Are you confused about Net Neutrality? Who isn’t? Some people argue it is necessary for continued innovation on the Internet, and point to Comcast’s bandwidth metering as a sign of things to come. Others claim that it is unnecessary regulation that will create unintended consequences in its wake. Opposing Views, the debate site that pits experts against each other to argue the pros and cons of the big questions of the day (read our launch review), last night put up a page on Net Neutrality. The page lays out the arguments pro and con for Net Neutrality, and then links to fuller arguments.
Marshaling the arguments for Net Neutrality are the Save The Internet Coalition, the Open Internet Coalition, and Public Knowledge. (It’s a freedom of speech issue, the ISPs are quasi-monopolies that cannot be trusted, innovation on the Web is at stake). Arguing against are the Cato Institute and Hands Off The Internet (it’s a technical issue best left to engineers, the cost of Net Neutrality will be passed onto consumers, regulation will backfire). Readers are then encouraged to vote on who is winning the argument, an add their own points of view, which can be elevated to the main discussion page.
Here’s a sample of some of the back-and-forth. The Open Internet Coalition argues that it is a fundamental principle:
Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation.
The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection.
The Cato Institute warns of the difficulty of enforcing fuzzy concepts:
it’s important to remember that network neutrality is fundamentally a technical principle. Like any technical principle, it is fuzzy at the edges.
. . . Leading network neutrality proposals contain numerous ambiguities that would create uncertainty for everyone in the Internet industry. Here’s just one example: the most prominent network neutrality proposal of the 2006 congressional session, known as Snowe-Dorgan, defined a “broadband service provider” as “a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.” Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest. The same point can be made with respect to hotels, Internet cafes, airports, and even individuals who choose to make their home WiFi connection available to their neighbors.
Where do you stand on Net Neutrality? Go debate.
The internet is also not a toll booth highway for companies to start charging to view from website to website .
http://www.mysp...atedndetermined
@shawn: Totally agreed.
Either way the argument goes, the Comcast event is reasonable and probably necessary. Only users that download a hundred fifty gigs (leaving room for upload bandwidth) of stuff through BitTorrent or some other p2p service/software, per month, will feel an impact. Normal users are going to stay perfectly under the limit.
Until the limit becomes 100, then 50, then 25…
250 where I live. Perhaps regional?
I don’t know ’bout you, but I’d much rather be regulated by my government, which is at least supposed to be accountable for its actions and is supposed to serve its citizens, rather than a corporation, who’s only interest is money.
And I love how people say that if telecoms don’t have to play fair and compete, they’ll have more money with which to develop faster Internet and employ more people. This is fundamentally flawed; what really happens is the same number of people get laid off and the CEO gets a bigger yacht.
I’ve found it to be the other way around. The most horrifying phrase in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Corporations serve their customers – if they don’t they won’t have any. Politicians have no motivation to perform, as most of them have left office by the time the consequences of their decisions play out. At least CEOs have stock options.
True, though a monopoly is just as bad if not worse. A government must be elected and is supposed to do what the people want/need. A monopoly has no such qualms. If you need insulin, you’ll take it in a rusty needle if you must, go steal to pay for it. Internet similarly, we are heavily depended on it. So I ask you, who’s monitoring the monopoly to ensure they are innovative, expanding (laying new more powerful infrastructure), being ethical in their practices?
I could not agree more. I work for a telecom. The only think they see in a tiered Internet is more MONEY. Just read some of the quotes from Verizon, AT&T and Comcast in the last few years, when they try to tell the public that Google and other big websites get a “free ride.” This is ridiculous, NO ONE with a website or a web service gets FREE anything. Google pays MILLIONS for the bandwidth they use! All websites PAY for hosting and the bandwidth they use. Subscribers PAY to access these websites and are “promised” speeds and bandwidth they do not get in many cases.
Comcast throttling was pointed at P2P as if this is ALL bad as it is just a bunch of downloading hogs that download illegal content. Fact is this IS NOT true. P2P has many legal and practical uses. Several businesses are based on P2P. Comcast throttling also affected Lotus Notes users, sue nothing illegal or hog related here.
Sleep and the telecos and cable providers will take the gold teeth out of your mouth if you are not careful. There is a real shortage of competition in this country for broadband and on top of that the bandwidth we get in the US is a joke compared to Europe and parts of Asia, where 100 GB is common. The US is still about #16 in broadband penetration. So when those telecos claim they are spending ALL this money for “their” pipes in the US, remember they still lag waaaay behind other countries.
