Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
from the oh-come-on dept
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm very much against enforcing net neutrality through legislation (too many unintended consequences) but I'm stunned at the ridiculous and totally bogus reasons given by those fighting against those regulations in support of their claims. The latest on this front is Stephen Titch, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation (a group whose work I usually think is quite good), coming out with a policy brief making the ludicrous argument that network neutrality would mean no more iPhones.Now that's a bold claim, and such a bold claim should require at least some evidence to back it up. But there is none. This is as far as it seems to get:
The non-discrimination principle that Genachowski seeks to mandate would prohibit service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint from using their network resources to prioritize or partition data as it crosses their networks so as to improve the performance of specific applications, such as a movie or massive multiplayer game. Yet quality wireless service is predicated on such steps. The iPhone, for example, would not have been possible if AT&T and Apple did not work together to ensure AT&T's wireless network could handle the increase in data traffic the iPhone would create.There's a neat little trick in there that hides the blatant falsehood of the premise. What's described in the first sentence as what would be banned is not the same thing that's described in the second sentence as what AT&T and Apple did. Furthermore, the first sentence is not particularly accurate, and appears to be a stretch and misread of what the proposals actually have said -- though, again, the final rules could change. The issue isn't that network providers couldn't prioritize data, but that they couldn't discriminate in terms of who could make use of that prioritization in an anti-competitive manner (i.e., the provider could determine that a VoIP call needs prioritization, so long as all VoIP providers get the same prioritization).
But, back to the key point: this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the network improvements that AT&T agreed to make in order to get the iPhone (which arguably, haven't worked all that well). AT&T's efforts were focused on upgrades to its network, which had nothing at all to do with discriminating against certain applications or services directly. Of course, since then, AT&T/Apple has chosen to discriminate against certain applications in its app store, but not at the network level, which is the main issue here.
I'm as worried as the next guy about the unintended consequences of network neutrality legislation, but making totally ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims that net neutrality would mean "no more iPhone" makes those arguing against network neutrality rules look petty and willing to flat-out lie to support their position.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: iphones, net neutrality, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We would all be better off, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the CHILDREN?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about the CHILDREN?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUD and More FUD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LMFAO !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Verizon is selling phones and touting their wonderful map service (say, Google), are you going to say they have to give equal traffic consideration to other map services (say, Yahoo)? While Verizon's TOS have some very questionable things in them, are you going to say they CAN'T disallow certain type of traffic that might hurt QOS for other on the network while one guy on my node is using his android phone/device as a BT server?
Carriers should be play nice and give equal consideration to traffic as much as possible, but I would be careful about legislating it. I wouldn't say that "the iPhone wouldn't exist", but it might make it more expensive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Busy day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and todays intellectual award goes to
Net nutrality means our children will be watching PORN!
i see this about food is it?
well i guess if one was allergic to nuts .....
and they aren't talking about porn as in normal htey are talking about kiddy porn and in all my 12 years using p2p i have yet to see any site put up such material
it may have breasts
but yea know goto a few European beaches and what do you see
EVERYTHING NUDE.
once your over this pron kick you go ok boring what else is on the net
if your always downloading pron i think you got a problem that removing the pron form all the net would not solve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asked Before
Mike,
You've been asked before too: Are you also opposed to neutrality regulations for other services, such as electricity, water, gas and telephone? If not, then why not?
Why won't you answer that question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Net neutrality is a necessary evil if we want prevent service providers from treating the internet like it's a cable TV network. If without some form of regulation, the internet is going to look like this: Tiered Internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here's a better link: Tiered Internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Asked Before
I have to admit, I have no idea what that question even means. Net neutrality doesn't apply to those services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Asked Before
You seem to be having a reading problem. The question stated "neutrality", not "net neutrality". (Nice try, but not going to fly.) Care to answer the question now or are you going to try to keep dancing around it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: and todays intellectual award goes to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Didn't you just say this statement was irrelevant? if so, why is it the basis of your entire argument.
More clearly, wouldn't it be better to tear down an actual argument, rather than an irrelevant secondary comment?
