Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[LorenzoValla]

I am late to the thread, but as far as I understand NN, I am opposed to it.

 

[GodMark2]

I am late to the thread, but as far as I understand NN, I am opposed to it.

I would be quite interested to know what you understand Network Neutrality to be, and why you are opposed to it.

 

[eerok]

I am late to the thread, but as far as I understand NN, I am opposed to it.

Net neutrality has been a guiding principle central to the invention, development, and current state of the internet. If you'd like to avoid granting corporate interests the power to interfere with your free access to some things that you might find personally important, then you should support net neutrality.

 

[LorenzoValla]

I'm against net neutrality because I support the right of a business to sell the products they create however they want to sell them.

I do not believe that just because I use and enjoy their services that they are obligated to deliver them to me in a way that I choose.

However, I do support competition and open markets and would rather focus on making more choices available to the consumer so that these businesses have less incentive to offer tiered level of services.

For example, where I live, there are only 2 choices for land based internet service. There are 2 other companies that operate in our metro area but are prohibited from offering their services in my neighborhood due to government regulations. If these regulations weren't in place, then it's likely that even more companies would emerge and compete for my business.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Net neutrality has been a guiding principle central to the invention, development, and current state of the internet. If you'd like to avoid granting corporate interests the power to interfere with your free access to some things that you might find personally important, then you should support net neutrality.

That principle can be worked towards via other means.

Furthermore, not supporting the NN policies does not grant a corporation any power that they don't already have, and those corporations are under no legal or moral obligation to grant me access to anything.

 

[GodMark2]

I'm against net neutrality because I support the right of a business to sell the products they create however they want to sell them.

I do not believe that just because I use and enjoy their services that they are obligated to deliver them to me in a way that I choose.

However, I do support competition and open markets and would rather focus on making more choices available to the consumer so that these businesses have less incentive to offer tiered level of services.

For example, where I live, there are only 2 choices for land based internet service. There are 2 other companies that operate in our metro area but are prohibited from offering their services in my neighborhood due to government regulations. If these regulations weren't in place, then it's likely that even more companies would emerge and compete for my business.

Currently, only having a physical 'wire' (sometimes optical) to the house is the only way to provide the speeds people want from their internet service. There are two ways to provide that wire:

1) One company owns the only wire. No other internet service provider can compete with them, because they can simply say "Nope, it's mine".

2) Every internet provider owns their own wires. This means that little shops can't exist, because they don't have any cables. So, only the big boys get to play. There would have to either be dozens of wires in the streets for the multiple competing providers, which is a) unlikely, and b) much higher cost, and c) horrible for anyone needing to do repairs on that street. Or, there would be only a small number of providers, each with a virtual lock on their existing customers, which is functionally identical to option 1.

None of those options sound really viable. Network neutrality breaks the problem by saying "Data to the house is like water and electricity to the house: it doesn't matter what they use it for, or where it comes from. All that matters is how much they use."

Or are you in favor of having multiple water companies to ensure competition?

 

[Francesca R]

There are two ways to provide that wire: [ . . . ]

The two arrangements you mention are not the only way to provide internet service. This is detailed at length in the thread already and most other NN threads here. The third arrangement used in many countries is one wire used by competing ISPs.

Furthermore NN does not create that third option it merely tries to compensate for its lack of presence. But by doing so it is inferior (to the third option)

 

[GodMark2]

The two arrangements you mention are not the only way to provide internet service. This is detailed at length in the thread already and most other NN threads here. The third arrangement used in many countries is one wire used by competing ISPs.

But who owns that wire from the house to the central office? It's not the homeowner. It's not the ISP.

So, it's either the government or a 'third party' company. Governments usually already have rules saying they can't limit services (of any type) based on the provider, so they tend to be already adhering to Network Neutrality. Third party companies that only own the wire need laws to make them do that, else the homeowner is at their mercy, with no leverage, as there is (and cannot be) no competition for the physical wire itself.

