At this point the problem isn't Net Neutrality, it's the internet is privately owned by for profit companies.
Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company for profit without oversight.
Internet needs to be treated like infrastructure, because that's what is, both to service consumers and providers.
There are many ways to have private company to profit over infrastructure if they so chose it, but having a guaranteed baseline would resolve most issue about having to regulate private companies or stifling innovation. I.e. there could be private pipes with state subsidized access having guaranteed QOS. There could be public pipes with state renting access to private companies.
There are plenty solution, but the issue is that public can't lobby for what benefits them and deep pocket can and will buy legislation.
> Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company
My wife used to take the bus to work in Wilmington, DE. Government-owned and operated bus service. Busses would regularly be 20 minutes off schedule, in a city with little traffic. Drivers would regularly decide to just quit their shift 15 minutes early, passing by stops full of people waiting.
My wife and I rode every day between D.C./Wilmington and Baltimore for two years. $1,700 per month train fare, but a good day was five to ten minutes late. A bad day was sitting in a broken down train for hours while waiting for another train to come rescue. (That happened once a month).
I tried to ride the D.C. Metro to work last summer. One of the best subways in the US (and also one of the most expensive). Last year tracks were literally catching fire. Regularly runs 15-20 minutes late for a 30-40 minute trip.
Our au pair is German. Her mom, sister, and several friends have visited us from Germany. She couldn't drink the tap water in Baltimore, neither could her mom drink the tap water in DC. Every single German to visit my house has remarked how bad the roads are here.
I'm a big believer in publicly run services, at an intellectual level. But out of the various cities I've lived in, I'd trust maybe two (New York and Chicago) to run my internet service. Certainly not Baltimore, Wilmington, DC, or Atlanta.
> At this point the problem isn't Net Neutrality, it's the internet is privately owned by for profit companies
Eh, I don't think that's so bad. We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality.
What we don't need to grant is increased monopolies.
There is a balance to strike. Removing net neutrality policies would shift it too far away from increasing competition and quality, and buying back ISPs would be both expensive and also reduce competition and then quality.
> Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company for profit without oversight.
FWIW this is the current administration's plan for "unleashing" "trillions of dollars" for physical infrastructure spending (bridge and road repair etc). So the NN plan is consistent in its approach.
So government should buy the infrastructure from different ISP and nationalize it. Then ISPs can rent the it from the government. However if I want to start a ISP which only delivers Netflix, I should be allowed to.
> Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company for profit without oversight.
Around here the highways are owned by the government and maintenance is contracted out. But there is one toll highway that the government "sold" (99 year lease) to a private company. And the costs to use it have been increasing constantly.
You have to look at this from the standpoint of Rail Roads back and the resulting mess that came from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. It took decades if not a century to realize how regulating transport versus producers did not help anyone, resulted in sub standard services and little advancement. Why? Because once codified it is damn hard to move. Net Neutrality is going to require detailed pricing regulations, routing, bandwidth, and more. You can guarantee once those exist they companies will see no need to expand on it.
So why should we not be overly concerned. Because in a system some perceive as unfair others perceive an opportunity. We are going to trap ourselves into a realm of where any attempt to offer more services will be met with legal shenanigans locking out competition and preventing even the established groups from expanding. It will become yet another industry wholly under the control of groups paid to solicit politicians endlessly. (more K street). We won't have the equivalent of AirBnB, Lyft, and Uber, companies trying to offer a better internet experience because regulation will stifle it and protect a status quo
>Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company for profit without oversight.
We'd have higher quality, lower cost water and roads.
"Government agencies less likely than private to comply with environmental regulations, study finds"
Here are key points from the article linked below:
For power plants and hospitals, public facilities were on average 9 percent more likely to be out of compliance with
Clean Air Act regulations and 20 percent more likely to have committed high-priority violations.
For water utilities, public facilities had on average 14 percent more Safe Drinking Water Act health violations and were 29 percent more likely to commit monitoring violations.
