More Arguments against “Net Neutrality”
And once again, it comes from people smarter than me (hold your fire on that one).
A convocation of experts (HT Hugh Hewitt) convened by Wharton professor Gerald Faulhaber concluded that:
Instead of mandating network neutrality ….. current laws should regulate any anticompetitive behavior. Farber points to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) network neutrality guidelines issued in August 2005, which state:
- Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
- Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice;
- Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
- Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Faulhaber, however, says companies are better off filing antitrust suits to handle concerns over net favoritism. For instance, if Comcast cuts a special deal allocating bandwidth to Barnes and Noble, Amazon could bring an antitrust suit and show damages. “It takes much less time than the FCC,” he said.
The availability of both enforcement mechanisms looks more than sufficient to me.
I’ve been debating NN with several commenters on my site - the pro-NN arguments all seem to come from a nanny-government/entitlement mentality - and sometimes it is downright scary.
Comment by Chublogga — June 20, 2006 @ 10:05 am
#1, that NN post was very good. Good arguments, esp for letting the market decide.
I’m thinking that the chip developments I’m blogging on this morning might make everything so fast that speed might not even be a worry, but I’m not techie enough to have a grip on that.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Those chip developments are interesting, but I have to wonder what the speed is like at normal operating temperatures, instead of near-absolute-zero temps. And while the chips may make for fast computations, I don’t know how much that will carry over into network data throughput which is what the NN debate seems to revolve around.
Comment by Chublogga — June 20, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Oh boy. You guys don’t understand that technological concepts behind the Net Neutrality debate. When you purchase internet service with a given “speed”, you are really buying bandwidth. Bandwidth is a “capacity” capability and is not a guaranteed speed of connection. I have 6Mb/sec for all of my traffic. At any given second, I cannot (theoretically) exceed six megabits per second of internet traffic. Let’s contrast that with latency. Latency is the delay in receving the content that you request because of distance, QoS, bandwidth limitations at the destination, etc. The fear is that without Net Neutrality, carriers will prioritize (or degrade) traffic. I highly doubt that they will resort to gestapo tactics to block access to websites, but I do believe that they will introduce latency that will make for poor user experiences. Bandwidth and capability is the same as before, but latency may be a problem.
In the past, you have compared the Net Neutrality to a highway with slow and fast lanes. That’s not an accurate comparison. Think of the prioritized traffic as having all five lanes of a highway. If you are not subscribing to the carrier’s priority service, you are relegated to receiving all of your data on back roads.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 20, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
It was 300GHz at room temperature. I would venture to guess that this technology will not be widely adopted near term, for consumers anyway. It will probably be a really good fit for future ASIC design, but again; look for that in 5-10 years.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
#3, My post on the NYT article on the chip is here:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2443
From the article (not excerpted at the post):
The researchers, using a cryogenic test station, achieved the speed milestone by “freezing” the chip to 451 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, using liquid helium. That temperature, normally found only in outer space, is just nine degrees above absolute zero, or the temperature at which all movement is thought to cease.
At 500 gigahertz, the technology is 250 times faster than chips in today’s cellphones, which operate at 2 gigahertz. At room temperature, the chips operate at 350 gigahertz, far faster than other chips in commercial use today.
350 gigahertz is at room temp is still 175 times faster, and of course the heat problems are always something that has to be dealt with.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
#4, the later comments came before yours.
I’ll admit not to being technically strong enough, which is why I’m relying on a lot of “reliables” to sort this out.
I’m left wondering why carriers would go out of their way to impose latency, because it appears that’s what they would have to do. Even if I’m wrong, if they “prioritized” traffic, no one would be affected unless the pipes are already full. My “theory” is that the pipes are engineered to handle 2-3x “normal” loads, and that the frequency of a pipes-full situation might be 5% of the time at most, which would be the extent of the discrimination exposure.
I may also be wrong on this, but it seems that the chip-speed developments reported this morning might have some impact both on how fast the data goes through the pipes and how much data can be squeezed through a given pipe, by enhancing the equipment that carries out those functions.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Kevin Irwin:
Even if the companies did impose latency on data, so what?