Forget about employing more people at the telecos, the opposite is happening I assure you.
Paul,
Claim to work for a telco and then throw out bogus factoids like “100GB” – which I note is 40% of comcast’s cap so hardly better. Or were you hoping for a reaction to 100Gb/s (I’d like to see that out side of a research lab). Or were you referring to that publicity stunt where some operator set up a 40Gb/s for his Granny? Hmm 100Mb/s is possible.
Interesting attempt at Irony.
The United States had to declare and defend its independence and its Bill of Rights.
Netians will have to do the same some day.
Until then, I wish to see Internet rights upheld… not Gov regulation.
Yeah, the government does such a great job regulating anything! What a joke!
The internet is a “world language”. How can OUR government have the gall to think that they can regulate it? We are A world power, not THE world power. As far as bandwidth, Comcast has the right to refuse service, just as any business does. It is regulation of SUBJECT MATTER that is more important. My workplace does that, and has a right to, because they’re paying me for a service to them. The government DOES NOT have that right, obviously because I am paying THEM, therefore I regulate them. If an ISP is unfair in my opinion, I fire them and go somewhere else. It is time the government had a review of their performance in adhering to the Constitution, starting with Amendment ONE.
@Prad
While a small amount of users might be affected NOW, the cap, in time, will begin to effect everyone as demand grows. But by capping supply with a growing demand, the cost of sharing information goes up and someone has to pay for it. If companies do, they can’t spend as much on hiring developers or growing into new or expanding business models. If we as consumers pay for it, we cannot subscribe to as many services as we could otherwise because we cannot afford it. What’s reasonable today will not be reasonable tomorrow; don’t think that Comcast will lift the cap with a growing demand – why should it when it can cap demand artificially and limit the need to expand & upgrade its network.
Ultimately, a metered internet or one with artificial caps on capacity will stifle US growth sending it overseas. This argument is more than reasonable network management policies. It’s more than some philosophical debate on what the “founding fathers” of the internet had in mind when they built it for the military. It’s now about domestic growth vs global growth in the information services space. The faster one can move information around, the more advantages one has in competing. Period.
Let’s all hope that policy makers and internet providers realize this before it’s too late.
@Jacob: Move to the UK. If you have ever been you can see how crappy excessive gov regulations are.
I am against government regulations when there MIGHT be a problem. No one knows for sure right now, so I say the gov should stay out of it.
@C.G. There will still be competition for most. I personally have many options for Internet, as do many people. I do recognize that there is the potential for people with one choice to be victimized, but that’s when the gov should step in. Not before.
Vint Cerf: “This [network neutrality] is more complicated than it looks. The debate was boiled down to bumper stickers for a while, which was not helpful in terms of understanding what the issues were.”
More here.
Unfortunately, the he said/she said approach to “discussion” of net neutrality doesn’t lead to much progress anymore, simply because both sides have boiled their arguments into hard-and-fast positions. Where the next phase of net neutrality action is really going to happen is in Congress in 2009, something you can read more about in our recent Sidecut Report on net neutrality.
I don’t know what to agree with here but, it’s just fine the way it is.
Bigger better pipes!
That is all.
If less than 1% of customers are causing “network problems” as the duopolies have said then why build a solution that effects 100% of users? Answer? This isn’t about “network problems” it is about control and profits.
What you are seeing is two of the duopolies taking different approaches to achieve the same results. Caps are an end run around net neutrality but they can’t just go there all in one fell swoop. So Comcast’s approach is to START OFF with a larger cap and either let demand catch up to it or gradually reduce the cap as consumer attention goes away. Where Time Warner’s solution is to install caps one city at a time so that consumer backlash won’t be market wide.
How are caps an end run around net neutrality? Once the caps are in place and consumer backlash has faded you will see “special deals” where some websites don’t count towards your cap or the ISP’s own VOIP/Video/etc. offering doesn’t count towards your cap thereby giving the ISP’s control over what you see. How does this give ISP’s control? If two website’s do/offer the same things and one counts towards your cap and the other doesn’t which one are you going to use?
@Greg What if this is the only way to get new innovative services to people willing to pay for them? For instance, I would love an online backup service who made a deal with Comcast/AT&T to uncap upload speed just for them (low upload speeds on cable/dsl are mostly artificial). With Net Neutrality I don’t see how such a service could ever be offered so we will be forever limited by the least common denominator.
Is this not anti-competitive?