Public power plants and hospitals that violated the Clean Air Act were 1 percent less likely than private-sector violators to receive a punitive sanction and 20 percent less likely to be fined.
Public water utilities that violated Safe Drinking Water Act standards were 3 percent less likely than investor-owned utilities to receive formal enforcement actions.
To me the problem is not net neutrality, it is monopolistic behavior in broadband providers. If there was a true competition, providers trying to control the access of their subscribers would meet the same fate that AOL (with their custom email, browser, etc), they would become irrelevant.
Ah, but try to take away the monopolies and they throw money at it until you lose.
First they'll lobby. If that fails, they'll sue. They'll have all kinds of bullshit reasons why this is necessary for growth, investment and infrastructure.
They have better access to legislators and regulators, as well as more sympathetic ears in the government due to having, for lack of a better term, monopoly money to throw around.
> To me the problem is not net neutrality, it is monopolistic behavior in broadband providers
How do you solve that problem? It seems expensive.
Companies probably invested in building out their networks, paying government to have guaranteed access to subscribers.
If the government took all this back at once, it'd be costly, either in immediate money or just the reputation that the government holds with businesses. You want investors to be comfortable investing in future American development projects.
I agree that working towards a more competitive environment in the long term is the right thing to do, though it doesn't seem practical to do overnight, as evil as some ISPs appear to be.
What we don't need is to kill net neutrality, which would further line content providers' pockets with money they don't need. They're not a failing industry.
They're also not being so abusive as to require government takeover, in my opinion. They're not currently "poisoning" our internet, like Flint water.
There's no perfect solution for anything, public or private. We need to assess the conditions of today and decide what's the next best thing to do to increase our quality of life.
They are both problems. They are related, but still lie in a different problem space. Net neutrality is a realist solution to one of these problems; a solution necessary because the original problem fosters the other.
In the current landscape of monopolized ISPs, net neutrality is necessary to prevent ISP monopolies from funding service monopolies (like Netflix, Amazon, etc.).
Why don't these 800 startups, their thousands of brilliant employees, and the hackers on hacker news start a push to build a part-wireless and part-cable mesh network?
The only reason why the loons in the government or these companies have any clout is because they have the only working network that spans the US/Globe. If citizens just got together, on their time, and built a free and open network we'd have something better. It's not like it's never been done before [1].
Unfortunately that would require people's money and time. We'd also have to put our differences aside about each other and work for the greater good. A person is reasonable, people are dumb.
> Why don't these 800 startups...start a...network?
It just isn't that simple.
Your solution is for a minority to create an infrastructure that covers the entire continental US. Essentially what you are asking is for a "hacker"-founded Verizon.
Basically, unintended consequences. That there's a risk that it accidentally outlaws something that will be truly beneficial to the internet. The internet is still young - it's arrogant to presume that we know enough about what the next 20 years will bring.
It's perfectly plausible that 50 (? whenever) years ago when cable providers were awarded geographical monopolies in exchange for providing coverage that it made sense in the context of the day and wasn't quite the crony backroom deal it's made out to be today.
I think the argument is that certain services warrant a faster internet pipeline. Doctors performing remote surgeries, scientific collaborations, emergency services...etc. But the problem ultimately comes down how to make the distinction between essential vs non-essential.
> Is there a single good argument for removing net neutrality?
I think it's relatively unknown among the public. Techies are trying to raise awareness among public and politicians while content lobbyists are angling from the other side.
If the public agrees with lobbyists, then they won't factor this issue into their votes. However, if they make a stink, politicians will take note and make sure they end up on the right side of their constituents.
You can thank our democracy for the flood of propaganda on both sides of this issue.
I don't think there's much argument for privatization, but I don't doubt that content lobbyists are trying to make one a la "free market" and "I should be able to do what I want".
There is an argument for metered usage, which is non-neutrality of resource usage by quantity, not kind. I think the activists should cede this point if they want to strengthen their case.