Furthermore NN does not create that third option it merely tries to compensate for its lack of presence. But by doing so it is inferior (to the third option)

Laws requiring Network Neutrality on that 'last mile' of physical wire remove the profit incentive for vertical integration (if any ISP can use the wires equally, any given provider will no longer have a benefit from owning those wires), thereby encouraging existing integrated companies to spin off the physical ownership to new third party physical wire providers (possibly the government) that have both an inherent and legal incentive to remain data neutral. This in turn allows ISPs to use that new neutral third party company to conect to any customer. Customers can switch from ISP to ISP at short or no notice in response to the level of service provided for the cost. Thus leading to competition in the ISP market. Once competition is in place, Network neutrality laws continue to dinincentivise future vertical integration (why buy the wires to improve your own service if that will simply improve the competition's service for free).

The only real alternative is what happened to the phone market: it went wireless. As technology improves, this might become a viable alternative. But, as it stands, wired comms are vastly superior to wireless for even simple web browsing.

 

[Nihilianth]

That makes sense, and this may be the disconnect: in Canada, there are no monopolies anymore, except in a few rural communities. The telcos that used to be monopolies are still required to provide services there (and makes them a de facto voice monopoly in these communities - for the last mile at least.)

That's why most knowledgeable Americans actually envy Canada and our European counterparts. Sure, there may be problems inherent with unbundling. But monopolies just plain suck. (Comcast is a regional monopoly. Not a national monopoly.)

I think it comes down to whether there's actually a monopoly involved, in which case NN would be bound up with Antitrust.

I don't think that is necessarily true, or that has to be necessary. NN should just be as a simple little law as possible that is a stop-gap to get to the point of pressing an anti-trust suit, followed by yet another law to outright make regional monopolies illegal; with the exception of utilities. Then follow that up by making "The Internet" a utility.

In other words, I think to get to a reasonable point of "internet fairness," requires multiple steps over the course of several laws, and many years.

Because they're not the infrastructure company's customer. They're the reseller's customer. The reseller received a discounted rate because they own the customer relationship and all the costs that involves. The reseller has the customer's information (the name of the business, the valid authenticated contacts &c) but the infrastructure business only knows this is Leased Line copper pair 10385852674658, with "RESELLER" or "WHOLESALER". For privacy reasons, the ILEC has no right to know the account information of the end user. The call centers cannot even know what reseller is involved. That is considered a private relationship between the reseller and the end customer.

I understand. Thank you. In the end, I guess there is no way around "increased complexity." Personally, I would prefer a little more temporary inconvenience, than to be taken by a large corporation.

In a completely unbundled environment, the ILEC wouldn't even have a call center, because their only customers would be the handful reseller/wholesalers themselves, so the support team would not be staffed or trained to deal with end users at all.

What would be the implications of this? It seems to me, that if a repair needed to be made somewhere along the infrastructure lines, either the infrastructure company would detect it, or one of the various ISPs would. I would imagine that an unusual decrease in network traffic would be detected, so when a customer calls their ISP to find out why they are having problems, the ISP should already be aware there is a problem, and be able to explain to the customer that it is being taken care of.

At least, in my simplified knowledge of how things work.

Well, not redlining in the traditional race sense (we never really had that in Canada), just that wholesaler/resellers are selective about their geographical service areas for economical reasons. This is true for all wholesale/resold services of which I'm aware: voice, long distance, internet, and cellular.

I see. I figured your illustration of "if you move to the block, you will be without service" is a bit of an exaggeration. It probably does happen on extremely rare occasions. I certainly don't blame a company for not wanting to provide an expensive service to a tiny little town or village in the middle of nowhere. My philosophy on that is: "People actively make the decision to live there, knowing full well that they get worse infrastructure and maintenance than the closest large town or city." As, IMO, it should be. If people who live there don't like it, they don't have to live there.

Yes I think this is politically impossible in most Western countries.

I wouldn't necessarily say "impossible." Just really, really hard, and could take a really, really long time. It would probably be much easier to do in other nations than the USA. Unless our political environment goes back to what it was in the 90s. (Keeping fingers crossed!)

 

[Nihilianth]

It's a huge complaint of seniors and lower income households. This segment mostly wants something basic. Basic is unprofitable, so nobody's going to offer it, and greater competition actually makes basic service less available: basic service was mandated per regulation, but competition relieved the ILECs of that burden in markets that have received forbearance. These "utilitarian" regulated products are just not available anymore.

