OT: Comcast Wins Court Case: Net Neutrality Hampered
Comcast won a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its case with the FCC over net neutrality. Essentially, the FCC was told it didn't have the authority to tell Comcast that it couldn't slow BitTorrent use.
However, the case has much larger implications, including use of other high bandwidth sites like Hulu and YouTube and larger end users of bandwidth.
Maybe this will spur the Net Neutrality Act...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
I disagree. I don't see the political angle at all. It was a court case based upon a proposed federal government regulation. Government does not automatically equal politics.
I have to admit, however, that I'm not "pro-net neutrality" (mainly because no one has ever been able to provide a good explanation for how it won't hamper technological innovation, which almost always occurs when common carrier agreements are forced upon market participants), but not "anti-net neutrality" either (I haven't made my mind yet).
Say when youtube was created, because of the bandwidth it uses, Comcast, Verizon, TW, and other ISPs decided to throttle all youtube packets to a speed that was 1/3 (or less!) that of Hulu. Now consider Comcast is trying to buy NBC. This isn't farfetched at all.
I cannot envision a scenario where net neutrality would possibly hamper technological innovation, but I can give you over 50 where breaking net-neutrality will or could cause severe harm.
Well, one example would be forcing the company that developed and installed the technology used in delivery to allow their competitors use of the developed technology at terms other than those freely negotiated between the parties (i.e. a forced common carriage agreement).
How exactly does that hamper innovation?
Edit: Additionally, forced carriage agreements exist because the government heavily subsidized the infrastructure build-out.
It hampers innovation because it removes the incentive to invest in the technology since the return on investment is inherently limited. It would effectively allow someone who never contributed anything to the development and installation of the technology to use it for substantially less than it would have cost them to develop it themselves and at a rate (most likely substantially) less than the developer/installer would have charged for the use in the absence of the forced agreement, which in effect reduces the likelihood that the developer/installer will recover their initial financial outlay in developing and installing it. If you are the developer/installer, and you know in advance that by developing it and installing it under the terms of the forced carriage agreement, you may end up making substantially less money (or none at all, or even lose money) doing it, are you still going to do it?
1) This isn't net-neutrality at all.
2) Anyone is welcome to build their own fiber network with out subsides and incur 100% of the costs, then they won't have to share or do any common carriage agreements. But they took massive amounts of government money to build that infrastructure, so they knew going in what the return would be.
3) You're ignoring the massive benefits to innovation received by the people that benefit from the work done previously.
It would effectively allow someone who never contributed anything to the development and installation of the technology to use it for substantially less than it would have cost them to develop it themselves and at a rate (most likely substantially) less than the developer/installer would have charged for the use in the absence of the forced agreement, which in effect reduces the likelihood that the developer/installer will recover their initial financial outlay in developing and installing it.You're basically saying that Comcast shouldn't allow customers to search Google because Google is benefiting from the infrastructure they did nothing to create.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm solely talking about infrastructure. As far as I'm aware Google is not an internet service provider, so I'm not quite sure why you would make the Google/Comcast analogy.
I have to admit, however, that I'm not "pro-net neutrality" (mainly because no one has ever been able to provide a good explanation for how it won't hamper technological innovation, which almost always occurs when common carrier agreements are forced upon market participants)I'm asking you to explain how net-neutrality could hamper technological innovation, but you starting talking about infrastructure, so now I'm also asking you how a forced common carriage agreement hurts innovation.
I explained that. I also explained that my initial post should have been more clear in that I was talking SOLELY about infrastructure. I also explained that I haven't made my mind up on this (primarily because no one has provided a good, economically sound answer to the question I asked), yet, for some reason, you're treating my responses as if I'm hostile to your position. I'm not. I just haven't decided.
We're in total agreement about infrastructure by the way. If you spend $100B to build fiber, no one should force a common carrier agreement on you. However, the government gave these companies massive subsidies to build the network that they then forced common carrier agreements on. This is completely acceptable since it was known going in, and without the subsidies the corporation wouldn't have built the networks.
In that case, that's much more reasonable then. I apologize if I came across as saying that I knew something that I didn't. That wasn't my intention.
I'm not intending to be hostile. You stated that no one has explained how net-neutrality WON'T hamper innovation. Fair enough request. However, I don't think anyone can prove it couldn't hamper innovation outside of the fact that net-neutrality is basically summed up in being anti-discrimination by people providing access to content. Ensuring a level playing field is about as diametrically opposed from hampering innovation as you can get, at least in my mind.
