblethrax]

The '96 telecom act in the US wasn't really about internet. In that respect it perhaps suffered from being too early. Moreover FCC moves to require shared/open access to local loops suffered several judicial defeats. Later the FCC pretty much abandoned it.

Agreed, but it did lead to a minor, temporary flourishing of DSL ISPs, and that experience gives us some idea what unbundling looks like. I don't think the concept is as alien to the American experience as some are making it out to be.

As the paper in you linked to indicates, today the FCC promotes competition between lines, which is sort of a joke, because they still define DSL as broadband. If the competition in a given market is between cable internet and DSL (fingers crossed, you might get 10 Mbps), there's no problem that needs to be addressed, as far as the FCC is concerned.

 

[Corsair 115]

Since we're only talking about last-mile infrastructure, our regional monopolies wouldn't have any control over how data packets are prioritized in Canada--that'll be down to Rogers and Canada. The only effect on Canadians would be indirect--it might have an impact on what kind of internet business is viable in the future (which the spokesman in your quote hints at in the last paragraph).

But that's my question. How is internet traffic from outside the United States to a web site within the U.S. handled? Is it routed on the 'fast' lane? If so, that would mean someone outside the U.S. would have better access to a U.S. web site than would some residents within the U.S. if they are stuck using the 'slow' lane. I can see folks getting a bit upset about that.

 

[Unabogie]

I would say that even if we managed to break up the monopolies, I'd still support Net Neutrality going forward. The internet needs a few rules of the road, and one of those is that anyone with a website gets their place in line. This democratizes the net, removes all of the usual barriers to entry. A person with a really good idea can buy a cheap shared hosting plan and ramp up as the idea takes root. No matter how many ISPs there are competing, it would only take one bad one to slow down a competitor, and there's always going to be the incentive for collusion.

Democracy has one person, one vote. The internet should have one site, one place in the packet queue.

 

[Octavo]

Given that NN does not prevent monopolies forming this seems an odd criticism to make of something else in order to make it seem worse than NN. But this is what pro-competition regulation is for. And since NN is at least as likely to be competition-killing as otherwise (more in my view), I don't think your criticism stands up.

I suppose I don't see NN as a competition killer at all. Unabogie's post below captures my feelings quite well, so I'll QFT

I would say that even if we managed to break up the monopolies, I'd still support Net Neutrality going forward. The internet needs a few rules of the road, and one of those is that anyone with a website gets their place in line. This democratizes the net, removes all of the usual barriers to entry. A person with a really good idea can buy a cheap shared hosting plan and ramp up as the idea takes root. No matter how many ISPs there are competing, it would only take one bad one to slow down a competitor, and there's always going to be the incentive for collusion.

Democracy has one person, one vote. The internet should have one site, one place in the packet queue.

The internet is a vital part of humanity's future. It has already massively changed the way our global civilization works and that trend seems set to continue. Arguably it's greatest achievement has been it's ability to give everyone an equal platform. From the lunatic fringe, to the unknown but brave blogger exposing corporate misdeeds. I would argue that it is in all of our interests to ensure that the internet remains a democratic space for everyone. We cannot allow short-term, profit-driven thinking to destroy that.

Maybe I'm just a hippy at heart.

 

[Francesca R]

I suppose I don't see NN as a competition killer at all.

The simplest way in which it reduces competition is that both groups--content providers and end users--who prefer discriminatory traffic management are not able to have it. In the case of content providers, they disappear from the market, or become something else. For (competing) ISPs, a discriminatory regime delivers a greater positive incentive to increase capacity. Total welfare (the sum of end user, ISP and content provider utility) is higher under a discriminatory regime.

"Innovation/welfare reducer" would have been a more encompassing description for me to make than "competition killer" so please consider it changed.

Again--note that the above results depend on competing ISPs and a local network that is effectively a utility. Under monopolistic ISPs they don't hold necessarily.

The internet is a vital part of humanity's future. It has already massively changed the way our global civilization works and that trend seems set to continue.

This is not in dispute

Arguably it's greatest achievement has been it's ability to give everyone an equal platform.

I disagree--its greatest achievement from the perspective of society's total welfare is a dramatic reduction in discovery, access, co-ordination, intermediation and transaction costs over a very large span of human activity. This is the case regardless of whether or not everyone has an equal platform, which of course they don't since large parts of the world and significant parts of developed nations' population do not have any access.

I would argue that it is in all of our interests to ensure that the internet remains a democratic space for everyone.

It is not a democratic space either. For the purpose of this topic it is a market place for content to interact with consumption. The lowering of costs mentioned above is such that it can be very widely populated by both.

We cannot allow short-term, profit-driven thinking to destroy that.

I agree but that does not axiomatically mean "adopt net neutrality" at all. At least nobody has shown that it does

 

[Upchurch]

I suppose I don't see NN as a competition killer at all.

It isn't. Network neutrality preserves competition among web properties and allows greater opportunities for innovation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Total welfare (the sum of end user, ISP and content provider utility) is higher under a discriminatory regime.

This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. It's sort of like opposition to Uber's pricing models, or hysteria about "price gouging" during shortages. "Fairness" becomes more important than actual welfare: we'll shaft ourselves, so long as nobody else gets ahead of us. Our minds just aren't built to understand economics at an instinctual level. We're still too tribal and myopic to understand how short-term interests can conflict with long-term interests.

 

[Francesca R]

The thing is, it might still be true.

At least I think it is more likely to be true than the reverse.

Given that, I am not going to support NN just because certain soundbites are "easier to grasp"

ETA--And there isn't actually any implication that fairness (distribution of gains) is impaired.

 

[pgwenthold]

Because competition does not solve the problem. As I said they are separate issues.

Besides, even if competition DID solve the problem, how would such net neutrality rules prevent that? According to the argument, the only thing net neutrality would do would be to prevent companies doing things that aren't in their best interests.

 

[Belz...]

Besides, even if competition DID solve the problem, how would such net neutrality rules prevent that? According to the argument, the only thing net neutrality would do would be to prevent companies doing things that aren't in their best interests.

That's not entirely true. If ISPs force you to use their products rather than their competitors' (not necessarily other ISPs), or products that the owners or directors disagree with (say, websites about abortion or evolution), can we really say it is not in their best interest ?