Net Neutrality: not everyone agrees anymore

News from the world of Television

Net Neutrality: not everyone agrees anymore

Postby jon » Fri May 16, 2014 3:39 pm

Is Net Neutrality A Bad Idea?
Forbes
Tech
5/16/2014 @ 2:37PM
Tony Bradley
Contributor

Perhaps “net neutrality” isn’t all that neutral. Building a broadband infrastructure capable of meeting consumer demands costs money. In the absence of a way for broadband providers to charge some sort of fees or tolls to certain companies, the alternative is that the costs are passed on to everyone. Is it fair that someone who doesn’t even subscribe to or use Netflix should pay more for broadband in order to support it?

This was essentially the argument posed to me earlier this week. Before the net neutrality issue raged out of control in the wake of Thursday’s FCC vote, I had asked a table of media peers in the press room at Microsoft TechEd 2014 what their thoughts were on the topic. Peter Bright—a fellow Houstonian and writer for Ars Technica—expressed concerns that prohibiting broadband providers from cutting deals with services like Netflix to fund the infrastructure and network improvements necessary to deliver adequate service for their content would result in higher prices for everyone whether they use those services or not.

Utopian net neutrality

My naïve, idealistic view on net neutrality is that I am already paying my broadband provider for that data pipeline from my home to the Internet. My provider offers a few different tiers—or speeds—of Internet service, so I choose the one that makes sense for my household and that’s the end of it. It is none of the broadband provider’s business how I choose to use the pipeline, or which sites or services I stream content from over the pipeline, and the broadband provider shouldn’t be allowed to extort additional money from those sites or services for the privilege of delivering that content to me.

In my opinion, that is the sum total of the role of the broadband provider—to build and maintain the pipeline. I don’t think Comcast should give priority access to NBC content just because it owns the network, and I don’t think broadband providers should be allowed to throttle or limit any specific types of content, or content from specific providers.

Just provide the connection at the agreed upon network speed. Period.

Is net neutrality fair?

The reality is a bit more complex.

As Bright pointed out to me, it isn’t just a question of whether or not my Netflix movie gets streamed to my PC at an acceptable rate to watch a movie without stuttering and buffering, and it isn’t purely a matter of “extortion” for a broadband provider to charge a company like Netflix some sort of additional fee.

The broadband provider has committed to providing a specified level of service to its customers, and to deliver broadband content within a certain range of speeds. A service like Netflix that streams video content consumes an inordinate amount of network bandwidth—much more than downloading email, or surfing the Web—which can result in degraded services for all customers whether they use Netflix or not.

It’s also not an issue that necessarily impacts the whole network. Netflix customers are scattered around the world, but the Netflix servers only connect in to the Internet in a few select locations. Where the Netflix content enters the Internet, those nodes can easily become saturated, which means the broadband providers have to add more nodes and expand the network to accommodate the load from Netflix—even though the demand is an issue unique to Netflix more or less.

If a broadband provider like Comcast can’t negotiate a deal with a service like Netflix and collect additional fees to fund the necessary network infrastructure, it has to bear the cost of upgrading the network itself. That cost would then be passed on to all Comcast customers regardless of whether they actually subscribe to Netflix or not.

From that perspective, the push for net neutrality doesn’t seem to make much sense. We’re not talking about throttling rival services, or reducing broadband speeds for customers—just enabling the broadband provider to share the burden for network upgrades with the service that benefits and profits from those upgrades.

That seems reasonable.

Broadband is a utility

No. Net neutrality is not a bad idea. It is an excellent idea. It is the only idea, really.

It’s pretty simple—the FCC needs to pull the Title II ripcord, and just declare broadband a utility, and assert its legal authority to manage it as such.

Like I said above, the job of the broadband provider is to build and maintain a pipeline. That is all. Just like the pipes that deliver water to my home, or the wires that bring electricity to my house. The water and electric companies don’t have any say in how I use the water or electricity.

If I use an inordinate amount of water to fill an above ground pool, the water company doesn’t get to go back to the pool manufacturer and extort additional fees. If I set my air conditioning at 70 and draw more electricity than an average customer, the electric company can’t go demand additional money from the manufacturer of the air conditioning unit. I pay for the water or electricity (or broadband) that I use, and any expansion or improvement of the underlying infrastructure is the responsibility of the utility.

