Net Neutrality Doomed, Googlers Can't Help

axcessnews ^ | June 14, 2006 | Freddie Mooche

[ThinkDifferent]

Consumer groups and now major search engines are lobbying lawmakers hard over the Net Neutrality portion of the telcom bill that gives carriers and cable companies the right to charge extra for bandwidth.

Argh. This blatantly incorrect meme keeps popping up. Neutrality does *not* prevent ISPs from charging more for higher bandwidth users.

[Xenalyte]

ya, right

Freddie darling, it's spelled "yeah." "Ya" isn't a word.

[saganite]

I haven't seen any reports that lay out exactly how this is going to change the net. Yahoo and Google paying the telcos for bandwidth will obviously result in fees for users but how much? Pay for E-mail? A set fee per month for, say, Yahoo and extra money for premium features? How will this affect FR? All I've seen so far are vague references to the end of the internet but no real analysis.

[Psycho_Bunny]

But the phone and cable companies say its too costly to build internet infrastructure, that they need to charge users more for extra bandwidth usage.

BS.  They've been saying that for years but somehow - as if by magic -  the net keeps getting bigger and faster, and phone and cable profits aren't going down.

 

 

[plain talk]

Interesting you mention that. Google is upset that ISPs want to charge them more for bandwidth but have no problem charging their customers more for email and other services.

Somebody has to pay for the bandwidth. Video is just starting to take off on the web. Once this blooms and there are pop-up video ads on each web page and increasing numbers of people are watching Desperate Housewife re-runs online, the net will eventually come to a crawl for everyone unless huge increases in capacity are funded.

The question is how is it paid - spread it around to everyone and increase everyone's internet access fee by $5-$10 or target those costs to companies (and people) using the extra bandwidth. That's what the fight is about. Of course many probably just want someone else to pay for it.

[SmithL]

Freddie darling, it's spelled "yeah." "Ya" isn't a word.

Freddy has a lot of problems with the language:

say its too costly

most to loose,

If Googler's want to email somebody

There's only two things

[AntiGuv]

Check out the links on this post.

[Asclepius]

Yahoo and Google paying the telcos for bandwidth will obviously result in fees for users but how much?

No, it isn't obvious that without net neutrality the result will be higher fees. Precisely the opposite. The high bandwidth users like netTV will have to pay their own way. Without so-called net neutrality all consumers are going to notice is lower prices for services because those that actually use them will be paying for them. This instead of off-loading all the costs on the consumers.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The question is how is it paid - spread it around to everyone and increase everyone's internet access fee by $5-$10 or target those costs to companies (and people) using the extra bandwidth. That's what the fight is about. Of course many probably just want someone else to pay for it."

Well, since the "entire universe" (other than the dinosaur telcos) seems to be moving to a "flat fee" model, I think that's where we'll eventually end up.

[freedom_forge]

You all may be on the wrong side of this issue. Net Neutrality is a "freedom" sounding word. But at issue, according to the Wall Street Journal and others, is big corporations, such as Google and Yahoo, want other big corporations, such as Verizon, to subsidize the extraordinary bandwidth they use. Requiring that could doom the spread of broadband and reduce competition.

Not having Net Neutrality doesn't mean you will pay for email, what it does mean (I think but don't know) is web site owners will be charged for the amount of bandwidth they consume. Many service providers and web hosting services do that now so I'm not as certain as others that we are facing Armageddon.

Finally, if Net Neutrality is imposed, and this is the argument free market advocates give, it means the Government will be dictating business practices to Internet related companies. This could be a much worse precedent than the spectre of paying for emails. We need content but we need the wires too. The net should be "free" as in free speech but not at the expense of some for the benifit of others.

[plain talk]

Well, since the "entire universe" (other than the dinosaur telcos) seems to be moving to a "flat fee" model, I think that's where we'll eventually end up.

Huh? ISPs including Telcos charge a flat rate now for internet service. I listed that as an option. I see two options: You either spread it around so everyone pays for it (aka flat rate) which is the current model or you force bandwidth hogs to pay more. Those are the choices.

[dennisw]

Finally, if Net Neutrality is imposed, and this is the argument free market advocates give, it means the Government will be dictating business practices to Internet related companies. This could be a much worse precedent than the spectre of paying for emails. We need content but we need the wires too. The net should be "free" as in free speech but not at the expense of some for the benifit of others.