For some early adopters Cable TV is a thing of the past and use the net as their substitute to get their Cable fix. Many of us know that 250GB is fine, but Im afraid the general public will hear capping and shy away from following suit of us early adopters. Thus slowing down the adoption of online video…
How is this not anti-competitve… when all ISPs are also video providers?
This is a huge issue far more complex than the pundits say–there needs to be subsidies for greater access and monitoring accountability without stifling innovation
Over-simplified set of principles:?
ISPs should be subject to the same kind of rates-and-services govt regulation as other utilities, and competition should be encouraged.
Rate setting on the basis of demands on the system should be allowed (e.g. volume caps) but should have to be justified to a regulatory authority.
NO restriction or rate on the basis of traffic content, hardware modality, or identity of source or destination should be allowed – a bit is a bit, regardless of meaning!
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the fact that Comcast is going to stop offering all you can eat bandwidth to everyone.
However, this isn’t a net neutrality issue. If you paid attention at the various FCC hearings on the issue you would have noticed that many experts (particularly at the Harvard Hearing) advocated this sort of approach — instead of Comcast throttling certain kinds of traffic.
The reality is that we have an infrastructure that can’t handle all of the demands that are being put on it (and which are increasing). One way or another consumers will have to pay for it. Infrastructure doesn’t build itself. The best way to do this, in a “net neutral” way is the approach that Comcast has taken. Of course I’d like to have all I can eat internet for a low price but if that isn’t economically feasible (which seems to be the case) we will have to either increase prices for everyone, or just increase the prices for the highest users. The market will, in time, sort this out and that is a good thing. And it is completely inline with net neutrality principles (which are really about non-discrimination).
@John & @ Kevin
Allowing private companies to fund and control national infrastructure is a very bad idea. And it is in no way the only way to do it. We even have several models to look at for a solution with a number of countries who have advanced farther and faster than us who have solved the problem. Did they take the lead from us because they are smarter than us? No. They did so because they did not allow greed to dictate the terms nor did they allow “the good ‘ole boy” network to dictate the terms.
Federal government regulation or nationalization is also very scary and while the Feds pretty much have a blank check to do whatever they want now using the “do whatever you want and give yourself amnesty if it was illegal” approach. I don’t think most of us want to hand over the farm without at least a fight.
One way or another it will be the people who fund the infrastructure. That being the case I would at least like some say in what I can see and how much of it. Therefore I think the absolute best solution is for municipalities to build out the last mile connections. Localized control. Localized funding. This way the control of an entire nation’s communications isn’t in the hands of just a handful of companies. The problem is that many towns and cities have tried it or are currently trying it and the ISP’s are suing them in court to keep them from doing it so that they can maintain their monopoly.
How would you get support for the levies and/or taxes required to do this? Simple – does your community want to be behind the rest of the nation and/or world in opportunities? Didn’t think so. This idea would not only retain the opportunities for innovation that the current internet offers it would enhance them.
We are currently lagging far behind South Korea and Japan in both broadband availability and speed, and it will only get worse unless we are willing to take on the massive task of upgrading and modifying our IT infrastructure.
How did our Far Eastern competitors do it? Government investment in infrastructure.
The internet should be considered in the same light as the highway system. In the past the government has subsidized expansion of the infrastructure, just as it spends billions on roads so we can buy more cars and use more oil, but for the most part, the governments own the roads. In the US, we have allowed corporations to own the cable that public subsidies have paid for, and this is where are have gone wrong relative to our competitors.
Why should Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, or Verizon spend their own stockholders’ cash on infrastructure when they can plead cost and get the government to pay for it, while leaving them owning it still?
In Japan, the government has paid for almost continuous improvements to their technology and the infrastructure it is deployed on. As part of the deal, companies pay the government for their use of the pipes, and all companies are in theory eligible to enter the market as long as they have the funds and technical expertise. This has lead to a high level of service and a competitive market.
US companies “own” the pipes WE paid for, and they want to control who uses them, get paid for all uses, gain a competitive advantage over those who don’t own pipes, and not only avoid paying the government for the privilege, but actively lobby Congress to give them more money to maintain their networks and protect themselves from users.
Sound familiar?
Follow-up
I realized the other day it wouldn’t be too difficult to pass levies/taxes for local last mile infrastructure while standing in line at the bank (out in the country in Ohio). You know when you’re standing in such a line you don’t have a lot of choice but to listen to the conversation of the two friends standing in front of you?