Do they own the hardware making all of this possible, or does the government?
If they own it, then on what grounds does the government have to impose legislation?
Besides, if people are unhappy with the service being provided, then they can always go to a different ISP, complain about it on their blog, and cause a lot of bad press.
Comment by Chublogga — June 20, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Even if the companies did impose latency on data, so what?
My company already pays several millions dollars per year for network services from carriers. It would make our network far more complex and costly to operate if we had to purchase connections to every major ISP
Do they own the hardware making all of this possible, or does the government?
They own the hardware, but the government owns the poles and rights of way.
If they own it, then on what grounds does the government have to impose legislation?
Technically, the gov’t provided the inital funding which started the DARPAnet (now internet). Plus, Congress is entitled by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce
Besides, if people are unhappy with the service being provided, then they can always go to a different ISP, complain about it on their blog, and cause a lot of bad press.
Not always and especially in the last mile. I live in the Beacon Hill neighborhood in Boston. There are only two ISP’s that I can use for high speed internet. I’ve had major complaints about both, but am relegated to using one. There’s not much choice for me. Even if users did complain en masse about poorly performing connections, would the ISP’s care? My experience says no. The internet is so ubiquitous that they can easily claim that it’s another carrier’s problem, related to power outages, etc. And there’s nothing that you can do to prove otherwise. All you can do is prove that latency exists, and not what’s causing it.
The really hairy problem lies between peered networks. If you are using Comcast for an ISP and want to connect to Bizzyblog, you’ll traverse through Comcast’s network to AT&T, then to Interland (Tom’s ISP) If Tom wants his the fastest connection, he’ll have to enter into agreements with all of those providers. It can get rather costly, don’t you think?
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 20, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
#9, My ISP if I understand the term right is TWC. My web host is Interland, but that distracts from your points.
This is the first I have heard of the need to set up agreements with all providers to get my pages “out there.” Of all the arguments to use, that is the one an average person can understand if true. But I’m finding it hard to believe that I’m going to not at all reach certain users, which appears to be your implication, because if that’s the case it’s a whole new ballgame.
I would expect my ISP and host to have all those agreements in place with other ISPs on behalf of all of their clients to ensure universal connectivity already. Am I wrong, or is it all one happy handshake right now?
Not to quibble, but I’ll bet you have at least two other alternative ISPs besides what I assume are the Cable (charter) and phone company (Verizon): Verizon’s nationwide wireless (a different unit of VZ) and Dish.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
#9, My ISP if I understand the term right is TWC. My web host is Interland, but that distracts from your points.
That may be your home ISP, but your blog is hosted by Interland, who uses AT&T and Digicon for ISP’s.
This is the first I have heard of the need to set up agreements with all providers to get my pages “out there.†Of all the arguments to use, that is the one an average person can understand if true. But I’m finding it hard to believe that I’m going to not at all reach certain users, which appears to be your implication, because if that’s the case it’s a whole new ballgame.
I’m not implying that you won’t “reach” all users. Your traffic may be degraded as it passes from one ISP to another. Here’s some detailed analysis.
I did a traceroute from Sprint’s Seattle looking glass router.
1 144.232.1.170 First Sprint Router
2 144.232.9.202 Last Sprint Router
3 xe-0-1-0.r20.lsanca03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net Sprint peer with NTT (Japan-based)
4 p64-0-3-0.r20.mlpsca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
5 xe-2-1-0.r21.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.netLast NTT router
6 te14-0-0.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.comNTT peer with Cogent
7 154.54.1.29
8 p14-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com
9 p4-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com
10 p4-0.core01.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com
11 p4-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com
12 g49.na01.b002176-1.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com
13 Centrivity.demarc.cogentco.com
14 207.233.175.69 I think this is where your hosting provider starts
15 * * *
Assuming the ISP’s start traffic prioritization, a Seattle-based Bizzyblog fan could be forced into the slow lanes of Sprint, NTT, and Cogent if you or Interland don’t enter into a priority SLA. That drives up Interland’s and ostensibly, yours.