I think we're on the relative same page here though. It's always a concern when government is needed to ensure a level playing field, since the government is known to play favorites. However, net-neutrality should be a slam dunk to enforce since it's as simple as an anti-discrimination policy.
Comcast is more than welcome to charge me more to use 150GB than 100GB. They are not more than welcome to charge me more for 100GB of youtube content vs 100GB of bittorrent content.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I think ultimately we're coming it at from different philosophical positions, but I get where you are coming from and where you are going.
It isn't simply ensuring a level playing field. It is taking a decision about how a business can deliver its product, maximize return on its investment, and serve its shareholders out of the hands of that business. Econ 101 will teach you that in general such restrictions limit incentives and therefore hamper innovation/total surplus/overall quality, so you don't have to say specifically how this restriction will limit innovation in order to make that argument.
You say they don't have a right to charge you more for 100 GB of youtube content vs. Hulu content? Why is this so clear cut? Isn't it a sound argument that they have a right to deliver their service however they choose, and if you don't like it you don't have to buy it?
On the other side, internet delivery is a very concentrated industry, and therefore you can make a sound argument that without regulation the market will not produce the most efficient outcome. Many people don't have an option about what internet provider to use, so, yes, your argument has merit. I'm not denying that.
But this is political. Discussing the need for or need to limit government regulation is absolutely political.
It isn't simply ensuring a level playing field. It is taking a decision about how a business can deliver its product, maximize return on its investment, and serve its shareholders out of the hands of that business.A large portion of that investment was heavily subsidized by the government. It follows that a fair, level playing field should be mandated.
Econ 101 will teach you that in general such restrictions limit incentives and therefore hamper innovation/total surplus/overall quality, so you don't have to say specifically how this restriction will limit innovation in order to make that argument.Except net-neutrality isn't about restrictions, it's about preventing restrictions and artificial constraints from being imposed based on who can pay the most. And yes, you do have to specifically say how this restriction will limit innovation to make that argument. I can't just say "in general" then make whatever argument I want. I should be able to at least show why the "in general" part applies here.
You say they don't have a right to charge you more for 100 GB of youtube content vs. Hulu content? Why is this so clear cut? Isn't it a sound argument that they have a right to deliver their service however they choose, and if you don't like it you don't have to buy it?Two examples: 10GB of Christian literature vs 10GB of Islamic literature, can you price this differently? If you went to FedEx with two exact dimension and weight DVD cases, one made by Sony, one made by MGM, and the FedEx guy wanted $2 to mail the Sony, and $1 to mail the MGM, you'd be like, what the fuck is this? What if you wanted to mail some business documents, does FedEx have the right to read them and decide the price based on the content?
On the other side, internet delivery is a very concentrated industry, and therefore you can make a sound argument that without regulation the market will not produce the most efficient outcome. Many people don't have an option about what internet provider to use, so, yes, your argument has merit. I'm not denying that.It's not a market when it's a monopoly. Competition for substitute products/services doesn't exist in most areas. The regulation isn't exactly complicated or even complex - you can simply explain what it stops with the FedEx analogy above.
But this is political. Discussing the need for or need to limit government regulation is absolutely political.The no politics thing is to prevent Left Vs Right type stuff, not to debate policy and its impacts.
Here is an article I came across a while ago that explains what net neutrality is and why it would be bad. To sum it up, network neutrality would provide a level playing field for all the competition by ensuring that the ISPs do not provide better service to any one competitor. This means that the garage start-up website gets to compete with the giant media conglomerate on the basis of their content, not on whoever gives the ISP the most money in order to get the best connection. This would prevent phone companies from killing VOIP on DSL, or Comcast from limiting video services that might take eyes away from NBC, or Google or Microsoft from paying ISPs to be the fastest search engine.
And as far as the whole "market" issue goes with network neutrality, there is no market for consumer choice when it comes to ISPs. While letting the market decide sounds good, there needs to be competition for the market to regulate itself. As far as broadband goes, everyone is limited pretty much to the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly. While I don't necessarily disagree with these monopolies being granted (no company would want to lay down the lines if they didn't know it would pay off), that monopoly status means that they must have agreements forced on them be regulated. In this case, that means that the series of tubes they lay down should give all customers the same service.
John Hodgman explains it better than I ever could.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Net Neutrality Act | ||||
| ||||
"Here is an article I came across a while ago that explains what net neutrality is and why it would be bad."
This is sarcasm right? Or a typo?
Yes, and now I can't fix it. Dammit.
Does anyone know why preview stopped working?
