Stop Government Regulation of the Internet

RightMarch.com ^ | May 5, 2006 | Editor

[mulligan]

Wish they would leave everything alone. Most everything they touch goes from not too bad to very, very bad. Congress takes a back seat to no one when it comes to messing matters up.

[ThinkDifferent]

if the all you can eat buffet is over-run with 400 pound people - guess what happens? the price is no longer $9.99, either the price goes up for EVERYONE who comes into the buffet, or the 400 pounders can pay more.

There is nothing about neutrality that prevents ISPs from charging customers based on how much bandwidth they use. (Except, as Star Traveler noted, the fact that customers tend to dislike having the meter running). Furthermore, there's nothing in net neutrality that prevents ISPs from renegotiating their peering agreements with other providers (say, Google's ISP) that are using more of their bandwidth.

Neutrality doesn't mandate an all-you-can-eat pricing structure. It just prohibits discrimination based on the source and destination of the data. Due to my intense distaste for government regulation, I'm still not 100% in favor of mandating it. But when you have near-monopolistic phone and cable companies publicly announcing their intentions to threaten popular sites with performance degradation and block access to competitors like VOIP providers, it may be that regulation is the lesser of two evils.

[ThinkDifferent]

This wouldn't be an issue if the government had not created last-mile monopolies. They did, so it is.

Exactly.

[Echo Talon]

seems like it, I'm not to well versed in this debate but my confidence isn't very high in a good outcome.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "First I represent big specail interests. And now I am wrong because of "big organizations" who oppose what I am saying."

Those special interests that you "represent" (for free, you say...), are on the wrong side of the issue.

I guess it's too much for you to assimilate that there are good organizations (that people accept here) who are on the *right side* of the issue. I know that must be hard to understand.

It's not hard for the rest of us to understand, though...

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Asclepius]

But when you have near-monopolistic phone and cable companies publicly announcing their intentions to threaten popular sites with performance degradation and block access to competitors like VOIP providers, it may be that regulation is the lesser of two evils.

This is the REAL problem. So why not address the REAL problem as opposed to inventing solutions for problems that do not exist? I mean, it's just a thought. What we need is de-regulation and competition, not so-called net neutrality, which will only introduce a whole new layer of government supervision.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Dude. You made the point. Not me."

Now you're starting to get so confused that no one can understand you, much less yourself. I would slow down if I were you.


And -- "Were you to backpedal any faster you would go backward in time."

I think what you're doing is drawing phrases out of a hat. They just appear to be random sentences and phrases. I'm afraid they make no sense.

Keep it up, as you're doing a fine job on promoting "net neutrality" by showing how there's nothing to the opposite side except meaningless phrases and an underlying greed for special interest groups.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Why is it such a problem to ask those that enjoy a service to pay for it?"

They do it now -- as the "servers" of the rich content pay for it with their contracts (for bandwidth), and the consumers pay for it with their contracts (with either dial-up, or DSL or Cable or even higher-speed services and bandwidth).

What you're advocating is that they not only continue paying for their own bandwidth as they do *now* -- but pay triply or quadruply by paying beyond the *double-paying* that they are doing now (for the bandwidth that they are respectfully using on each side -- sending and receiving).

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Asclepius]

What you're advocating is that they not only continue paying for their own bandwidth as they do *now* -- but pay triply or quadruply by paying beyond the *double-paying* that they are doing now (for the bandwidth that they are respectfully using on each side -- sending and receiving).

Dude. Get a grip. I propose nothing of the sort. And no one else does either. Your scare tactics seem to work only on yourself, ironically. Now, follow closely: when someone charges prices for a service that the market will not bear, the users of that service go elsewhere; this how things work in a market system. What you seem to want is for the government to intervene and either set prices or prevent providers for charging for what they provide, which in either case is dumb bordering on outrageously stupid as it sets up a system of perverse subsidies like rent control in NYC. Do you want to kill the net?--then deny businesses the means to make money using it or investing in its infrasctructure, which is precisely what your net neutrality will do.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Except, as Star Traveler noted, the fact that customers tend to dislike having the meter running"

And, the suppliers of Internet service have compensated for that -- while, at the same time, giving different levels of service. They've put bandwidth in certain "bands" of service. You can get dial-up (which limits your bandwidth, by virtue of how fast you can download). And then, there is another level of bandwidth above that and another, and so on.

Therefore, they've created a "semblance" of "all-you-can-eat" service -- but still maintaining a pricing structure for higher bandwidth. That seems to satisfy the consumer and also have different consumers paying for different levels of service.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Asclepius]

I think what you're doing is drawing phrases out of a hat. They just appear to be random sentences and phrases. I'm afraid they make no sense.

Just scroll up, you super genius. Apparently you are new to newsgroups or discussion boards, which is consistent with your complete lack of understanding of how the internet works. Which is OK because you have those "big organizations" you talk about to help you think, right?