I would expect my ISP and host to have all those agreements in place with other ISPs on behalf of all of their clients to ensure universal connectivity already. Am I wrong, or is it all one happy handshake right now?
That’s the point. It is a happy handshake now. From the inception of the internet to the late 90’s, there was a great expansion in network providers. The free market was great in that online service providers (AOL et al) were forced into providing open access to the internet. Since 2000, the industry has been consolidating rapidly. I have a great concern that in five years, there will only be two, maybe only one. The carriers are fighting aggressively to block net neutrality provisions, which is rather curious, given that the free market has been keeping their prices on a downward trend in the last ten years.
Not to quibble, but I’ll bet you have at least two other alternative ISPs besides what I assume are the Cable (charter) and phone company (Verizon): Verizon’s nationwide wireless (a different unit of VZ) and Dish.
Cable company is Comcast (which I use) and phone is Verizon. Verizon DSL is 768Kb/384Kb, which isn’t quite adequate for when I telecommute. Dish is horrible. I have spotty cell service in my solid brick apartment building so Verizon eVDO is out of the question. Trust me, I have tried.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 20, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
#11, I’ve done the traceroute thing before and sort of understand it. If they start messing with traffic, I would think they would get crucified by the market, the government, or both.
This circles back to the fundamental “reassurance” of the post. My “theory” is that the FCC and DOJ would be all over any attempt to move away from the happy handshake like flies on flypaper.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Sure, that’s what we hope. Like I mentioned earlier, carriers and cable companies have been merging at a rate that will re-form Bell in a few years. As carriers make the transition into content providers, their setting the price of entry into their own game seems anti-competitive. And if you think that telcos are shining examples of competitive business practices, I refer you to VZ v. VG. Vonage has been in existence for four years now. They have developed the largest VoIP phone network in the US. Verizon was very slow to adopt the technology and offer it to their customers. It seems suspicious that Verizon would claim that Vonage infringed on several of its patents a couple weeks after Vonage raised a ton of cash from its IPO.
Bloomberg
I would rather we take action now and guarantee fair access and pricing for the internet before it gets tied up in the court system.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 20, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
#13, even if I agreed on the objective you stated, I would then need to be convinced that what’s in the law does that instead of creating more problems by protecting the business models of Google, or Amazon, or whomever. I’m supposed to believe that the House’s bill doesn’t and the Senate’s bill sort of does, but to say that it’s murky is to insult murkiness.
Comment by TBlumer — June 20, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
In these days of the viral-like dissemination of information, I would imagine that any shady corporate action by that customers don’t care for will quickly become publicized. Most companies nowadays are very, very, aware of how quickly bad press gets around, and I would think that would be enough to keep them on their customers’ good side. There is every incentive for them to keep us happy. However, if the gov’t steps in with unwieldy and byzantine legislation, who knows what loopholes they will find and exploit? Then they will have the protection of the letter of the law, and some immunity from public opinion.
I am still convinced that government intervention with regards to net neutrality will only result in frustration.
Comment by Chublogga — June 21, 2006 @ 9:28 am
I explained the technical problems behind an unneutral net, but you remain convinced because of what you “imagine” and “hope”. Like I’ve told Tom before, the free market is definitely the most efficient vehicle to allocate resources, but the free market is not free in the case of a telecom oligopoly or monopoly. It took 30 years to break up the Bell system. I’d rather we not revisit the wait-and-see situation.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 21, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Government legislation preventing a business monopoly: i’m ambivalent about.
Government legislation referencing technical matters: extremely wary of.
Call me cynical, but I don’t have any confidence that government legislation “enforcing” net neutrality will do exactly what is best. In fact, i’m very confident that any legislation that does pass will have far-reaching effects on matters far outside the domain of net neutrality.
Comment by ChuBlogga — June 21, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
You are ambivalent about preventing monopolies? Are you kidding?
In this case, the government would not be legislating a technological matter, rather protecting consumers and businesses from anti-competitive measures. If it weren’t for government intervention (FCC mandates), companies would not be able to offer remote workspaces and telecommutes for employees or the proliferation of consumer-grade WiFi.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 21, 2006 @ 8:04 pm