It's not really a topic regarding politics, but rather a topic regarding government (which isn't necessarily synonymous with politics) and constitutionality (at least insofar as this particular decision is concerned).
Clarence, you can't tell me it's about government and not politics. Politics is the behavior within civil government! If there is a decision to be made between two policies (i.e. net neutrality or not net neutrality, then there will be people on both sides of the fence and a collective decision must be made. This is the definition of politics...I don't think you can argue that.
I can't fathom anyone being anti net-neutrality.
Simply example:
You have Comcast as your ISP. Comcast slows youtube to 1/4 the speed of Hulu.
I don't think anyone possibly could endorse this.
Are you not free to seek another ISP?
Are we arguing the same point here? Awesome...
Not in the vast majority of this country. I have the option to get 3G wireless I suppose, but that's not the same.
A better example would be what if the ISPs all had a political side in common, and decided that x-wing content would be slowed to 1/10 the speed of y-wing content?
Better example even:
Your landline phone provider charges you $1 to call the guy next door on the left, but $2 to call the guy next door on the right. They get to arbitrarily determine this. Now what?
Switch land line providers?
1. That option doesn't exist across much of america. I can get Comcast cable and highspeed. No verizon, no time warner, no RCN, etc.
2. What if both/all providers do it?
Fair enough. I'll concede, mainly because I don't feel like playing devils advocate and because it's been a long day.
Easier said than done.
Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean some are not net neutral. Many, many people in the United States and beyond believe that regulation of this form is not the responsibility of the government and should be left in the hands of individual companies/corporations. If you don't like Comcast throttling your Hulu, let them know by taking your money elsewhere. (Again, not my position, but the position of some. Wouldn't want you guys to think I'm crazy or anything...)
Actually yes, I can argue that.
Ok, fair enough. I believe your argument would be incorrect. We'll leave it at that.
P.S. No hard feelings, and sorry if I'm harping on the issue. Looking back, NEPrep and I might have made this thread political...oops.
No worries. I don't have any problem disagreeing with people. I've actually never understood why some people automatically take a disagreement as something personal.
Yeah, me either. Not negging you, fwiw...not that it matters.
If this has topic has something to do with politics than so does putting a stamp on an envelope. Pretty weak correlation right?
Exactly.
I understand where you're coming from.
I posted this particular article because Net Neutrality cases directly affect internet users, which how the MGoBlog community interacts. It's only labeled as "OT" because of the specific OT guidance published by Brian.
While net neutrality legislation is clearly a political issue, the court decisions regarding net neutrality directly affect how the community may interact. Therefore, I believe it is certainly pertinent to the community.
Furthermore, this isn't an attempt to generate a pro/con political discussion (ie "Let's All Write Comcast About Net Neutrality!!). The court case was won by Comcast and does hamper FCC policies regarding net neutrality. These are facts that I feel belong on this board because of their effect on the community here.
I like how the argument is not over the politics of the matter, but whether it's a political topic or not.
For anyone who is interested in the future of the net, the NPR EconTalk podcast on April 5th had a show about open access. The host is an economist at George Mason and the guest works at Harvard.
Essentially, open access is about how we as end users are able to obtain internet access. The discussion ranges from options regarding providers and data speeds. Net neutrality is different. It is the idea that a provider can make certain sites faster or slower, block access to certain sites, or promote it's own sites by increasing bandwidth devoted to that site. This is what the court decision was about.
Open access deals with whether we want Comcast, for example, as the sole provider in the area--which is definitely political and seems to be generating the majority of the discussion in this thread.
I guess this is where my ignorance on the fine points of this topic shows through. The latter topic is definitely the one I was more interested in. My apologies!
Anyone who would be willing to have a sole provider has clearly never had Comcast as that sole provider.
/snark
The issue is who owns "the last mile," which is basically where the net, telephone lines, and cable branch out to individual homes, businesses, etc. There are several ideas as to how the access battle should play out, and all have valid arguments. You should check out the podcast, the discussion briefly details some options and how some countries with relatively low prices and high internet penetration have worked their access problem.
I'm not going to create any on-board fighting by describing any options here, but they are very interesting--especially to an economics dork like me.
Interesting topic and I will definetly check out the podcast. If there is one thing I hate more than Duke,Izzo,and the Buckeyes combined it's Comcast.
The last-mile problem in the US has the disadvantage of our much lower population densities though.
I'm surprised that places like NYC don't have comparable internet speeds to, say, Korea.
Which GMU economist? One of my favorite blogs (for those who enjoy geeky economic discussions) is that of the GMU economists. It is at econlog.econlib.org.