Does that mean costs will be passed on to customers who don’t benefit directly from infrastructure enhancements? Absolutely. It’s just the way some things are.

My property taxes fund the public school system even though my children are home schooled and don’t benefit from a penny of that money. When the water or electric companies have to expand or replace portions of the infrastructure, those costs are typically passed on to all customers even though it has no bearing on their own water or electricity service. Our tax dollars are used to build and repair highways you will probably never drive on. It’s OK.

As mentioned above, it is a more complex issue than it seems at face value. Certain services—namely Netflix—are raking in a ton of money by putting an inordinate strain on broadband networks. Those services have a vested interest in ensuring the broadband infrastructure can handle that demand, but ultimately the role of building and maintaining that network infrastructure is the sole responsibility of the broadband provider.

It’s time for the FCC to stop pandering to lobbyists or political pressure, and just play the Title II card already.


Obama Backs Away From Net Neutrality Campaign Promises After FCC Vote
Haley Sweetland Edwards
May 15, 2014
TIME

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama was crystal clear about his commitment to ensuring equal treatment of all online content. Now his position on it is shaky, a shift that comes after months of public debate over the future of the American Internet infrastructure

Barack Obama was crystal clear during the 2008 campaign about his commitment to ensuring equal treatment of all online content over American broadband lines. “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” Obama told a crowd at Google in 2008. “Because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose.”

At a 2007 campaign forum, he went so far as to specifically promise that his Federal Communications Commission appointments would defend the principle of a “level playing field for whoever has the best idea.” “As president, I am going to make sure that that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward,” he said.

But on Thursday, the President made no public statement when three Democrats he appointed to the FCC voted to move forward with a plan to allow broadband carriers to provide an exclusive “fast lane” to commercial companies that pay extra fees to get their content transmitted online. Instead, White House aides released a press release distancing the President from the decision.

“The FCC is an independent agency, and we will carefully review their proposal,” Press Secretary Jay Carney wrote to reporters after the vote. “We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality.”

That shift—from a campaign promise to a call for hope—comes after months of public debate over the future of the American Internet infrastructure. In the vote Thursday, the FCC commissioners approved a plan that prohibited broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against content on current lines, but allowed for the addition of faster service options for paying content providers. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Obama last year, has argued that these new “fast lanes” do not violate net neutrality principles.

But at the time Obama spoke at Google headquarters in 2008, the sort of “fast lane” proposal put forward by Wheeler had already been dismissed as a dangerous intrusion on open competition that violated net neutrality. Companies like Google argued that once a “fast lane” was allowed, broadband companies like Verizon and Comcast would lose incentives to upgrade existing online speeds, creating over time a two-tiered Internet that gave advantage to incumbent content producers who could afford to pay the fees. “Creating a new ‘fast lane’ is effectively a method of discrimination, where today’s fast lane becomes tomorrow’s minimum bar,” Google argued in a 2007 submission to the FCC.

On Thursday, the Internet Association, a trade group representing Google and other Silicon Valley giants, restated its belief that the Wheeler plan appears to violate the principles of net neutrality. “We are opposed to all discrimination,” said the group’s CEO Michael Beckerman. Discrimination, he continued, included any regime that allowed prioritizing commercial content for a fee, “even if existing speeds are not downgraded for everyone else.”

The White House statement left open the possibility that the President would come out against the Wheeler plan at a later date, saying the President would consider “any option that makes sense” if the FCC’s final version violates net neutrality. But his options are limited. Obama could propose new legislation but it’s unlikely to pass during an election year.

Net neutrality rules that did not allow a fast lane were established in 2010 by a previous FCC chairman appointed by Obama. But they were thrown out by the D.C. Circuit Court in January this year on the grounds that the FCC lacks authority over the broadband providers, which are not currently categorized under Title II of the agency’s statute.

The proposed rules approved on Thursday asked the public to weigh in on whether the agency should re-categorize broadband providers to fall under Title II, a move that would give commissioners a blank slate to establish new net neutrality rules.

The proposed rules will be open for public comment through July 15.
User avatar
jon
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 9256
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Return to On the small screen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 95 guests