People signing letters should donate money to politicians' campaign with letters to those politicians advocating specific legislation. That legislation might also have compromises that consider all parties or at least concretely show benefit to them. Alternatively, convince rich people and profitable businesses to donate as well.
1. Should a school or workplace be allowed to block specific websites? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to?
2. Should cable providers be forced to distribute 100% of channels? Why should we apply a different standard to a different protocol?
3. Should toll-free telephone number be banned?
4. Should ISPs charge for data used to check your balance or account statement? Should phone companies bill the minutes used to call their customer services?
5. Should ISPs be allowed to cache arbitrary content on their servers to reduce their loads (e.g., Netflix movies), and distribute the savings to their users?
6. Should a taxi driver be allowed not to serve specific neighborhoods, or should they be forced to serve 100% of neighborhoods?
7. Should posting a letter to someone in the same city cost the same as posting a letter to someone in a different country?
8. Should ISPs that implement their own proprietary protocol as an alternative to the Internet be forced to be neutral as well?
9. Should restaurants be forced to serve both Pepsi and Coca-Cola?
10. Should Netflix be able to reduce your subscription price when used through a specific ISP?
11. Should toll roads be allowed?
12. Should a workplace be able to reimburse bandwidth fees associated with the use of their VPN?
13. Should web hosts (e.g., Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Heroku, etc) be neutral as well? Should Amazon charge the same fees to all of their customers (including themselves)?
14. What should be done about small startups that can't handle all the incoming traffic? Should some other regulation subsidize their hosting cost so that they can compete with larger competitors?
15. How many new laws and regulations will be required (if they don't already exist) just to address the above examples? Wouldn't these laws and regulations only make it more difficult for startups to emerge and compete with the so-called monopolies?
1. Yes (to the first question). Because they operate at different layers of the internet stack. ISPs operate at lower layers of the stack than the school. If you fail to see how these are incompatible, please consider the following: Should you be able to choose where your electricity goes to (phone charger, tv, fridge, etc...) ? Why shouldn't your electricity provider be allowed this freedom ?
2. No (to the first question). Cable television works (conceptually) in a fundamentally different way from the internet. The provider must define its own set of protocols with each channel/network and price accordingly. The internet is distributed and free by default, there is an agreement on a common set of protocols and content gets served through these mostly in a federated way. This is different from having to establish a contract with each studio/channel and create your own offer (which is not how the internet was designed and intended to work, please read up on the physical layer alternative implementations).
Also taking your argument one notch up: different protocols usually mean that you need to consider a different approach and abstraction/standard. Do not expect good things if you treat all protocols with the same standard.
3. No. Reason: The telephone network works in a different way than the way/purpose of the internet. Public switched circuit networks like the telephone network have a inherent hierarchy that is typically not trivial to pass through hence the costs that used to associated with regional/international calls and the need to create toll free numbers for special use cases. Even though in a given time window the internet used to work on top of the telephone line its intention and design is of a higher-level, all the juicy stuff on the internet happens above the physical layer. Would you complain to your ISP if facebook was down ?
I don't have patience to answer the other points mostly because i feel that you didn't spend much time working/thinking on them and that possibly you don't really want them answered and are just trying to prove some void point while trying to avoid arguments. Please read up on history and technology and then rephrase them.
1. Should a school or workplace be allowed to block specific websites? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to?
Citizens aren't children.
2. Should cable providers be forced to distribute 100% of channels? Why should we apply a different standard to a different protocol?
Yes, cable provide a broadcast platform. Internet is a communication platform.
3. Should toll-free telephone number be banned?
No. It's an established practice, and not too many people have a problem with it.
4. Should ISPs charge for data used to check your balance or account statement? Should phone companies bill the minutes used to call their customer services?
I think the reasonable answer is No.
5. Should ISPs be allowed to cache arbitrary content on their servers to reduce their loads (e.g., Netflix movies), and distribute the savings to their users?
Ideally as long as they have the permission of the content holder.
