Better yet let the market decide. If the ISPs offer this service and no one buys it, then no fast lanes. If certain content providers buy it, there is a market for it and it should exist. Let the market decide, not the one-size-fits-all government bureaucrats.
You keep inventing problems that don't exist and seem pretty outlandish, certainly enough to not warrant the type of excessive regulation you are advocating. Where is there evidence of the major ISPs "bundling web sites?" Technologically feasible? Yes. Outlandishly unlikely? Yes. And given that, why in the world should that be the basis for regulation?
But first..you keep ignoring the central question:
where is it the role of the government to effectively infringe on the economic and property rights of the ISPs in order to protect certain classes or competitors using their service?
Why should certain competitors be favored by the government? Forget why because that can be highly opinionated. How about the justification and how is that fair to all participants in the marketplace of web companies? Everything else is largely fluff and irrelevant in light of this central, major issue. And to the degree that there is fraudulent behavior, that does not require the full net neutrality be advocated. And if the only point of net neutrality is some hypothetical favoritism for a certain class of competitor how can these regulations be remotely justified? Is that their only benefit, because such favoritism if a huge detriment to a free market.
For most people that is simply not possible. they have one supplier available, and if that supplier limits certain websites their is nothing they can do about it.
Sorry, but, per my previous post, this is simply not true. The VAST majority of Americans have at least two broadband providers to choose from. (I have posted on this previously.)
Let's just stipulate there are no perfect comparisons. All industries are different. But I still contend that the UPS, etc. example is not entirely without value. As for choosing, no typically you do not get to choose your carrier. You can choose service tier as to delivery time, but I can't tell Amazon to ship it via FedEx if they have agreements in place for that tier with UPS or the Postal Service.
Nevertheless, you are still not answering the main question. Despite difficulty for certain competitors, where is it the role of the government to effectively infringe on the economic and property rights of the ISPs in order to protect certain classes or competitors using their service? In a general sense, broadband delivery is part of their factors of productions. In all industries, though these factors and the details may vary, some competitors can afford "higher quality" factors than others. This is the nature of a capitalistic free market. The fact that a small web company can only afford isn't reason to limit the business models of the ISPs. Perhaps in this environment that opens opportunity for some sort of aggregator or agent that handles the interfacing to the various ISPs on behalf of small client. (Speculating there...there may be such companies for all I know, but the concept does occurs in other industries.) This prohibition would limit this opportunity for those such companies. There are many ripple effects of onerous regulations.
Another factors to consider in strict definition of "all bits are created equal" is QoS. If all bits must be created equal, then how can an ISP different based on QoS? Regulations could permit that you might say. I would say the same to the hypothesis of throttling - if that throttling violates the contractual obligations of the ISP to Netflix, Amazon, etc. then that can be dealt with via other methods and specific regulations without a one-size-fits-all net neutrality. I would in no way advocate such fraud in contractual obligations but net neutrality goes way beyond fraudulent behavior. If you are familiar with the "This Week in Tech" podcast by Leo Laporte. check out episode 484 from a week or so ago. They had two small ISPs on both sides of the issues discuss this in depth and raised many points on both sides, to the degree that all agreed there was no easy solution.
As for what I would do in your scenario, negating the throttling aspects? If the service quality of my preferred service was unacceptable, I would change ISPs. That simple. Our economic decisions are all about tradeoffs and that would be one of many.
Valid point on the applicability of the Amazon comparison. A better comparison would be UPS/FedEx/USPS/etc. They are conduits between the end customer and number remote sellers, online and off, for physical goods. They offer various tiers of service at various pricess - overnight to ground. There are no prohibitions on this.
And that still does not answer the question, despite the validity of your point that there could be difficulties for start up web companies. Where is it the place of government to be sure that these new startups have as easy access to the customer as the more established players, absent monopoly in that business, of course? That is the key point here. Protecting smaller or new competitors, aside from prohibiting fraud or monopoly is not the role of government. That puts government in the role of picking winners and losers in the broader marketplace and that is in an inappropriate use of their powers.
Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs. Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ... The congestion at peering ports occurs further upstream and is a matter of capacity.
This is NOT blackmail and it was NOT anything Comcast was obligated to do (i.e., it was not a business arrangement). The rules the net neutrality proponents advocate would prohibit the consumer-friendly solution that alleviated this problem. This is, frankly, without dispute in this case.
And where is it the function of government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace? It is not the role of government of protect small competitors or, conversely, limit the legal competitive advantage of larger companies. I see the your point that smaller competitors may find it tougher to compete and that may well be true - and that is not something the government should interfere with. Has Walmart been banned because they make it tougher for small business to compete? Has Amazon been hampered by regulation because they have put scores of small booksellers out of business? No. Not only is this not a valid argument for government regulation it something that argues against net neutrality because it interferes with the operations of a free market.
As I said...where is the compelling case for net neutrality? I have yet to see a single compelling case for a broad, overarching law. And while we may well have a duopoly now, I have not ruled that someone, at some point could well disrupt this space...if regulations don't make that highly unlikey. But setting aside the potential disruptor, when someone wants to push regulation, they need to make the case for such change compelling. And that is missing here.
Simple. Only the barest minimum of regulation that is required (like the example of Comcast blocking Netflix to be anti-competitive). The default should not be "regulate" it should be "regulate only if absolutely necessary." Regulations that aren't warranted almost never turn out well. There are unintended consequences and burdensome restrictions on economic liberty. I still fail to see what benefit Title II would provide given that no one has cited a specific instance of something it would have prevented, that needed to have been prevented.
If it was a free market, you could contact a service from Netflix that was independent of Comcast, but as its is Comcast controls your access to Netflix. If Comcast decides tomorrow to charge Netflix 10 times as much, and Netflix refuse to pay, you will lose you Netflix service, and be totally reliant on the dispute being solved to get it back, if ever.
There are lots of products that reside in different places on a supply chain and where I can't buy directly from the manufacturer/provider of the end product. If i want to buy Tide, I can't buy it directly from P&G, I have to go to Target or Walmart. If I shop at Amazon, I can't get my merchandise directly from them (a few limited forays into delivery notwithstanding) - I have to rely on UPS, FedEx or USPS (and other than selecting delivery times, I generally don't get to pick which company does the delivery. Sorry, but this argument fails because many free markets do not offer what you are suggesting.
As for bundling Netflix with Comcast, etc. that is a giant strawman. I suppose they could technically do that but to think that is even a remote possibility is nonsensical. Now, the point about intentionally slowing down a competitive service, that is more possible and I do agree that that should NOT be allowed. But you don't have to have a broad, one-size-fits all net neutrality regulation to prohibit anti-competitive behavior where you compete in the service you are interfering with. Net neutrality is a sledgehammer trying to hammer the nail that is your example. It's overkill and the downsides are far worse than the upside. You speak of regulation like it is a good thing absent real threats and historical evidence that it is needed. Except for the limited regulation above, all these things you suggest are possibilities, some not even realistic. Why risk harming the Internet based on unlikely "what ifs?"
And you keep coming back to the Netflix example but you miss the key point. They did NOT fail to provide the service for which Netflix was already paying. They were NOT failing to live up to that. They simply stopped doing things that they were not obligated nor compensated to do. If they had done the former, you would have a point, but that simply is not what happened. You can call it dirty dealing if you want, but that is capitalism. It's not always warm and fuzzy. It can rough and tumble and brutal but that is preferable to the chilling effect of unnecessary regulation.
Wow...imagine that...not doing something without increasing that income. They are a business. A for-profit entity. Why should they not seek to maximize revenue? That's basic business and market power. Whatever they did, they did an extra service for which Netflix paid them. I am still trying to find what is so egregious about that.
As for my rates, I am paying the same to Comcast and to Netflix that I was before. Comcast may have a bit more pricing power due to the duopoly but why would they raise my rates because they offered a premium service to Netflix? Those two are largely unrelated. Now, Netflix may want to pass along that cost in terms of increased rates - and depending on the hike, it might be worth it - but they have less pricing power due to greater competition among streaming providers. Sure, I would lose some exclusive Netflix content but that is part of having a competitive advantage.