I was standing in line at this small town bank and this “country boy” – harley t-shirt, mullet, black work boots, cigarettes in back pocket, etc. was talking to this older (50’s – 60’s) “farmer dude” – sleeveless t-shirt, chaw in his lip, feed hat (baseball hat advertising a brand of feed), farm boots ( knee high rubber).
Know what they were talking about? – The best way to split a zip file.
Net Neutrality is a must. Websites pay their own hosting fees relative to what they upload, and I pay fees my end to access this content. Why should websites have to pay more for me to access it faster.
If my ISP starts slowing down my access to sites because they do not pay more, then this effects MY service and there is no chance in hell that I am going to stay.
Also what happens with P2P. Do we all become “hosts” and also have to pay a fee on top of our standard subscription fee in order to send data fast?
I agree with you. BUT where are you going to go? Many many people hate their ISP (cough….Comcast) but, have little in choice. It is bad ISP or dial up to many Americans. At best they may have two broadband providers. What if both suck?
I live in NJ one of the most densely populated and best wired states. I still only have two choices Cablevision and Verizon. So there is little in choice and the ISPs know it. Notice how they support each others arguments against Net Neutrality?
The US broadband penetration seriously lags many other countries. We are about 16th. What we call broadband in this country is a joke compared to the the 100MB to 1GB connections offered in other countries AT lower prices then we pay. I have a colleague in Sweden had has a 1GB connection he pays about $45 a month in his apartment. Seems government intervention in Sweden, Finland, and other places has yielded more broadband penetration with faster and cheaper pipes.
As much as I do not like the government control, I absolutely do not trust the ISPs with such a lack of competition. By the way I work for a telco!
great site~
Electricity, water, gas – pay for what you consume. Why not bits? Or is the US Internet analogous to the US highway system which keeps getting more and more clogged as the population increases with absolutely no way to increase capacity via government funding and potholes are fixed based on the vagaries of the state coffers. Is there a situation with the Internet comparable to the USPS/Fedex/UPS relationship. We need more of these discussions.
Why not privatize the road network; Sell off the roads the way spectrum has been sold to a couple of big companies; Let them put up gatekeepers that go through your car to see what you’re carrying and charge for road use accordingly. NOW THAT’S FREEDOM!
The point is far from whether you can hit the cap now but more that consumers are used to its existence. Once everyone blindly accepts that caps are good for them (yeah right) we can look forward to excuses on why the cost increases or the caps decrease until the point where we’re paying for ISPs, Data Plans and then for the actual media we want.
Caps should be outlawed, they stifle innovation (business and personal) on the internet, place control firmly in the hands of ISPs on what content we can afford to access and offer absolutely no improvement to customer quality of service.
Put it this way, even with a 1gig cap a month if everyone is online at peak times, servers and bandwidth are still stretched and service deteriorates. ISPs have been attempting to push their twisted logic to lock in revenue for many years now and blogs and media companies should be working hard to expose this for what it is, yet another “Net Neutrality” battle to take over the internet and increase revenue.
… and let’s all remember this issue IS NOT about ‘regulating the Internet’ as many cable/telcos , lobbyists and capitalists try to frame it. Net Neutrality IS NOT about regulating the Internet but rather regulating the corporations that provide access to the Internet. This is about accountability for services provided.
The Internet has been an amazing boon to the world’s economy, communication and ultimately human progress. The Internet, up until recently has been Open and Neutral — why would anyone want to change that?
If government does not do something then corporations will. If the corps who provide access are not regulated and made accountable (ombudsman), then effectively those companies WILL be regulating the Internet their way — as they are right now.
Keep in mind, the fiduciary duty of a corporation is to act in the best interest of its shareholders not the interests of it customers.
I have no doubt there WILL be regulation. The question remains who will be doing the regulating.
Re: caps — It is difficult and naive to compare bandwidth to any commodity we know of (power, water, food) that is because bandwidth is NOT a commodity although many corps would like it to be. The ingredient to bandwidth is infrastructure — that is a FIXED cost infrastructure. The REAL COST of bandwidth is essentially the POWER required to run the equipment (routers , switches). According to Google that cost is approximately 3cents/GB. If there must be caps then I’d agree to use real numbers that reflect the real cost not some made up fee.
I could go on with many more points, arguments and clarifications on this imperative issue but that’s seems to be enough for now especially with so many people finally starting to get it who have posted here before me and likely after me. I’ll pipe in as needed.
To my own determent I have been on the frontline of this debate since 2000 and am more than happy to pass on this responsibility back to the people where it belongs. If YOU don’t fight for YOUR Internet then it will DIE.