6. Should a taxi driver be allowed not to serve specific neighborhoods, or should they be forced to serve 100% of neighborhoods?
A taxi driver can stay in a certain neighbourhood. The taxi industry should not impose some neighbourhoods.
7. Should posting a letter to someone in the same city cost the same as posting a letter to someone in a different country?
Yes as it's a physical transfer, and requires personnal effort. Bits on the wire don't cost more to transport across the world.
8. Should ISPs that implement their own proprietary protocol as an alternative to the Internet be forced to be neutral as well?
No. This is already seen with something like Skype, which tries to woo customers to it's platform. TCP/IP is what should be neutral.
9. Should restaurants be forced to serve both Pepsi and Coca-Cola?
The reasonable answer is of course they should not be forced. I hope you'll compare this answer to should hospitals be allowed to only recommend one brand of a drug?
10. Should Netflix be able to reduce your subscription price when used through a specific ISP?
I could be convinced either way I think.
11. Should toll roads be allowed?
Yes. And you may also change me for internet. You may not discriminate against or for some car brands.
12. Should a workplace be able to reimburse bandwidth fees associated with the use of their VPN?
I'm afraid I don't understand this.
13. Should web hosts (e.g., Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Heroku, etc) be neutral as well? Should Amazon charge the same fees to all of their customers (including themselves)?
No. ISPs may also try charging customers farther from the ocean pipes larger fees.
14. What should be done about small startups that can't handle all the incoming traffic? Should some other regulation subsidize their hosting cost so that they can compete with larger competitors?
The startup has to handle scaling issues, and expand their infrastructure. No, they may not be subsidized.
15. How many new laws and regulations will be required (if they don't already exist) just to address the above examples? Wouldn't these laws and regulations only make it more difficult for startups to emerge and compete with the so-called monopolies?
Honestly, a simple one page net-neutrality law will suffice. This will almost definitely allow more startups to flourish as their traffic is not discriminated for or against other vendors.
Thank you for the exhaustive list of scenarios, as this has provided a generous perspective.
These are some really interesting questions. I think a lot of these depend on how you think of the internet. I think of it as a utility that is required for a true equal shot at a good life in america. Let me take a crack at your questions:
1) I assume you are speaking of primary school, in which case yes, because they are serving children that cannot be relied on to make good decisions. That said Libraries primary users are adults and children under adult supervision, in which case no they should not be filtered, but depending on what you do there could be consequences.
2) No, because cable is not a required for success in the same way the internet is.
3) No, see above.
4) Interesting question, but it is really a straw-man because it is so trivial. I would say no, internet providers should be required to treat all bytes the same.
5) This is interesting, but seems more like a content owning question then a net neutrality question. I personally don't think caching has anything to do with how you treat the bytes going across the wire.
6) Yes i do, and that is because there are different costs to serving different neighborhoods, where there are virtually no differential costs between bytes of data.
7) Net neutrality doesn't specify how much you can charge, just that all bytes are treated the same.
8) If it is a private network then i don't think it would be considered a utility. If it becomes a required monopoly (kind of like a foundation patent) then yes.
9) I don't understand this analogy. Coke and Pepsi are luxury goods goods that are physical that are sold in non-monopolistic industries.
10) Sure, but the ISP should charge and treat netflix bytes the same as other similar bytes.
11) Yes, but when they are essential they should treat all similar cars (packets) the same
12) I am not sure how this relates as long as VPN packets are treated the same by the network infrastructure i don't care who pays for the access to that infrastructure.
13) Yes, they should treat all packets the same when they go over the network.
14) I am not sure i understand this one. If they don't have the infrastructure to handle the incoming bytes that is different then the core internet infrastructure. But if you are talking about a small ISP then i think they should still be required to treat all bytes the same, now they could limit the number of bytes a customer purchases, but not they type.
15) i think a simple net neutrality law will prevent lots of special case laws. Just treat all packets the same, period.