The other thing that *really* confuses people is when a wholesaler/reseller pulls up stakes, which happens a lot. Customers get a letter from their providers saying "we are no longer providing voice services in your area as of January 30th, please port your service to another provider before that date, consult your yellow pages for a list of suppliers. We will be happy to continue offering long distance after you switch local voice providers."

They're required to give 30 days' notice, which they always do, but there are people who are out of the country for months and are surprised to find they've lost their number when they return.

This disproportionately affects seniors, since they are the bulk of snowbirds, and also they grew up in a pre-competition world and the thought of the phone company going out of business is inconceivable so they don't plan for it.

Basically: the lower the cost of entry, the more supplier turnover. Some resellers/wholesalers are strata corporations that only provide service in their one building, and often become non-regulated monopolies in the free market as they bundle internet/phone/tv in the monthly strata fees, take it or leave it. The smallest one I'm aware of reselling my employer's services is a coop with five end users.

About once a year, the ILEC infrastructure owner has to cut off a wholesaler/reseller for nonpayment as well. We can't tell the customers why they've lost service, just tell them to contact their provider.

Thank you. I appreciate this explanation. I have wondered why, over the course of the last few years, it is hard to find just basic cell phone service. (I am not at all into texting, or data plans on a friggin cell phone. I have my desktop computer for that. When I walk away from my computer, I do not want to be staring at another screen. I work from home, so I have no need to be "computing" everywhere I go! )

I suppose from the standpoint of profitability, it makes sense. Things are always getting cheaper, and I can see that just basic voice would be extremely unprofitable at this point.

 

[Nihilianth]

Net neutrality has been a guiding principle central to the invention, development, and current state of the internet. If you'd like to avoid granting corporate interests the power to interfere with your free access to some things that you might find personally important, then you should support net neutrality.

I'm against net neutrality because I support the right of a business to sell the products they create however they want to sell them.

I do not believe that just because I use and enjoy their services that they are obligated to deliver them to me in a way that I choose.

However, I do support competition and open markets and would rather focus on making more choices available to the consumer so that these businesses have less incentive to offer tiered level of services.

For example, where I live, there are only 2 choices for land based internet service. There are 2 other companies that operate in our metro area but are prohibited from offering their services in my neighborhood due to government regulations. If these regulations weren't in place, then it's likely that even more companies would emerge and compete for my business.

As I have learned in this thread, and another one, NN is a lot more complicated than a simplified: "I support NN, because I support an open internet," or "I oppose NN, because I support companies rights to do with their property as they see fit."

When it comes to an "open internet," there are certain technicalities that are quite physical in nature on how networks work, that justifies SOME throttling of certain types of content. Streaming video, for instance, can be quite a drag on a network.

As for the argument against NN because: "It's the company's property!" Well. Nobody OWNS the internet. We all do. We all have built it. (Actually, people like Tim Burners Lee developed the protocols for our modern internet network.) ISPs use their property to provide a service. You own your own computer, like you own your own water faucet. The actual resource itself: The internet, (like water) is a PUBLIC resource. Therefore, once the water comes out of your faucet (or the internet data onto your computer,) that's yours. It should up to you do with as you see fit, without interference from some corporate overlord. You paid them for the connection and for a certain speed. They should be satisfied with that.

You also have the problem of monopolies (in the USA) doing whatever the hell they damn well please. (Unbundling like in Canada or the UK is the lesser of two evils. Regional monopolies like in the US just plain SUCK. But unbundling does seem to have their own problems.)

That principle can be worked towards via other means.

Furthermore, not supporting the NN policies does not grant a corporation any power that they don't already have, and those corporations are under no legal or moral obligation to grant me access to anything.

Yes. They are. It's called a "contract." Once you have signed that contract and paid for the service, they are fully obligated, both legally and morally, to provide for the service you have paid for.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Currently, only having a physical 'wire' (sometimes optical) to the house is the only way to provide the speeds people want from their internet service. There are two ways to provide that wire:

1) One company owns the only wire. No other internet service provider can compete with them, because they can simply say "Nope, it's mine".

2) Every internet provider owns their own wires. This means that little shops can't exist, because they don't have any cables. So, only the big boys get to play. There would have to either be dozens of wires in the streets for the multiple competing providers, which is a) unlikely, and b) much higher cost, and c) horrible for anyone needing to do repairs on that street. Or, there would be only a small number of providers, each with a virtual lock on their existing customers, which is functionally identical to option 1.