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "What you seem to want is for the government to intervene and either set prices or prevent providers for charging for what they provide, which in either case is dumb bordering on outrageously stupid as it sets up a system of perverse subsidies like rent control in NYC."

There is nothing in "net neutrality" which has anything to do with setting prices for overall bandwidth and usage. What it will prevent is *selectively charging* for certain "services" (within that bandwidth) -- instead of simply *paying for bandwidth* as a whole -- for whatever the consumer or business wants to buy.

So, the supplier of bandwidth can charge whatever they want for *bandwidth*. They just can't cherry-pick a particular service and say --

"We're going to charge you *additionally* on top of the bandwidth you have already paid for. You're going to have to pay more -- for *this particular service* -- despite the fact that you've already paid for your basic bandwidth."

If "cherry-picking" is allowed for these services -- the *double paying* that is currently going on for bandwidth (with the consumer *and* the server) -- will turn into triple and quadruple billing -- once for the bandwidth (on each side of the data -- going out and coming in) -- and then -- another charge (conceivably again for "going out and coming in") -- thus making it a possible "quadruple" charge for your bandwidth (on that *cherry-picked* service).

This is *not* what consumers or businesses want. The only ones who want it -- are the one who are going to do the "quadruple charging" -- you see.

If you're thinking that "net neutrality" requires the suppliers of bandwidth to "fix prices" for that bandwidth -- according to what the government says -- you're wrong there. They can set it at whatever the market will bear -- as they do today.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Which is OK because you have those "big organizations" you talk about to help you think, right?"

Well, you might still be on AOL, but I'm not.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[oceanview]

get ready to pay more if this passes.

[D-fendr]

No need for insults.

I get far better reception on my cell than most because I am willing to *pay* for it

This is equivalent to you paying for bandwidth. However, those you are calling do not have to pay extra for you to get good reception when you call them.

[D-fendr]

Clear, concise, bears repeating:

"Net neutrality has nothing to do with ISPs setting different rates for different-size data pipes to their customers. It simply prevents third parties from charging again for that which the provider has already paid."

[Asclepius]

You: No need for insults.

Please forbear. But ignorance makes me hostile. Not hostile at you personally, but hostile at our wretched public school system for producing non-thinkers who argue in favour of hair-brained, collectivist schemes like "net-neutrality".

Me: I get far better reception on my cell than most because I am willing to *pay* for it

You: This is equivalent to you paying for bandwidth. However, those you are calling do not have to pay extra for you to get good reception when you call them.

So bloody what if the other person on the other end of the line has to pay extra? If they don't like it, they can subscribe with another carrier. In other words, the market place will sort out the cheats and rent seekers, which it always does if you leave it alone; it will also sort out the free riders; if you step in and try to regulate, like, say, rent control in NYC or some lame-brained idea like net-neutrality, you create conditions that perversely subsidize the wrong sorts of behaviours.

If you counter-argue that some consumers don't have choices, then you immediately and completely concede the core contradiction of your own, terribly weak position: the real problem, then, is a lack of competition and consumer choice, NOT a lack of government supervision.

[D-fendr]

It two separate issues. We need both increased choice and competition and internet dialtone that's not based on content.

What you are advocating is easily accomplished by a subscription model. That's fine. I get to choose no matter what the situation is with choice of ISPs. This is the better solution.

[D-fendr]

BTW: I don't see net neutrality as collectivist but as free market support.

I don't want my ISP deciding which search engine works better for me. And I darn sure don't want to have to pick an ISP based on what content he suppresses or allows.

ISPs sell internet access, bandwidth. Let the providers of content compete fairly for how I choose to use that bandwidth I've paid for.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Please forgive me for talking over your head. I had no idea that your knowledge of internet infrastructure was as weak as your grasp of its history. Please understand, the internet was optimized many years ago to link scientists and researchers using shared resources: it was never designed to support providers of rich media who want to use the infrastructure to generate revenue."

Here is support for "Net Neutrality" from that group that originally worked to put together the original Internet (the researchers, scientists and universities, in combination with the government). This is from the group "Internet2" (in the process of building a faster net).

"The research and education community was a key partner in developing the Internet and, in its dual missions of undertaking scientific research and promoting educational opportunities, is today one the largest producers of online content in the world. This community depends upon an open Internet based on the principle of Network Neutrality. Internet2, in coordination with EDUCAUSE and many other like-minded organizations, is working to preserve Network Neutrality as policymakers consider new telecommunications laws and regulation in the United States. As part of this effort, Gary Bachula, Internet2's vice president for external relations, recently testified before the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate. Not only is Network Neutrality critical to the research and education community’s missions, it is vital to preserving the Internet as a foundation of innovation and economic growth."

There you have it from the same group of people who engineered and designed the original Internet. They understand what is going on -- with the other side who wants to *take away* -- Net Neutrality -- as it stands today (and was created originally...).

See -- http://www.internet2.org/

Regards,
Star Traveler