As a well-known start-up founder I know likes to say, to paraphrase:
I like regulations because they're guidelines that help us operate in the best interests of ourselves and the public. And they prevent our competitors from acting immorally or dangerously to get a business advantage (which might force us to have to take either make the same immoral/dangerous moves or shut down).
Bad regulations are bad, of course, but regulations empower businesses when applied correctly.
How is asking for a free market hypocritical? Most U.S. households have a single broadband option and the large ISPs have already demonstrated that they are willing to abuse their network control to attack services like Netflix when their own services aren't competitive.
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|9 years ago|reply
Imagine what'd be if every single road and water pipe was ran by private company for profit without oversight.
Internet needs to be treated like infrastructure, because that's what is, both to service consumers and providers.
There are many ways to have private company to profit over infrastructure if they so chose it, but having a guaranteed baseline would resolve most issue about having to regulate private companies or stifling innovation. I.e. there could be private pipes with state subsidized access having guaranteed QOS. There could be public pipes with state renting access to private companies.
There are plenty solution, but the issue is that public can't lobby for what benefits them and deep pocket can and will buy legislation.
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
My wife used to take the bus to work in Wilmington, DE. Government-owned and operated bus service. Busses would regularly be 20 minutes off schedule, in a city with little traffic. Drivers would regularly decide to just quit their shift 15 minutes early, passing by stops full of people waiting.
My wife and I rode every day between D.C./Wilmington and Baltimore for two years. $1,700 per month train fare, but a good day was five to ten minutes late. A bad day was sitting in a broken down train for hours while waiting for another train to come rescue. (That happened once a month).
I tried to ride the D.C. Metro to work last summer. One of the best subways in the US (and also one of the most expensive). Last year tracks were literally catching fire. Regularly runs 15-20 minutes late for a 30-40 minute trip.
Our au pair is German. Her mom, sister, and several friends have visited us from Germany. She couldn't drink the tap water in Baltimore, neither could her mom drink the tap water in DC. Every single German to visit my house has remarked how bad the roads are here.
I'm a big believer in publicly run services, at an intellectual level. But out of the various cities I've lived in, I'd trust maybe two (New York and Chicago) to run my internet service. Certainly not Baltimore, Wilmington, DC, or Atlanta.
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
Eh, I don't think that's so bad. We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality.
What we don't need to grant is increased monopolies.
There is a balance to strike. Removing net neutrality policies would shift it too far away from increasing competition and quality, and buying back ISPs would be both expensive and also reduce competition and then quality.
[+] [-] gumby|9 years ago|reply
FWIW this is the current administration's plan for "unleashing" "trillions of dollars" for physical infrastructure spending (bridge and road repair etc). So the NN plan is consistent in its approach.
(though I agree with you)
[+] [-] rtx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Avernar|9 years ago|reply
Around here the highways are owned by the government and maintenance is contracted out. But there is one toll highway that the government "sold" (99 year lease) to a private company. And the costs to use it have been increasing constantly.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
So why should we not be overly concerned. Because in a system some perceive as unfair others perceive an opportunity. We are going to trap ourselves into a realm of where any attempt to offer more services will be met with legal shenanigans locking out competition and preventing even the established groups from expanding. It will become yet another industry wholly under the control of groups paid to solicit politicians endlessly. (more K street). We won't have the equivalent of AirBnB, Lyft, and Uber, companies trying to offer a better internet experience because regulation will stifle it and protect a status quo
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] briandear|9 years ago|reply
We'd have higher quality, lower cost water and roads.
"Government agencies less likely than private to comply with environmental regulations, study finds" Here are key points from the article linked below:
For power plants and hospitals, public facilities were on average 9 percent more likely to be out of compliance with Clean Air Act regulations and 20 percent more likely to have committed high-priority violations.
For water utilities, public facilities had on average 14 percent more Safe Drinking Water Act health violations and were 29 percent more likely to commit monitoring violations.
Public power plants and hospitals that violated the Clean Air Act were 1 percent less likely than private-sector violators to receive a punitive sanction and 20 percent less likely to be fined.
