Can someone explain "Net-Neutrality" to me?

[JAStewart]

Hello all,

I'm having one of those brain-farts where you just can't get your head around something.

Hi my name is James and I've never really properly understood Net-Neutrality. THERE. I said it.

Can someone please tell me what it means? I know that there is some talk about limiting or restricting the internet but I don't know what is what:

Does limiting the internet mean:
'net-neutrality' or does 'net-neutrality' refer to keeping it open and free?

 

[Rasmus]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

 

[JAStewart]

Well, that pretty much cleared everything up. I have no problems with faster connection cables as long as it didn't slow the mainstream ones (which I guess it inevitably would).

 

[arthwollipot]

Basically, net neutrality means that ISPs can't give priority to one kind of signal over another.

Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that...

 

[Rasmus]

Well, that pretty much cleared everything up. I have no problems with faster connection cables as long as it didn't slow the mainstream ones (which I guess it inevitably would).

It's not so much the cables - these already have different speeds for different users and between different points as it is.

It is for different services: Your internet connection might be fast for google and slow for bing. It might be fast for google and bing and slow for youtube unless you pay an extra charge for online video.

It's a little like a car where the GPS influences the performance of the car: The car only goes fast if you drive to work or McDonalds or the cinema, it is slower (unless you pay extra) for trips to your Brother, Burger King and Disney World. (You will have to drive slow going to Burger King the entire way, even if it takes you past McDonalds and the cinema.)

And here's the thing: Burger King and Disney World can afford to subsidize your trips top them, whereas the local movie theater might not have that option. The problem is what the world would look like for both the customers (cannot afford to take thew trips to the Movie Theater anymore) and the owner of the movie theater (can no longer run his business at a profit.)

And it is not so much a question of money but of limited bandwidth: A neutral internet will be slow on some days and fast on others. If the net was no longer neutral, then Google would always be fast *at the expense of everyone else*. Google can afford to dish out the money for a guaranteed bandwidth.

So going back to the example of the car, the situation changes slightly:

3/4 of all lanes on all roads belong to McDonalds and the cinema. If nobody is going to either place everything is okay: You can get anywhere you like. But during rush hour the majority of all traffic would be reserved for those going to specific destinations.

 

[Francesca R]

Internet service provision is a two-sided market. Net neutrality is an initiative to turn it into a one-sided market, with content consumers bearing all the costs. In a competitive landscape such a regulation is inferior IMO, and the UK regulator OFCOM agrees with that.

Much of the support for it is inadequately thought out.

 

[Rasmus]

Internet service provision is a two-sided market. Net neutrality is an initiative to turn it into a one-sided market, with content consumers bearing all the costs.

Last I checked nobody got their webhosting for free.

 

[Cleon]

The best description of NN, and why it's important, can be found here.

 

[DavidJames]

Internet service provision is a two-sided market. Net neutrality is an initiative to turn it into a one-sided market, with content consumers bearing all the costs. In a competitive landscape such a regulation is inferior IMO, and the UK regulator OFCOM agrees with that.

Much of the support for it is inadequately thought out.

I have adequately thought it out and I disagree with you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why isn't network transparency enough? That is, why isn't it sufficient for ISPs to disclose what if any preferential policies they use, and let consumers demand neutrality if it is valuable?
Also, is this a temporary problem? Are Internet speeds increasing such that within a few years, bandwidth will no longer be effectively limited?

 

[Francesca R]

Last I checked nobody got their webhosting for free.

Red herring. Hosting is not network use.

 

[Francesca R]

Why isn't network transparency enough? That is, why isn't it sufficient for ISPs to disclose what if any preferential policies they use, and let consumers demand neutrality if it is valuable?

In the UK, it is.

Are Internet speeds increasing such that within a few years, bandwidth will no longer be effectively limited?

Probably but transfer speed and volume is not yet too cheap to meter. Also, the demand curve has moved to the right almost as fast as the supply curve, which puts a brake on the price falling.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I am suspicious of net neutrality because I have a general suspicion of increasing government regulation to limit private companies from deciding what products and services to offer their customers. As long as ISPs cannot be deceptive, I don't see a reason to regulate their resource usage.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't particularly have any inherent suspicion of government regulation. But there was a thread in US politics where it was abundantly clear that several US proponents of network neutrality want it because US telecom regulation evolved in such a way as to stifle competition in the ISP market to begin with (switching costs are high and often infinite).