None of those options sound really viable. Network neutrality breaks the problem by saying "Data to the house is like water and electricity to the house: it doesn't matter what they use it for, or where it comes from. All that matters is how much they use."

Or are you in favor of having multiple water companies to ensure competition?

So, what you're saying is that because of cost, only a large company had the ability to invest in bringing wires to my home. Now, after they've made that investment, it's not fair to those who wish to compete with them even though those potential competitors never made the investment? How on Earth does that make sense?

 

[Nihilianth]

But who owns that wire from the house to the central office? It's not the homeowner. It's not the ISP.

So, it's either the government or a 'third party' company. Governments usually already have rules saying they can't limit services (of any type) based on the provider, so they tend to be already adhering to Network Neutrality. Third party companies that only own the wire need laws to make them do that, else the homeowner is at their mercy, with no leverage, as there is (and cannot be) no competition for the physical wire itself.



Laws requiring Network Neutrality on that 'last mile' of physical wire remove the profit incentive for vertical integration (if any ISP can use the wires equally, any given provider will no longer have a benefit from owning those wires), thereby encouraging existing integrated companies to spin off the physical ownership to new third party physical wire providers (possibly the government) that have both an inherent and legal incentive to remain data neutral. This in turn allows ISPs to use that new neutral third party company to conect to any customer. Customers can switch from ISP to ISP at short or no notice in response to the level of service provided for the cost. Thus leading to competition in the ISP market. Once competition is in place, Network neutrality laws continue to dinincentivise future vertical integration (why buy the wires to improve your own service if that will simply improve the competition's service for free).

The only real alternative is what happened to the phone market: it went wireless. As technology improves, this might become a viable alternative. But, as it stands, wired comms are vastly superior to wireless for even simple web browsing.

Francesca is partially correct: There are other ways of dealing with the problems you have mentioned. There is a neat little concept called "unbundling" that Francesca introduced me to that I was previously unaware of.

The basics are this:

There is one set of wires, owned by an infrastructure company. That infrastructure company, is a monopoly. They own all the wires going from town-to-town on a regional basis, usually by county. Each county, in turn, requires that company to provide the wires, even to the smallest of little hamlets.

Then you have ISPs. ISPs are not allows to own any wires. And the infrastructure company is unable to be an ISP. The infrastructure company must provide equal access to all ISPs, and they cannot discriminate on their pricing or network access through the wires.

The problem is, and one I have struggled to get Francesca to understand, is that the USA does NOT currently have such a concept set up like they do in the UK. The USA has entirely different laws, and an entirely different political atmosphere from most other western democracies. Unbundling is something that would not naturally be able to happen in the USA; at least not over night.

Therefore, when speaking about the US, you are correct. You have the problems as discussed in post number 286. That is why NN is so important to so many Americans. (And why the Europeans and Canadians are laughing at us. We have this neat little party called "The Tea Party" that is a branch form the conservative Republican Party. They are backed up by Faux News, and scream and cry about "COMMUNISM!!!!" Therefore, we Americans must obey our corporate overlords in the name of "corporate profits!" We would, effectively, be "STEALING" the wires from Comcast! "COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, OMGWTFBBQSAUCE!!")

So yes. Unblinding would be exceedingly difficult with our rabidly nutty political environment. NN is absolutely necessary, because it would be a hell of a lot easier to pass than get unbundling to occur. Francesca is correct from the standpoint of the UK. You are correct from the standpoint of the US.

 

[Nihilianth]

So, what you're saying is that because of cost, only a large company had the ability to invest in bringing wires to my home. Now, after they've made that investment, it's not fair to those who wish to compete with them even though those potential competitors never made the investment? How on Earth does that make sense?

Only large companies STILL have the ability to invest in bringing wires to your home.

The problem is, not that it doesn't make sense to not allow a start-up to compete against an established company. The problem is, the start-up would have to necessarily own their own lines. This would cause a doubling of physical wires hanging from telephone poles. And a mess of wires coming into and out of virtually every building. Especially if you imagine two or three other ISP start-ups, all doing the same thing! It is impractical, potentially physically dangerous, and just plain stupid. That's why our laws here it he US suck. And why NN at this point is necessary, and much easier (and less stupid) than attempting to enforce "competition" for the sake of "competition."

