Net Neutrality: Treating the Internet Like a Utility

pajamas media ^ | 12/8/10 | Patrick Richardson

[Nachum]

According to a story on PJM by Charlie Martin, in 2004 Comcast and some of the other big providers started looking at what data was being sent, and decided to start throttling down how much data of certain types — most notably streaming audio and video — people could receive. This tended to irritate people who watch their favorite shows on Hulu or movies on Netflix (I happen to be one of the people who prefers his shows this way). Thus, the push for net neutrality began.

On its face, the idea of net neutrality seems like a good one: internet service providers, such as Comcast, should move all data equally regardless of its source or type. ISPs aren’t allowed to look at what’s in a data packet; they just have to move it to whoever requested it. This would also prevent networks from blocking voice-over IP services like Skype, or favoring their own data over that from rival networks.

[Tribune7]

Net Neutrality would stop improvements to the internet communications almost in its tracks.

[antiRepublicrat]

Net Neutrality would stop improvements to the internet communications almost in its tracks.

You'be been buying the telco propaganda. We have grown from 1,200 baud dialup to tens of megabits always online under net neutrality.

The telcos get their money from the subscribers, charging a pretty penny I might add. They're looking at other companies that are making money on the Internet and want a piece of that without actually contributing anything of value.

[frithguild]

playing it live

Is the device that did this part of the network owned by the internet service provider or is it something you own and used to intentionally disseminate by sound wave copyrighted property? C'mon, what do you think? I suppose I could make an argument that when the codec buffers the stream to ram before sending it to the sound card that is a recording, if you want to parse words even more.

[frithguild]

people for downloading music

My explanation about when the data becomes property was in response to your question about downloading music. Why do you conflate my answer into a statement about something I never discussed?

[antiRepublicrat]

Is the device that did this part of the network owned by the internet service provider or is it something you own and used to intentionally disseminate by sound wave copyrighted property?

Sound wave, light wave, whatever. It's still just transmission, so it's nothing, right?

I suppose I could make an argument that when the codec buffers the stream to ram before sending it to the sound card that is a recording

These network packets will have been stored in the memory of the telco's deep packet inspection systems in order to perform the inspection, thus according to you making them real property at the exact point where the telcos would be doing the virtual version of opening your mail.

[frithguild]

This admits regulation already exists.

It is pervasive, opressive and has stifled technical innovation since 1934 and became exponentially worse in 1996.

[antiRepublicrat]

and became exponentially worse in 1996.

1996 would be around the time the telcos went to the government with their hands out, demanding $$$ in exchange for providing broadband Internet access to everyone.

People think all regulation is top-down. It isn't always so. The telcos like much of the regulation because it ensures monopolies, creates high barriers to entry and fattens their wallets. This is so because they usually help write the laws and regulations that govern them. Thus they welcome it.

But when the people ask for regulations to stop telco abuse, suddenly the telcos think regulation is bad. Then they spend millions on mass astroturf and lobbying campaigns to stop it.

[frithguild]

Sound wave, light wave, whatever. It's still just transmission, so it's nothing, right?

Neither sound nor light are transmitted by property that can be owned. A person can own the space that the air occupies, but you cannot own the air. However, the sound or light that pass through somebody else's property are not nothing. They can be regulated only when that become a nuisance. If I want to send a morse code signal using a flashlight accross another person's property, they cannot stop me.

making them real property at the exact point where the telcos would be doing the virtual version of opening your mail

That's a very thought provoking point - it does become tangible property at that point. But this brings me back to the contractual nature of the end user's relationship to the network. You do not have an expectation of privacy, until you contract for one. The sniffing that they do does not violate the DMCA because there is no dissemination and because ISP's have some degree of immunity. If they use their network in a stupid way, a competitor will arise that contractually grants an expectation of privacy, and the sniffer loses market share.

[frithguild]

The telcos like much of the regulation because it ensures monopolies, creates high barriers to entry and fattens their wallets. This is so because they usually help write the laws and regulations that govern them. Thus they welcome it.

At the bottom of every regulatory scheme is an incumbent player that wants to remain fat and ontop of the pile. All 1996 did was ensure that the twisted pair remain in the last mile for far longer than it need to be. Witthout regulation, incumbent industries are exposed to that nastiest of things - competition.

Your point is well stated that most networks are net neutral and that data sniffing and blockage by scum like Comcast is relatively new. But the solution is not making what they do with their property illegal. If you did, they would charge you more for different levels of "neutrality," in addition to differenced in "speed," which 1996 allows.