Moyers on America: "The Net at Risk"

[KOTLP]

Just a heads that tonight, conveniently directly after Lost, PBS is airing a 90 minute documentary on net neutrality and some other issues surrounding internet access in the US.

[ QUOTE ]
The future of the Internet is up for grabs. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively eliminated net neutrality rules, which ensured that every content creator on the Internet-from big-time media concerns to backroom bloggers-had equal opportunity to make their voice heard. Now, large and powerful corporations are lobbying Washington to turn the World Wide Web into what critics call a "toll road," threatening the equitability that has come to define global democracy's newest forum. Yet the public knows little about what's happening behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show Info

[Utah]

Let competition drive the marketplace.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Let competition drive the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The problem isn't that ISPs will be able to selectively throttle traffic. The problem is that the number of ISPs is artificially limited by government protectionism in the first place.

Telcos are making a big mistake by opposing this legislation. If they get their way, the next move will be to further deregulate their industries, opening the way for more competition. The only reason they are in a position to extort higher fees for passing traffic in the first place is the legacy of government monopoly-granting in the telco industry, which grew into the data-moving industry.

The smart move for the incumbents is to accept this regulation and use it as bargaining power to get legislators to continue errecting artificial barriers to entry. Of course, that is probably their plan anyway, and they're putting on a spectacle by feigning opposition.

[KOTLP]

They are spending 1.5 million a month lobbying against neutrality, I doubt it's a spectacle. And I don't see how restoring the neutrality we had until last year is related to a "next move to further deregulation".

I admittedly haven't thought a whole lot about the issue yet, and missed the last half hour, but it seems to me without net neutrality there potentially won't be fair competition. If the providers charge sites a "toll" for a faster pipe, I'm not sure youtube, for example, would have ever made it. I still haven't heard a good reason to be opposed to it.

btw, I knew the US was way behind many countries like Germany and Japan with respect to consumer internet access, but had no idea that in Korea you can get a 100MB pipe for $40/month. Damn I want that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see how restoring the neutrality we had until last year is related to a "next move to further deregulation".

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say the net neutrality move fails; the incumbents start their tiered pricing. Everyone starts complaining. How long before someone tries to remove the regulatory hurdles that are in place that are the primary reason the big guys are the big guys?

[ QUOTE ]
I admittedly haven't thought a whole lot about the issue yet, and missed the last half hour, but it seems to me without net neutrality there potentially won't be fair competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not fair competition WITH it. Again, you have totally ignored the regulatory regime that has made the current market look like it does.

[ QUOTE ]
If the providers charge sites a "toll" for a faster pipe, I'm not sure youtube, for example, would have ever made it. I still haven't heard a good reason to be opposed to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the data pipe providers own the pipe, and should be able to do what they want with it. Of course, plenty of people don't think that's a good reason.

If I take all of your resources, my fledgling business has a better chance to make it. I haven't heard a good reason to oppose my taking all your resources.

[KOTLP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see how restoring the neutrality we had until last year is related to a "next move to further deregulation".

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say the net neutrality move fails; the incumbents start their tiered pricing. Everyone starts complaining. How long before someone tries to remove the regulatory hurdles that are in place that are the primary reason the big guys are the big guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admittedly haven't thought a whole lot about the issue yet, and missed the last half hour, but it seems to me without net neutrality there potentially won't be fair competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not fair competition WITH it. Again, you have totally ignored the regulatory regime that has made the current market look like it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I agree, but these are two entirely different issues. The fair competition I meant is with respect to internet based businesses, i.e. the next generation of youtubes, myspaces, etc. If the cost of entering the search engine market, for example, was prohibitively expensive, we probably wouldn't have google today. Or take the hundreds of thousands of small ecommerce businesses, not just the startups with capital but the mom and pop shops too. If page loads are slow, they can't compete. The retired mom selling rare books in her spare time to make a few hundred bucks a month can't exist if she has to pay a $200/month toll just so her website doesn't crawl.

And of course, there is the related issue that has nothing to do with competition but free speech. My .org site shouldn't be articficially throttled because those that control the pipes don't like it or want me to pay a toll.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the providers charge sites a "toll" for a faster pipe, I'm not sure youtube, for example, would have ever made it. I still haven't heard a good reason to be opposed to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the data pipe providers own the pipe, and should be able to do what they want with it. Of course, plenty of people don't think that's a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if they decided to cmpletely block their customers from accessing google, would this be fine with you since it's their pipe and they can do what they want?

Keep in mind, even with net neutrality, if sites become popular enough that their bandwidth usage actually becomes an issue, they do pay more (although dumb hosting companies like to offer "unlimited" bandwidth).

[DougShrapnel]

Those who want to limit the connections available on the internet can start their own internet.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who want to limit the connections available on the internet can start their own internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what they have now.