I say DIE because the Internet is a living thing. The Internet exists only because of the open, neutral hand-off principles between private, commercial networks. The Internet is an Ethereal Organism that can only exist if these the principles remain open and neutral. The Internet Organism is only as strong and alive as it’s edges are wide. Once one participating network ceases to maintain these principles the the organism begins to die.
Long live the Internet!!!
I’m sorry, I obviously don’t understand the problem. Here in South Africa bandwidth is insanely limited and costly. If net neutrality is about leveling that… well, I’m sorry but there isn’t any right now.
The internet is a world tool and not just something that comcast that regulate. They are not the first to try/get away with it… and they won’t be the last.
This isn’t about caps, it’s about getting what you pay for. What other service, industry or product do you know of where you pay one price and get all you can eat? Electric power, food, water, TV, communications, etc., all work on the basis of paying for the amount you use.
If you owned a business how could you plan to make gigantic investments in infrastructure and not be allowed to charge for how much of that infrastructure your customers would use?
Commenters here are, I believe, confusing “openness” with capitalism. Being “open” doesn’t necessarily mean that the businesses who provide Internet service to you should charge everyone the same thing. If I lived in a 10,000 square foot house (I assure you, I don’t) should I pay the same thing for electricity as someone who lives in a 1000 square foot apartment? Of course not. Why should I, then, have to pay HIGHER prices for Internet usage just because some nitwit with a few terabytes of space decides to download the entire collection of Star Wars movies and every episode of Battlestar Gallactica? Shouldn’t I get to pay for ONLY what I am using, not what everyone else is using?
This isn’t about control, openness, regulation or any of the other obfuscating excuses people use to hide the real issue – it’s about paying for what you use and I’m totally in favor of that. Only the hogs that consume the majority of the bandwidth at the expense of the 99% of the average user want it at a flat rate.
I should preface my comments by saying I have not decided exactly where I fall in this debate. I am still listening to both “sides”. I can say I want open access to innovation and the innovators on the net.
@Greg broadband infrastructure is not “national infrastructure”. It has been constructed and paid for by private companies and belongs to them. I am concerned about open access to all Internet services and will seek out providers that provide open and unimpeded access to all of the Internet.
Asking any government entity to take responsibility for infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. Let’s take the idea of local municipalities building and owning broadband infrastructure. It sounds appealing at first because you remove any corporate conflicts which might compete with new services on the net e.g. video services like Hulu. However, now broadband investments will compete with all other gov’t spending and that means innovation will be at risk as spending on broadband competes with everything else gov’t must do these days. With a market driven approach (private investment and ownership) we know that profits motivate and therefore if companies can make money providing access to services–we know how they will behave. With a market driven approach policies can be created and adjusted to ensure the bits flow.
thanks
thank 1000 onces ^_@
this guy has it right: http://www.weownthenet.org/
what kind of equality are we expecting while everybody is announcing their dominance. How is this going to be leveled. This is utopian…
First of all, i would like to thank the webmaster of TechCrunch for posting such information that concerns most of the internet users.
We are from different parts of this world hailed from different cultures and ideals. But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
I agree on some parts of the debate, but disagree to other parts too. Since it concerns the entire virtual community, it should not be the US alone who will be responsible for regulating the issue. I just want emphasize that this is a global concern.
The net neutrality debate is only the symptoms of the problem and not the cause of it. The cause of the problem is the fact that there are monopolies using our limited resources. How are they being monitored to ensure that they are being competitive, innovative, ethical and fair?
Deal with the current symptoms (but not with a band-aid) and then be sure to fix the root cause of the problem.
I agree with Joshua with how the cause of the problem is the fact that there are monopolies using our limited resources. I don’t see how they can possibly make a coffee shop be responsible for all of there users. I think there are too many loop holes in order to take away net neutrality.
Politicians and gubmit bureaucrats need to keep their corrupt hands OFF the internet! Let them get their foot in the door, and before you know it, they’ll be taxing its use and regulating ‘free’ speech on it.
More government = more regulation, less competition and, ultimately, higher costs for EVERYONE.
Anyone who sees this differently needs to pick up a history book. I hate Comcast and others as much as anyone, but the government is always a worse alternative.
I really don’t understand anything more after reading this article – waste of time
It’s nothing but greed pure and simple, and another way to take away your rights and control what you are thinking about, the truth about what happen here and abroad, ya china has net Net neutrality it’s called communism, is that what you whont in the usa.