I've read his statement about 25 times, and still do not see the correlation you are attempting to draw. Yes he is incorrect about NN, yes he has a misunderstanding of what AT&T and Apple did to upgrade the network, but is actually claiming what you say he is? Hard to say in that snippet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unintended Consequences
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality crowd so adamantly fighting it to the point of hysterical claiming that the iPhone will be nuked? Obviously, the anti-net-neutrality crowd has something to hide. Sounds like an unintended consequence for the consumer.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality not offering (promising) to abide by net-neutrality principles? Seems to me, that if you want to avoid regulation, you could offer-up a code-of-conduct. Again, if someone fails to commit to a standard of conduct, would your trust them? Trust me, I have a bridge in New York City that I could sell you really cheap. I will place the title in the mail to you after the check clears! (Sarcasm of course). Seriously, just because I say "trust me" is no reason to trust me. Yet that is exactly the empty promise being made by the anti-net-neutrality crowd.
From my point of view, if the anti-net-neutrality crowd fails to establish a code-of-conduct that I can live with and only offers stonewalling rhetoric, I'll take the unintended consequences of regulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Again, I'm afraid I don't know what question you are asking. With electricity, water and gas, there is no issue of neutrality, since those companies just deliver the pure thing that they're delivering, and simply have no control over any uses of those services. That's different in the case of internet, where service is delivered with potential applications.
So I'm still at a loss as to what your question refers to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Simply, are you opposed to neutrality regulations for those other services as you are for internet service? The question really isn't that complicated.
With electricity, water and gas, there is no issue of neutrality, since those companies just deliver the pure thing that they're delivering,
I notice you conveniently left out telephone service there. (Still dancing huh?)
and simply have no control over any uses of those services.
Because of neutrality regulations. So would you like to change that? (By the way, I could point to exceptions of the rules even now).
So I'm still at a loss as to what your question refers to.
It's a simple question. However, you seem to be trying awfully hard to avoid answering it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Asked Before
The complaint here is that ISPs not only want to charge for quantity, but all reserve the right to charge different rates and offer a different quality of goods depending on how customers use their data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Except I keep asking you for clarification, and so far you just keep repeating the same question. So I'm still at a loss. Could you please clarify the question. I'm honestly not "dancing" around it, I just don't know what you're ASKING.
I notice you conveniently left out telephone service there. (Still dancing huh?)
Oh, I honestly just missed it. Can you describe to me what a "neutrality" regulation looks like for any of these?
Because of neutrality regulations
Uh, no. Did you not read what I wrote? Not because of a neutrality regulation, but because of the very nature of the services they provide.
That said, electricity, water and gas are also different than broadband (and telephone) in that they are single sourced, single infrastructure.
It's a simple question. However, you seem to be trying awfully hard to avoid answering it.
Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I'd answer it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Yes, you wrote that providers of other services don't have any control over how you use their services and I pointed out *why* that's the case, not that it isn't the case.
Not because of a neutrality regulation, but because of the very nature of the services they provide.
OK, here's an example that's been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
That said, electricity, water and gas are also different than broadband (and telephone) in that they are single sourced, single infrastructure.
Um, no. In most places there is only one source for telephone service (land line). And in many places there is only one source for broadband internet service (if that).
Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I'd answer it.
Honestly, I don't know how to make it much plainer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
I love this guy, :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
I love this guy, :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
The easiest example is electricity. Deregulation of the energy generation sources in California made them "less neutral", which left Enron open to play the energy market however they wanted. The "last mile" providers were still regulated, and thus forced into a position of buying energy at available market prices, no matter how high. That precipitated the market-synthetic black outs in CA, that later helped to establish Enron's culpability and price gouging methods. The comparison between network neutrality and "neutrality" or deregulation in this kind of service is false, primarily because the bidirectional nature of the Internet makes all inflow sources and outflow consumers equivalent, in that their roles can switch at any time.
While I think regulated service neutrality for these monopoly line types is a good step, sometimes it isn't enough. Sometimes you have to control sourcing prices when connected sources are limited, or when vertical integration of source and delivery distort the market. End-to-end vertical integration of service delivery tends to exist in all the listed markets, so they all require some form of regulation or direct community-ownership to avoid monopoly rents.