Public water utilities that violated Safe Drinking Water Act standards were 3 percent less likely than investor-owned utilities to receive formal enforcement actions.
http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2015/10/when-gov....
Here's another viewpoint on the benefit of road privatisation: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2012/03/22/road-pri....
As far as "imagining" what it would be like with private water and roads -- instead of imagining, perhaps we ought to look at the topic rationally.
Here's another (opinion) article about privatized roads:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/a_glimpse_of....
https://fee.org/articles/privatize-public-highways/
And here's an academic study about water privatization benefits in Argentina: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=648048
[+] [-] cm2187|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxide|9 years ago|reply
First they'll lobby. If that fails, they'll sue. They'll have all kinds of bullshit reasons why this is necessary for growth, investment and infrastructure.
They have better access to legislators and regulators, as well as more sympathetic ears in the government due to having, for lack of a better term, monopoly money to throw around.
It's frustrating to say the least.
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
How do you solve that problem? It seems expensive.
Companies probably invested in building out their networks, paying government to have guaranteed access to subscribers.
If the government took all this back at once, it'd be costly, either in immediate money or just the reputation that the government holds with businesses. You want investors to be comfortable investing in future American development projects.
I agree that working towards a more competitive environment in the long term is the right thing to do, though it doesn't seem practical to do overnight, as evil as some ISPs appear to be.
What we don't need is to kill net neutrality, which would further line content providers' pockets with money they don't need. They're not a failing industry.
They're also not being so abusive as to require government takeover, in my opinion. They're not currently "poisoning" our internet, like Flint water.
There's no perfect solution for anything, public or private. We need to assess the conditions of today and decide what's the next best thing to do to increase our quality of life.
[+] [-] thomastjeffery|9 years ago|reply
In the current landscape of monopolized ISPs, net neutrality is necessary to prevent ISP monopolies from funding service monopolies (like Netflix, Amazon, etc.).
[+] [-] gravypod|9 years ago|reply
The only reason why the loons in the government or these companies have any clout is because they have the only working network that spans the US/Globe. If citizens just got together, on their time, and built a free and open network we'd have something better. It's not like it's never been done before [1].
[1] - https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/greek-off-the-grid-internet-...
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
Why rebuild the wheel?
We have decent infrastructure already. We just need society to not mess it up.
[+] [-] ZeroManArmy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pawadu|9 years ago|reply
Because ATT and Comsat would probably sue everybody and their uncles to stop such a project.
[+] [-] thomastjeffery|9 years ago|reply
It just isn't that simple.
Your solution is for a minority to create an infrastructure that covers the entire continental US. Essentially what you are asking is for a "hacker"-founded Verizon.
[+] [-] RugnirViking|9 years ago|reply
No conspiracy theories, or anything like that. Why is it a issue even worthy of debate? I am utterly confused
[+] [-] mseebach|9 years ago|reply
It's perfectly plausible that 50 (? whenever) years ago when cable providers were awarded geographical monopolies in exchange for providing coverage that it made sense in the context of the day and wasn't quite the crony backroom deal it's made out to be today.
[+] [-] daemonk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
I think it's relatively unknown among the public. Techies are trying to raise awareness among public and politicians while content lobbyists are angling from the other side.
If the public agrees with lobbyists, then they won't factor this issue into their votes. However, if they make a stink, politicians will take note and make sure they end up on the right side of their constituents.
You can thank our democracy for the flood of propaganda on both sides of this issue.
I don't think there's much argument for privatization, but I don't doubt that content lobbyists are trying to make one a la "free market" and "I should be able to do what I want".
[+] [-] rtx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr4444lr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
This isn't about that. This is something that most of us, as techies, believe is a bad idea.
This should be a campaign issue. We don't need to build more silos.
If it's unpopular, politicians won't pass it.
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miguelrochefort|9 years ago|reply
2. Should cable providers be forced to distribute 100% of channels? Why should we apply a different standard to a different protocol?