So there it is a case of wanting more regulation to fix existing (bad) regulation. That should be a welfare-reducing prescription in anyone's book, pro or anti regulation.

 

[Kestrel]

Net neutrality prevents your ISP from deciding what sites you can access. For example, if your ISP offers video on demand, they might cut off or slow down your connections to Netflix or iTunes movies. Or charge Netflix a fee for each customer on their network.

Net neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from charging higher fees for faster connections.

ETA: What many people don't realize is that net-neutraltiy is the current system. Consumers and content providers both pay for access to the net and bandwidth. Consumers pick content providers based on the quality of their product.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why isn't network transparency enough? That is, why isn't it sufficient for ISPs to disclose what if any preferential policies they use, and let consumers demand neutrality if it is valuable?

How many ISP providers do you have in your area? Who own the actual physical equipment, the cables, etc? My region has a population of just under two million people. We have the choice of two companies who own their own cables and provide internet services. Two is not much choice.

Also, is this a temporary problem? Are Internet speeds increasing such that within a few years, bandwidth will no longer be effectively limited?

People used to say that about computer memory, too. More computer memory today is devoted to the fishing minigame in "World of Warcraft" than existed in the whole world in the 1970s. Resources are like income--the more you have, the more you use.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Why isn't network transparency enough? That is, why isn't it sufficient for ISPs to disclose what if any preferential policies they use, and let consumers demand neutrality if it is valuable?

Unfortunately, the consumers hold little real power in this discussion. The number of ISP's available to any individual consumer are usually quite low, so switching ISP's is typically not a real option. The options available to most people are likely to be non-neutrality or no internet at all.

 

[ehcks]

Unfortunately, the consumers hold little real power in this discussion. The number of ISP's available to any individual consumer are usually quite low, so switching ISP's is typically not a real option. The options available to most people are likely to be non-neutrality or no internet at all.

Such as with me. There's only one cable company here. There's also DSL, satellite, or that cell phone as a wi-fi station thing, but none of them can provide the same bandwidth I have. I'm not even using the highest level.

 

[Francesca R]

How many ISP providers do you have in your area?

The OPs location has at least ten and it is one of the more remote parts of the UK (170km off the Scottish mainland) with a population of under 25,000. (ETA: the link works if you enter ZE1 1AA as a post code)

Who own the actual physical equipment, the cables, etc?

That doesn't matter in the EU as regulation requires local loop unbundling, which means that various ISPs have the right to lease usage of local transmission cables. That is competition-enhancing regulation IMO. The US 1996 telecommunications act and subsequent regulation has not (according to independent study) achieved a very good outcome from similar legislation and has scaled much of it back, although the intention is/was the same there too.

My region has a population of just under two million people. We have the choice of two companies who own their own cables and provide internet services. Two is not much choice.

This seems to be more common in the US (though it happens in many places). But network neutrality laws that disallow content tiering are not a good way to do it.

People used to say that about computer memory, too. More computer memory today is devoted to the fishing minigame in "World of Warcraft" than existed in the whole world in the 1970s. Resources are like income--the more you have, the more you use.

This is the same as my comment about the demand curve shifting almost as fast as the supply curve. There is a very good case that data carriage will eventually become free (apart from electricity costs) though, well outlined in Chris Anderson's 2009 book (ETA2: You can download the audio version of the book free also, though I bet few do)

 

[blutoski]

Also, is this a temporary problem? Are Internet speeds increasing such that within a few years, bandwidth will no longer be effectively limited?

It's not about bandwidth limitations.

ISPs have identified ways to increase profits by shaping traffic.
In particular, prioritizing their own content or content from paying suppliers over content that is less monetized or benefits competitors.

Thus it's also a question of private property rights.
ie: can a public regulator tell the ISPs to give up profits for a social purpose?
The networks are not a public resource like roads, bridges and flight paths, but are private property paid for by the shareowners with the intention of using them to generate profits.

Just to give you an obvious example... Telcos and cable cos could decide to impede Skype packets, knowing that Skype directly competes with their voiceline offers and Netflix competes with their video on-demand offers.