In order to resolve the issue of one set of wires, and still ensure competition among ISPs:

1. Bring an anti-trust suit against Comcast, and essentially grab all of the utility wires they already own.
2. Pass unbundling laws to ensure future competition among ISPs.

Just to bring an anti-trust suit against Comcast, alone, is a huge venture. Then you have to pass unbundling laws.

A hell of a lot easier to just say: "To hell with all of that. We need NN for the time being."

 

[Francesca R]

But who owns that wire from the house to the central office? It's not the homeowner. It's not the ISP. So, it's either the government or a 'third party' company.

It's a separate company in places that have "unbundled" the last mile.

Governments usually already have rules saying they can't limit services (of any type) based on the provider, so they tend to be already adhering to Network Neutrality. Third party companies that only own the wire need laws to make them do that

The local loop owner has to provide open access to ISPs, allowing them to re-sell data traffic. That is how you end up with several ISP choices on one wire.

This is not network neutrality. It is fundamentally different. Preferable in my view and not just mine. Not everybody would necessarily want to buy a network neutral contract and not every content provider want to deliver all their content through them either.

Laws requiring Network Neutrality on that 'last mile' of physical wire remove the profit incentive for vertical integration (if any ISP can use the wires equally, any given provider will no longer have a benefit from owning those wires), thereby encouraging existing integrated companies to spin off the physical ownership to new third party physical wire providers (possibly the government) that have both an inherent and legal incentive to remain data neutral. This in turn allows ISPs to use that new neutral third party company to conect to any customer. Customers can switch from ISP to ISP at short or no notice in response to the level of service provided for the cost. Thus leading to competition in the ISP market. Once competition is in place, Network neutrality laws continue to dinincentivise future vertical integration (why buy the wires to improve your own service if that will simply improve the competition's service for free).

I think you are mistaking network neutrality for local loop unbundling, or mixing up the effects. By doing this you are revealing the superiority of LLU over NN. NN does nothing to facilitate ISP competition. And it is incorrect to say that NN by itself reduces incentives in general for ISPs to retain monopolistic access to customers. NN would remove one method of market abuse of monopoly but that would, perhaps paradoxically, incentivise the dreaming up of others.

The only real alternative is what happened to the phone market: it went wireless.

That is contradicted by other places that already have competing ISPs on one wire.

 

[Francesca R]

Francesca is partially correct: There are other ways of dealing with the problems you have mentioned. There is a neat little concept called "unbundling" that Francesca introduced me to that I was previously unaware of.

[ . . . ]

The problem is, and one I have struggled to get Francesca to understand, is that the USA does NOT currently have such a concept set up like they do in the UK. The USA has entirely different laws, and an entirely different political atmosphere from most other western democracies. Unbundling is something that would not naturally be able to happen in the USA; at least not over night.

This is the problem with pre-conceived ideas that arise from partisanism. You didn't even know about LLU but you were immediately able to somehow declare it as politically impossible, while complaining in capital letters that this was "the tea party's" fault.

Incoming info either supports what you think already, in which case it is redundant, or it overturns it, in which case you declare it flawed. Not much point in listening to any of it really.

 

[paulhutch]

In order to resolve the issue of one set of wires, and still ensure competition among ISPs:

1. Bring an anti-trust suit against Comcast, and essentially grab all of the utility wires they already own.

I think this is an extreme over simplification. You would need to have the legally binding contracts between ~15,000 municipalities and the dozen or so cable providers legally voided in some way. Considering that, IIRC, a few attempts were made in the 70s, 80s & 90s to do that in a few cities/towns and all failed in the courts, I see virtually zero probability of that happening nationwide now.

We couldn't even do that for the POTS wires and they where originally owned by just one company, then a few dozen and now back to about a half dozen companies. As GodMark2 pointed out what many people think of as the solution to the POTS line monopoly problem was cell phones. However many US citizens, including myself, can not get reliable cell phone reception so need a POTS line to be certain to reach emergency services when needed.

As I said back a page or two, I think the only way we could get the competition will be to pay the current owners to give up their profitable, and in the future potentially even more profitable, monopolies on the wires.

