The Case Against Net Neutrality 702
jeek writes "While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that Net Neutrality may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates net neutrality, policies for internet access are set by one entity: the FCC. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the FCC’s policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
Switch to another one...? (Score:5, Informative)
Some of us don't have many options here (Score:4, Informative)
If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one.
Not quite. For most Americans, there aren't more than a couple of ISPs available (excluding Satellite and ye olde dialup modem), so you really can't. Where I live, the only available broadband has been Verizon DSL, from 2003 up until 2010, so if they had decided to start throttling bandwidth to unapproved sites, I would've been screwed.
Better option is the first. (Score:2, Informative)
So which model sounds better to you?
The first. At least there's a chance I can convince my elected representatives to make changes to public policy. I have no way to affect the behavior of the ISPs. "Vote with your dollars" doesn't work when you simply don't get internet access at all if you refuse to pay them for it, and you need it to do your job.
Re:Switch to another one...? (Score:5, Informative)
I live in NYC and ultimately I have 4 options:
1) Time Warner Cable
2) dialup
3) cell phone data plans (expensive, slow, and capped)
4) don't use the Internet
That's in one of the biggest/densest cities in the world.
Re:beware of idealists (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly the obvious answer to this question is "what competitors?"
However, even if we had a competitive panacea - say, a commonly held, local government managed last mile over which you could connect to dozens of ISPs, all competing for your dollars - we would still not have a truly competitive environment for one reason: price signals, or, rather, the inability to communicate them. Before we conclude that a market can solve a problem, we have to make sure that the structural prerequisites for a functioning, competitive market are in place. One of them is price signals. And I mean this generally.
So, the way this argument usually proceeds is to say: "don't like a tiered Internet? Well, if Company A doesn't follow common carriage principles, and Company B does, consumers who are sensitive to net neutrality will utilize B over A, putting competitive pressure on A to discard a tiered Internet and embrace net neutrality."
But there is a simple reason that this oversimplified model doesn't work. I don't need to run a traceroute for anyone on Slashdot, but most people (especially people who make the argument above) don't realize that when data moves from point X to point Y on the web it also passes through a half-dozen networks besides. And the experience of the consumer is not only affected by their ISP, or the ISP of their content provider, but also by the intermediary networks.
The problem, from a market solution perspective, is that *there is no way for the consumer to communicate their preferences via price signals to the intermediary networks.* Perhaps the consumer opts for (network neutral) ISP B, and their chosen content provider is on (network neutral) ISP D. But if their data have to pass through non-neutral ISP C, then their access may be degraded, and *they will not have a way to choose a different competitor*.
This is emphatically *unlike*, say, contracting FedEx to pick up the package from your house and deliver it to your friend's house, with all of the intermediary travel handled by FedEx (and thus subject to the competitive pressure of your decision to use FedEx rather than DHL or UPS).
Once you begin to screw with the haphazard egalitarianism of the present architecture of the Net, you begin to run into all sorts of problems like this. So beware the arguments that "the market" will solve everything! The market is a powerful machine, but it is a machine, and when parts of it are broken or out of place, it's just as unusable as a car without an engine.
Re:Personally? (Score:3, Informative)
As opposed to giving these powers to a corporation? There are plenty of corporations that are bigger than nation states, both in man-power and in revenue.
Re:The case against government... (Score:4, Informative)
You're joking, right? Hard to tell here sometimes.
When the coal industry self-regulates, all coal mines are operated under horrible operating conditions, so your only choice is still the manure farm. The self-regulation model only works if the mines are run by perfectly market-rational individuals, and if there are no practical entry barriers to starting new mining companies. Neither is the case.
Re:Choices (Score:3, Informative)
The government's role in Net Neutrality is to require ISPs to not block or degrade access to specific content sources. It's just basic ground rules, not a pile of regulation akin to the tax code.
It's amazing how many different arguments people use against Net Neutrality, to the point where the arguments start to contradict each other: * The Internet has never been neutral
* No ISP has ever violated Net Neutrality
* The government already has the authority to enforce Net Neutrality without new regulation
* The Internet will DIE if Net Neutrality is enforced!
and my favorite:
* Socialists/Communists/Maoists/Marxists/Nazis/Fascists are the ones who want to start Net Neutrality!
This article is just more of the same, poorly thought out reasons to argue against a good thing for the sake of political posturing.
Re:The case against government... (Score:2, Informative)
(Sacrificing mod points... done.)
I'm not sure labor conditions regulations compare here, especially considering that deregulation of mine safety, not over-regulation, caused one of the most high-profile mining accidents in recent memory-- one that cost several lives. It was similar deregulation and/or poor oversight that was at least a significant contributor-- if not direct cause-- of the biggest environmental disaster ever experienced by Americans, that likewise took several lives.
Bottom line, business has a horrible track record in terms of work condition management. Before laborers got the idea of organizing and presenting a united front to business owners, American industry resembled the sweatshops in Asia that we decry-- child labor and minimal safety were a fact of life, rather than an aberration.
Besides, in a society where the legislators are elected democratically, our "only" choice (nice false dilemma, by the way) is NOT to leave the industry. We can and should elect legislators who will represent our interests.
Yeah, I know. Money talks in Washington and London. But that's a horrible excuse for letting the true elites fuck us around, don't you?
Re:Choices (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which one indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Choices (Score:2, Informative)
>>>very-slow adsl
The country of Japan uses almost nothing but ADSL, and they have the world's fastest internet. You shouldn't make false assumptions that a certain technology is automatically slow.