3. Should toll-free telephone number be banned?
4. Should ISPs charge for data used to check your balance or account statement? Should phone companies bill the minutes used to call their customer services?
5. Should ISPs be allowed to cache arbitrary content on their servers to reduce their loads (e.g., Netflix movies), and distribute the savings to their users?
6. Should a taxi driver be allowed not to serve specific neighborhoods, or should they be forced to serve 100% of neighborhoods?
7. Should posting a letter to someone in the same city cost the same as posting a letter to someone in a different country?
8. Should ISPs that implement their own proprietary protocol as an alternative to the Internet be forced to be neutral as well?
9. Should restaurants be forced to serve both Pepsi and Coca-Cola?
10. Should Netflix be able to reduce your subscription price when used through a specific ISP?
11. Should toll roads be allowed?
12. Should a workplace be able to reimburse bandwidth fees associated with the use of their VPN?
13. Should web hosts (e.g., Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Heroku, etc) be neutral as well? Should Amazon charge the same fees to all of their customers (including themselves)?
14. What should be done about small startups that can't handle all the incoming traffic? Should some other regulation subsidize their hosting cost so that they can compete with larger competitors?
15. How many new laws and regulations will be required (if they don't already exist) just to address the above examples? Wouldn't these laws and regulations only make it more difficult for startups to emerge and compete with the so-called monopolies?
[+] [-] HugoDaniel|9 years ago|reply
1. Yes (to the first question). Because they operate at different layers of the internet stack. ISPs operate at lower layers of the stack than the school. If you fail to see how these are incompatible, please consider the following: Should you be able to choose where your electricity goes to (phone charger, tv, fridge, etc...) ? Why shouldn't your electricity provider be allowed this freedom ?
2. No (to the first question). Cable television works (conceptually) in a fundamentally different way from the internet. The provider must define its own set of protocols with each channel/network and price accordingly. The internet is distributed and free by default, there is an agreement on a common set of protocols and content gets served through these mostly in a federated way. This is different from having to establish a contract with each studio/channel and create your own offer (which is not how the internet was designed and intended to work, please read up on the physical layer alternative implementations). Also taking your argument one notch up: different protocols usually mean that you need to consider a different approach and abstraction/standard. Do not expect good things if you treat all protocols with the same standard.
3. No. Reason: The telephone network works in a different way than the way/purpose of the internet. Public switched circuit networks like the telephone network have a inherent hierarchy that is typically not trivial to pass through hence the costs that used to associated with regional/international calls and the need to create toll free numbers for special use cases. Even though in a given time window the internet used to work on top of the telephone line its intention and design is of a higher-level, all the juicy stuff on the internet happens above the physical layer. Would you complain to your ISP if facebook was down ?
I don't have patience to answer the other points mostly because i feel that you didn't spend much time working/thinking on them and that possibly you don't really want them answered and are just trying to prove some void point while trying to avoid arguments. Please read up on history and technology and then rephrase them.
[+] [-] simula67|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anilgulecha|9 years ago|reply
Citizens aren't children.
2. Should cable providers be forced to distribute 100% of channels? Why should we apply a different standard to a different protocol?
Yes, cable provide a broadcast platform. Internet is a communication platform.
3. Should toll-free telephone number be banned?
No. It's an established practice, and not too many people have a problem with it.
4. Should ISPs charge for data used to check your balance or account statement? Should phone companies bill the minutes used to call their customer services?
I think the reasonable answer is No.
5. Should ISPs be allowed to cache arbitrary content on their servers to reduce their loads (e.g., Netflix movies), and distribute the savings to their users?
Ideally as long as they have the permission of the content holder.
6. Should a taxi driver be allowed not to serve specific neighborhoods, or should they be forced to serve 100% of neighborhoods?
A taxi driver can stay in a certain neighbourhood. The taxi industry should not impose some neighbourhoods.