All in all...still trying to find what is bad here given that this is a free market at work.
Hmmm...no...where did I say that? And how is the ISP deciding? The ISP is making a service tier available. The web companies choose whether or not to purchase that. That's a free market. The ISP is not deciding anything. Netflix decided to opt for the premium service with Comcast and guess who benefited? Us customers. I don't anywhere near the delays streaming Netflix at home that I did before. Before, it was nearly unusuable because, since I watch on a big screen, the video quality it would settle down to was unacceptable. Now, it is just fine. Failing to see where that is a bad thing.
Conceptually I agree. But I also have no problem with ISPs providing premium services such as fast lanes and "cap bypasses" where Netflix could pick up the tab for my bandwidth and it not count against any cap I may have. That would violate the definition some people use for net neutrality. I consider that free market capitalism for the service provider and should not be prohibited. In fact, I consider that consumer friendly. So long as it is available to all potential web companies, that is fair, i.e., it is not done underhandedly and via backroom, opaque dealings.
And I would note, as I did above, excessive regulation does NOT encourage more competition. It stifles it. Why not expend all this effort to undermine a free market on efforts to foster competition rather than discourage it? Even if you are right that there is no competition, the degree of competition - and innovation in turn - can be improved. (Though the reality of a capital intensive business such of this is a move toward consolidation. The ISP space will never be purely competitive.)
Every study that doesn't agree with a position is "debunked." And yes...I stand by that contention. Not geographically, but in terms of users and households, most people have a duopoly at least. VERY few places don't have both a wireline phone company and a cable provider. Yes, there are some rural communities that don't but this is not the majority of the population.
And oligopoly signifies two or more limited competitors. Oligopolies are not highly competitive but they are NOT monopolistic. We have oligopolies in many markets: wireless mobile service, automobiles, etc.
What is more of an appropriate response? Not giving credence to hyperbole and outlandish claims or calling anyone who disagrees with your position, while giving rational reasons for that disagreement, a "shill." You may as well, but I can assure you I think and analyze for myself from a free market perspective and I speak for nor take guidance from anyone.
YOU said I was dodging. I was showing how that was not a dodge and why I refuse to give credence to such terms. You made the accusation, whether you made the original point or not. I stand by my response. The citation was provided in another post. And NOT going above and beyond what you are paid to do is NOT blackmail. Since when is a company EXPECTED to provide free premium service? They can, but they are free to stop at any point. There may be PR blowback but they are not obligated to continue.
I welcome more competition. And I welcome faster bandwidth at lower prices. While I am more internet active than most people I know, I certainly don't NEED 25Mbps now and I can live without 10Mbps. That's not to say we should not foster growth of these networks and competition to provide it. I don't disagree that in that sense, there is limited competition...now. And putting in place onerous rules for net neutrality is not how you encourage providers to enter that market space. They may still do it, but at a slower pace because if you effectively lock in the existing duopoly there is less outside motivation via new competition to spur these carriers to fast track the development. Since broadband is nearly a commodity, once I left AT&T as an employee, I jumped to Comcast for a fatter pipe within weeks. I am so far from the CO that I can only get mid-tier DSL speeds - no UVerse and I am on the edge of metro Atlanta - and that wasn't always reliable. I am not wed to Comcast and if a new provider that has reliability and speed comes along, I would switch. But if you effectively lock out new entrants and build barriers even higher than there are, where is that competitive pressure going to come from?
ISPS "abuse" position. "Blackmail" service providers. That is silly and outlandish hyperbole. No one at Comcast, AT&T, etc. is "blackmailing" anyone. I don't waste time responding to nonsense like that. Call it what you want, but when you have a substantive point, even if different from mine, I am happy to discuss. But when you start from a place like you did, the odds of reasonable discussion are slim.