Guess what. Net neutral is how the internet has been since the beginning until the FCC killed it last year

The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.

Now Congress faces a legislative decision. Will we reinstate net neutrality and keep the Internet free? Or will we let it die at the hands of network owners itching to become content gatekeepers? The implications of permanently losing network neutrality could not be more serious. The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html

 

Also worth reading--->> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114839410026160648-l8Cd7lakn_
8givyNOVIeReUDNLw_20070523.html?mod=rss_free

 

[Wonder Warthog]

"ISPs including Telcos charge a flat rate now for internet service. I listed that as an option. "

Yeah, they do NOW. I think largely as a result of FCC regulations. But they would one hell of a lot rather go back to their OLD pricing models of charging for every split nanosecond.

[SAJ]

Ya don't say, Xena!

;^)

[drhogan]

who do you work for? (i'm jes' wondrin')

[mcashman]

The idea that the government can decree the way to arrive at appropriate pricing for anything has so often been demonstrated to be wrong that it's a wonder to hear anyone support it.

Let's think a little about the structure of the Internet. Start at your web server, and then move out into what IT folks often call "the cloud". The bits from your web site quickly move to high volume channels (backbones) that cross the world. Then they descend again to metropolitan, town, and street level networks that eventually cross that last mile to the home.

The various speeds available on various portions of the net are indicated here: http://www.directglobalcommunications.com/definitions.htm

There are huge variations in speed, and the faster the speed the higher the cost.

Websites vary greatly in their usage, but the vast majority of websites utilize an insignificant portion of the available bandwidth. On the other hand, sites such as Google and Yahoo get so many hits that they consume a noticeable amount of bandwidth.

Quality of service from sites like Google and Yahoo depends on having a "wide pipe" right at their infrastructure boundary. But such "wide pipes" are expensive, and Google and Yahoo pay for that speed already. What they don't pay for directly is the impact of the bits flying from their site through the rest of the infrastructure of the Internet. The same will be true for sites that stream video and audio. So if Google or Yahoo or iTunes want to ensure the best service for their customers, they need to be able to ensure that the pipe is wide not just from their site to the backbone but also back down off the backbone all the way to the home. What the network providers seem to be proposing is simply to say that in order to provide quality of service guarantees to such large bandwidth customers, they will need to charge THEM (not us) for the service and the end to end equipment it requires.

Now in some high congestion situations it is possible that some other website traffic might be slowed to make way for "Google bits" or "Yahoo bits". But given the small amount of bandwidth used by most websites, this is unlikely.

In other words, right now, we all pay to subsidize net usage by Google and Yahoo when we pay our ISP. In the future, other pricing models might reduce that "contribution" and make Google and Yahoo pay "their fair share". In a "net neutrality" scheme, we all pay for growth in Google or Yahoo - in a non-neutral environment, they pay. Now this may also mean that Yahoo subscribers or Google subscribers pay more for guaranteed response times, but since they want that guarantee, why shouldn't they?

So what would be so bad? Probably nothing, or so it seems to me.

[dennisw]

-No Tolls on The Internet-


The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html

[dennisw]

who do you work for? (i'm jes' wondrin')

I work for myself, also a family company. The only way net neutrality impacts me financially is in terms of what I buy on the internet. If Verizon/Comcast/etc are able to charge tolls then the cost gets passed on to me.

A big motivation is a healthy loathing of Comcast and it's ilk. I don't like them nor trust them and see this as a money grab pure and simple. They can't charge you and me more for the internet. Not directly at least, so they will do it indirectly. When Amazon, New Egg, eBay and google pass on the Comcast tolls&fees to me... and you

They can't charge you and me more for the internet because I think they've hit a ceiling where they will lose customers if they jack up rates

[plain talk]

Yeah, they do NOW. I think largely as a result of FCC regulations. But they would one hell of a lot rather go back to their OLD pricing models of charging for every split nanosecond.

Incorrect. My internet and phone service has always been flat rate. My DSL internet service comes from a Telco and is unregulated and has always been flat rate. Just like my cable modem service I had before that.

I have no idea what your point is but mine is simple - video breaks the internet without huge investments and there are 2 choices for how to pay for the expansion - increased flat rate which everyone pays or make those who watch TV over the net pay more.