 

[LorenzoValla]

As I said back a page or two, I think the only way we could get the competition will be to pay the current owners to give up their profitable, and in the future potentially even more profitable, monopolies on the wires.

Not only does that seem the most realistic (if realistic is even possible), but also the most fair.

I just don't buy into the argument that just because I 'need' high speed internet at my house, that the company who delivered it to me is under some kind of moral obligation to hand it over to a competitor.

As far as the argument made elsewhere that bringing multiple lines in would be impractical - I don't buy that either. Most homes have room for 2 or more cars. I'm sure they can squeeze an extra set of wires. Or, more realistically, the provider will find that it makes sense to lease the cables to their competition or some other market based solution that makes sense for everyone involved.

 

[Nihilianth]

I think this is an extreme over simplification. You would need to have the legally binding contracts between ~15,000 municipalities and the dozen or so cable providers legally voided in some way. Considering that, IIRC, a few attempts were made in the 70s, 80s & 90s to do that in a few cities/towns and all failed in the courts, I see virtually zero probability of that happening nationwide now.

We couldn't even do that for the POTS wires and they where originally owned by just one company, then a few dozen and now back to about a half dozen companies. As GodMark2 pointed out what many people think of as the solution to the POTS line monopoly problem was cell phones. However many US citizens, including myself, can not get reliable cell phone reception so need a POTS line to be certain to reach emergency services when needed.

As I said back a page or two, I think the only way we could get the competition will be to pay the current owners to give up their profitable, and in the future potentially even more profitable, monopolies on the wires.

You are exactly right. It would be extremely difficult to undue Comcast through anti-trust lawsuits. (Usually, anti-trust suits occur on a national level.)

That's why I support NN. It is a hell of a lot easier to get done.

Not only does that seem the most realistic (if realistic is even possible), but also the most fair.

I just don't buy into the argument that just because I 'need' high speed internet at my house, that the company who delivered it to me is under some kind of moral obligation to hand it over to a competitor.

As far as the argument made elsewhere that bringing multiple lines in would be impractical - I don't buy that either. Most homes have room for 2 or more cars. I'm sure they can squeeze an extra set of wires. Or, more realistically, the provider will find that it makes sense to lease the cables to their competition or some other market based solution that makes sense for everyone involved.

Extra sets of wires, just to obtain "competition" is ridiculously stupid. You are talking about two sets of wires. This means two different ISPs. What is there were 5 ISPs? 10? 15? THIRTY of them? Obviously, this is physically impractical, potentially dangerous, stupid, and far too expensive and wasteful. It would have to necessarily increase maintenance costs (insurance for employing linemen would go up,) and it would complicate the wiring of individual buildings. Which can get complicated as it already is.

I would prefer to have it the way it currently is, than to see more ISPs, each with their own individual sets of wires in the name of "competition." Unbundling should be the way to go, but as paulhatch points out, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. And as indicated by your response, it would somehow be "UNFAIR" to the corporate overlords of Comcast. (Personally, I don;t give a crap about corporations. They are just a means to an end. Not the end themselves.)

 

[LorenzoValla]

Extra sets of wires, just to obtain "competition" is ridiculously stupid. You are talking about two sets of wires. This means two different ISPs. What is there were 5 ISPs? 10? 15? THIRTY of them? Obviously, this is physically impractical, potentially dangerous, stupid, and far too expensive and wasteful. It would have to necessarily increase maintenance costs (insurance for employing linemen would go up,) and it would complicate the wiring of individual buildings. Which can get complicated as it already is.

You're failing to appreciate that it's fundamentally unfair to demand that a business hand over it's resources simply to make it easier for it's competitors.

You can make the very same argument about cars vs buses - it's stupid to have so many cars on the road when it would be cheaper and possibly more efficient for us to use public transportation. But, that's not what we want, and we're willing to pay the cost for our own cars.

And, regarding multiple wires into the house - so what if it's redundant. So are two gas stations at the same intersection or two home improvement centers on the same block. By your reasoning, only the first gas station should be allowed to exist and then since it has a monopoly, it should share its business with competitors.

Finally, you're failing to appreciate that the carriers could very realistically lease out their access to a variety of competitors. Or, that there might be a sweet spot where 3 or 5 or whatever number of wires provides the best trade-off among competitors for value and service. The reality is that you just don't know what would happen.