I think a better general model for ALL these services is the road system. Every home and land owner should own their own driveways (pipes, lines) to the local grid, the local community government should own the local grid to the highways (pipelines, trunk lines), the state government should own the highways that connect to the Interstates (trans-state conduits), and the federal government should own the Interstates. Treaties can be drafted for maintenance of trans-national connections. National inflow product providers should all be free to negotiate rates with all connected outflow consumers. Maintenance should either be handled by community-appropriate government, or contracted by government on equal bid terms to all available maintenance contractors. All attempts to vertically integrate or monopolize the sources, delivery, or maintenance of any one network/service type should be resisted at every level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
That would come closer to anti-competitive, and is not analogous to net neutrality. This is not like the merger of 2 companies in separate markets that then use that control to give unfair advantage to itself. Oranges to apples.
The difference in this case is that the service specifically being used over the internet can be more accurately defined, including services like Bittorrent which have their own specific protocols, whereas gas and electric companies it is not possible to do so or very difficult and pointless. A gas company cannot tell what I'm using their service for, if I'm cooking or have simply turned up my heating. An electric company cannot tell If I've turned on the TV or the PC.
No no one has argued for any service providers to be able to discriminate against particular forms of usage, including Mike. They've simply argued the regulation would more than likely be corrupted in the process of being made, as may be happening with plans to put in an exemption for the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
No, you are wrong. The reason is not because of neutrality rules, but because of the way those services work (with the exception of telephone).
OK, here's an example that's been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
Except if you're using VoIP, of course.
Um, no. In most places there is only one source for telephone service (land line). And in many places there is only one source for broadband internet service (if that).
Heh. Look, if you're arguing for more competition, I'm entirely in agreement with you.
You seem incredibly confused about what I'm actually arguing for. I've said that I believe in the importance of neutrality, but that we should get it VIA COMPETITION, not through regulation that will lead to unintended consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Except if you're using VoIP, of course.
No, you're wrong. Regulations do not allow the local phone company to disconnect your land line service for using VoIP over it. I don't know where yo got that idea. And I notice that you still didn't answer the question: Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops?
You seem incredibly confused about what I'm actually arguing for.
Actually, I think you're incredibly confused about what you're arguing for and the unintended consequences thereof.
I've said that I believe in the importance of neutrality, but that we should get it VIA COMPETITION, not through regulation that will lead to unintended consequences.
Yes, you believe in the importance of neutrality so long as it's optional, I understand that. But you still haven't answered the question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about the CHILDREN?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, that's not accurate.
So a provider could determine that non-bittorrent traffic needs more prioritization, so long as all non-bittorrent providers could get the same prioritization? That's not net neutrality. Neutrality is if a provider decides that having prioritized traffic might be useful, so they offer it. Anyone can use that prioritized traffic for whatever they want, whether it's VoIP or midget pron. They just pay whatever the ISP requires for that prioritized traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Net neutrality would mandate that, yes.
While Verizon's TOS have some very questionable things in them, are you going to say they CAN'T disallow certain type of traffic that might hurt QOS for other on the network while one guy on my node is using his android phone/device as a BT server?
Disallow certain types of traffic? Sure. Disallow certain senders of traffic? If it's a customer violating TOS that would seem to be fair game, but not if it's a 3rd party. That is, they could block all bittorrent, but it would be disallowed to block The Pirate Bay but allow some other bittorrent site, or degrade service from TPB and not another site.
Net neutrality could possibly mean that these phones can't exist.
I don't see how that could possibly be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Neutrality means I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider, and they're all treated the same. If an ISP wants to offer varying levels of QOS, I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider at those varying levels of QOS. Higher QOS will of course cost more, but if I want to use that high-priority, high cost bandwith to send emails of LOLcats, I can do that. If I want to use that high-priority, high cost bandwith to do VOIP, I can do that too. But it's not the ISPs role to decide which content I prioritize, it's mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the regulation were not worded to prevent that, then yes.
Neutrality means I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider, and they're all treated the same.
That is one definition of neutrality. There are others. Strong competition in the market would probably make almost everyone happy. Any regulation would at best leave a lot of people dissatisfied and at worst be co-opted by the incumbents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Competition and Upgrades Solve All
Beyond the above, traffic NEVER (I repeat NEVER!) needs to be prioritized unless there is congestion on the network. Without congestion then EVERY packet will be routed as fast as possible by the equipment in real time. Attempting to say anything else is pure BS.
If their network is congested then they can do 1 of 2 things: 1.) Expand the network with upgrades or 2.) Wait for the network to balance itself out with dissatisfied customers leaving which would free up that bandwidth. Option one would be the better choice for their future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Particularly the ones being regulated, no? They never seem to like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Heh, if one user can saturate the network like that then the problem is with the network, not the user.
And let me clear up another point that you seem to be confused about: some quantity of bit torrent bits don't take up any more bandwidth than the same number of any other kind of bits. Bits are bits. It's a myth that bit torrent bits somehow take more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bingo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In that case then, you can prioritize your own traffic; you don't need the ISP to do that for you. You can even manually pause your torrents while you're using VoIP if you want to.
But what I suspect you *really* want is for the ISP to prioritize *your* traffic over other users. And you probably want that special treatment without paying extra for it either, right? Sorry, that's not neutrality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anti-Net Neutrality bogusness
1.If any of you kiddos arguing againts neutrality remember the '70's for more than grainy video clips of Watergate, Star Wars, Queen or Travolta prancing around in tight pants, you might remember something about the breakup of Bell. To recap, Bell Telephone basically "owned" the telephone world, charged LD rates for any call much further away than the nearest fireplug and was getting paid by the gov't to build phone lines to everyone in the Us while making excuses why they couldn't. New company's tried to build LD netsworks to bypass the Bell net (MCI, anyone?) and Bell block them from interconnects with huge fees to MCI for connecting and huge increases in rates for Bell customers who decided to use the MCI network for LD.
2.This is exactly what will happen if neutrality is not enforced somehow. ATT (and others) has already said so in stockholder meetings and private company missives to regional managers and sales. since much more voice is moving to their data nets and pure voice networks are few and far between, they view this as an opportunity to get out of their mandates against rigging QOS unfavorably against their competitors or those they want to extort with extra fees.
3. Then there is ownership. For voer a hundred years, or nearly so, Americans have been paying an extra tax to build out a "Universal Service" of communication/phone services. Telcos have been largly pocketing the money or distributing it to stockholders. They also take billions every years from various organizations, and gov'ts, to build out iand improve their networks, in the form of research monies and grants and a host of other programs. In effect, the Internet was built with public funds. When asked fro the books, telcos throw so much paperwork with so many shifts of funds no one can tell where the money went. But the strange thing is that the money they got was technically for building what became the Internet. Not only that but they now are using that Internet to run their primary/voice business over as well.
Just to clear the air, I agree that net neutrality is a bad thing, BUT, and it's a big o stinkin butt at that. These Telcos are trying to take a network built with public funds and claim it is their property. IT IS NOT! Let them build their own network with their own money! Then they can prioritize, block, filter, schedule, limit, cap or what ever it is they want to do or need to do to COMPETE in a FAIR MARKET. Let them build a better network and charge for it!
But until they actually have done so, my tax dollars and yours are what built what is now the Internet, it should be considered ours, a publicly owned networkand, and all traffic on that network should be treated neutrally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Once again, you're confusing anti-competitive integration with fundamental differences in how certain utilities work and the effectiveness of prioritising in those other utilities.
They can't (or is pointless to) degrade your service if you order from Pizza Hut over calling a friend, but they can if you use VOIP over instant messaging.
The analogy you're making would be if ATT bought Techdirt and favoured Techdirt traffic over other tech news/commentary sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Uhh, that wasn't the question.
The analogy you're making...
Go look up "analogy". It wasn't an analogy at all, it was a direct question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place, to point out the difference between anti-competitive integration and favouring yourself which is what you were talking about, over a service provider degrading a service on the basis that it makes up large amounts of traffic from an individual user or their whole network.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Still didn't go look it up, did you? Oh well, appear ignorant then.
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place...
Oh, so now yo want to tell me what questions I can ask. Not gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Net Neutrality and the iPhone
I have answered you on the TLF blog here: http://bit.ly/9wn39n
[ link to this | view in thread ]