7. Should posting a letter to someone in the same city cost the same as posting a letter to someone in a different country?
Yes as it's a physical transfer, and requires personnal effort. Bits on the wire don't cost more to transport across the world.
8. Should ISPs that implement their own proprietary protocol as an alternative to the Internet be forced to be neutral as well?
No. This is already seen with something like Skype, which tries to woo customers to it's platform. TCP/IP is what should be neutral.
9. Should restaurants be forced to serve both Pepsi and Coca-Cola?
The reasonable answer is of course they should not be forced. I hope you'll compare this answer to should hospitals be allowed to only recommend one brand of a drug?
10. Should Netflix be able to reduce your subscription price when used through a specific ISP?
I could be convinced either way I think.
11. Should toll roads be allowed?
Yes. And you may also change me for internet. You may not discriminate against or for some car brands.
12. Should a workplace be able to reimburse bandwidth fees associated with the use of their VPN?
I'm afraid I don't understand this.
13. Should web hosts (e.g., Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Heroku, etc) be neutral as well? Should Amazon charge the same fees to all of their customers (including themselves)?
No. ISPs may also try charging customers farther from the ocean pipes larger fees.
14. What should be done about small startups that can't handle all the incoming traffic? Should some other regulation subsidize their hosting cost so that they can compete with larger competitors?
The startup has to handle scaling issues, and expand their infrastructure. No, they may not be subsidized.
15. How many new laws and regulations will be required (if they don't already exist) just to address the above examples? Wouldn't these laws and regulations only make it more difficult for startups to emerge and compete with the so-called monopolies?
Honestly, a simple one page net-neutrality law will suffice. This will almost definitely allow more startups to flourish as their traffic is not discriminated for or against other vendors.
Thank you for the exhaustive list of scenarios, as this has provided a generous perspective.
[+] [-] clmckinley|9 years ago|reply
1) I assume you are speaking of primary school, in which case yes, because they are serving children that cannot be relied on to make good decisions. That said Libraries primary users are adults and children under adult supervision, in which case no they should not be filtered, but depending on what you do there could be consequences.
2) No, because cable is not a required for success in the same way the internet is.
3) No, see above.
4) Interesting question, but it is really a straw-man because it is so trivial. I would say no, internet providers should be required to treat all bytes the same.
5) This is interesting, but seems more like a content owning question then a net neutrality question. I personally don't think caching has anything to do with how you treat the bytes going across the wire.
6) Yes i do, and that is because there are different costs to serving different neighborhoods, where there are virtually no differential costs between bytes of data.
7) Net neutrality doesn't specify how much you can charge, just that all bytes are treated the same.
8) If it is a private network then i don't think it would be considered a utility. If it becomes a required monopoly (kind of like a foundation patent) then yes.
9) I don't understand this analogy. Coke and Pepsi are luxury goods goods that are physical that are sold in non-monopolistic industries.
10) Sure, but the ISP should charge and treat netflix bytes the same as other similar bytes.
11) Yes, but when they are essential they should treat all similar cars (packets) the same
12) I am not sure how this relates as long as VPN packets are treated the same by the network infrastructure i don't care who pays for the access to that infrastructure.
13) Yes, they should treat all packets the same when they go over the network.
14) I am not sure i understand this one. If they don't have the infrastructure to handle the incoming bytes that is different then the core internet infrastructure. But if you are talking about a small ISP then i think they should still be required to treat all bytes the same, now they could limit the number of bytes a customer purchases, but not they type.
15) i think a simple net neutrality law will prevent lots of special case laws. Just treat all packets the same, period.
[+] [-] rtx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|9 years ago|reply
I like regulations because they're guidelines that help us operate in the best interests of ourselves and the public. And they prevent our competitors from acting immorally or dangerously to get a business advantage (which might force us to have to take either make the same immoral/dangerous moves or shut down).
Bad regulations are bad, of course, but regulations empower businesses when applied correctly.
[+] [-] acdha|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scsh|9 years ago|reply