Furthermore, your assertions that there is no way Netflix could pay for a service upgrade show a lack of technical acumen. I was a wireless engineer, so I am not an IP networking expert but I know there are techniques to improve service quality, whether it be to install new equipment that serves certain customers, etc. And why do we know? It happened in the Netflix-Comcast case so your assertions are without merit as a result. And if that is what you base your suppositions of "magical" performance on, that too is without merit. Going back to my previous point, I am not going to engage in discussion when the basic foundations of a point are so weak.
Finally, as to your example, did you read the article I posted? It explains what happened, at last with Comcast. Comcast had been performing certain network services AS A COURTESY. In the midst of negotiations, they ceased performing those services. You may not like it, but since they are not obligated to perform those services and there were making available a premium service offering to Netflix, it was entirely appropriate to suspend those courtesy services to highlight the value that Comcast was receiving but, to that point, was not paying for. That is not "throttling" or limiting bandwidth. It was simply only doing what they were paid to do...and it highlighted the problem of the proposed net neutrality regulations.
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality=Equality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
But first..you keep ignoring the central question:
where is it the role of the government to effectively infringe on the economic and property rights of the ISPs in order to protect certain classes or competitors using their service?
Why should certain competitors be favored by the government? Forget why because that can be highly opinionated. How about the justification and how is that fair to all participants in the marketplace of web companies? Everything else is largely fluff and irrelevant in light of this central, major issue. And to the degree that there is fraudulent behavior, that does not require the full net neutrality be advocated. And if the only point of net neutrality is some hypothetical favoritism for a certain class of competitor how can these regulations be remotely justified? Is that their only benefit, because such favoritism if a huge detriment to a free market.
Sorry, but, per my previous post, this is simply not true. The VAST majority of Americans have at least two broadband providers to choose from. (I have posted on this previously.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Nevertheless, you are still not answering the main question. Despite difficulty for certain competitors, where is it the role of the government to effectively infringe on the economic and property rights of the ISPs in order to protect certain classes or competitors using their service? In a general sense, broadband delivery is part of their factors of productions. In all industries, though these factors and the details may vary, some competitors can afford "higher quality" factors than others. This is the nature of a capitalistic free market. The fact that a small web company can only afford isn't reason to limit the business models of the ISPs. Perhaps in this environment that opens opportunity for some sort of aggregator or agent that handles the interfacing to the various ISPs on behalf of small client. (Speculating there...there may be such companies for all I know, but the concept does occurs in other industries.) This prohibition would limit this opportunity for those such companies. There are many ripple effects of onerous regulations.
Another factors to consider in strict definition of "all bits are created equal" is QoS. If all bits must be created equal, then how can an ISP different based on QoS? Regulations could permit that you might say. I would say the same to the hypothesis of throttling - if that throttling violates the contractual obligations of the ISP to Netflix, Amazon, etc. then that can be dealt with via other methods and specific regulations without a one-size-fits-all net neutrality. I would in no way advocate such fraud in contractual obligations but net neutrality goes way beyond fraudulent behavior. If you are familiar with the "This Week in Tech" podcast by Leo Laporte. check out episode 484 from a week or so ago. They had two small ISPs on both sides of the issues discuss this in depth and raised many points on both sides, to the degree that all agreed there was no easy solution.
As for what I would do in your scenario, negating the throttling aspects? If the service quality of my preferred service was unacceptable, I would change ISPs. That simple. Our economic decisions are all about tradeoffs and that would be one of many.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
And that still does not answer the question, despite the validity of your point that there could be difficulties for start up web companies. Where is it the place of government to be sure that these new startups have as easy access to the customer as the more established players, absent monopoly in that business, of course? That is the key point here. Protecting smaller or new competitors, aside from prohibiting fraud or monopoly is not the role of government. That puts government in the role of picking winners and losers in the broader marketplace and that is in an inappropriate use of their powers.
Re:
Re: Re: Re: A field's worth of strawmen...
source:Consumerist:Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
This is NOT blackmail and it was NOT anything Comcast was obligated to do (i.e., it was not a business arrangement). The rules the net neutrality proponents advocate would prohibit the consumer-friendly solution that alleviated this problem. This is, frankly, without dispute in this case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Net Neutrality=Equality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
There are lots of products that reside in different places on a supply chain and where I can't buy directly from the manufacturer/provider of the end product. If i want to buy Tide, I can't buy it directly from P&G, I have to go to Target or Walmart. If I shop at Amazon, I can't get my merchandise directly from them (a few limited forays into delivery notwithstanding) - I have to rely on UPS, FedEx or USPS (and other than selecting delivery times, I generally don't get to pick which company does the delivery. Sorry, but this argument fails because many free markets do not offer what you are suggesting.
As for bundling Netflix with Comcast, etc. that is a giant strawman. I suppose they could technically do that but to think that is even a remote possibility is nonsensical. Now, the point about intentionally slowing down a competitive service, that is more possible and I do agree that that should NOT be allowed. But you don't have to have a broad, one-size-fits all net neutrality regulation to prohibit anti-competitive behavior where you compete in the service you are interfering with. Net neutrality is a sledgehammer trying to hammer the nail that is your example. It's overkill and the downsides are far worse than the upside. You speak of regulation like it is a good thing absent real threats and historical evidence that it is needed. Except for the limited regulation above, all these things you suggest are possibilities, some not even realistic. Why risk harming the Internet based on unlikely "what ifs?"
And you keep coming back to the Netflix example but you miss the key point. They did NOT fail to provide the service for which Netflix was already paying. They were NOT failing to live up to that. They simply stopped doing things that they were not obligated nor compensated to do. If they had done the former, you would have a point, but that simply is not what happened. You can call it dirty dealing if you want, but that is capitalism. It's not always warm and fuzzy. It can rough and tumble and brutal but that is preferable to the chilling effect of unnecessary regulation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
As for my rates, I am paying the same to Comcast and to Netflix that I was before. Comcast may have a bit more pricing power due to the duopoly but why would they raise my rates because they offered a premium service to Netflix? Those two are largely unrelated. Now, Netflix may want to pass along that cost in terms of increased rates - and depending on the hike, it might be worth it - but they have less pricing power due to greater competition among streaming providers. Sure, I would lose some exclusive Netflix content but that is part of having a competitive advantage.
All in all...still trying to find what is bad here given that this is a free market at work.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
And oligopoly signifies two or more limited competitors. Oligopolies are not highly competitive but they are NOT monopolistic. We have oligopolies in many markets: wireless mobile service, automobiles, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: A field's worth of strawmen...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
"Blackmail" service providers.
That is silly and outlandish hyperbole. No one at Comcast, AT&T, etc. is "blackmailing" anyone. I don't waste time responding to nonsense like that. Call it what you want, but when you have a substantive point, even if different from mine, I am happy to discuss. But when you start from a place like you did, the odds of reasonable discussion are slim.
Furthermore, your assertions that there is no way Netflix could pay for a service upgrade show a lack of technical acumen. I was a wireless engineer, so I am not an IP networking expert but I know there are techniques to improve service quality, whether it be to install new equipment that serves certain customers, etc. And why do we know? It happened in the Netflix-Comcast case so your assertions are without merit as a result. And if that is what you base your suppositions of "magical" performance on, that too is without merit. Going back to my previous point, I am not going to engage in discussion when the basic foundations of a point are so weak.
Finally, as to your example, did you read the article I posted? It explains what happened, at last with Comcast. Comcast had been performing certain network services AS A COURTESY. In the midst of negotiations, they ceased performing those services. You may not like it, but since they are not obligated to perform those services and there were making available a premium service offering to Netflix, it was entirely appropriate to suspend those courtesy services to highlight the value that Comcast was receiving but, to that point, was not paying for. That is not "throttling" or limiting bandwidth. It was simply only doing what they were paid to do...and it highlighted the problem of the proposed net neutrality regulations.
More comments from FinanceBuzz >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by FinanceBuzz.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt