2009.09.25
Action on net neutrality
We're writing an editorial for Monday about network neutrality. That's the idea that Internet Service providers should not be allowed to charge more to deliver certain data faster. In other words, Verizon DSL should not be allowed to say to Amazon.com that it will throttle consumers access if Amazon doesn't pay up.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday proposed adopting net neutrality rules. (Read his speech.) We'll endorse his ideas, especially a forward-looking view that would apply the rules to more than just land-line Internet.
RSS feed 
The example the article uses is BitTorrent which is a bandwidth hog.
Maybe we can also pass a law that says the Roanoke Times has to charge everyone the same amount for a newspaper, whether they live in Roanoke or California.
Comment by Henry — September 25, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
BitTorrent does account for a large amount of the traffic. You can get around those throttles, though, by encrypting it.
I am a strong support of net neutrality. It can not only hurt companies like Amazon.com in the example, but the consumer as well.
Suppose you have Cox Cable Internet and because you use VoIP from Vonage or Viatalk or something they throttle you down so your call quality is really bad... all of this in an effort to get you to use THEIR phone service.
This is just plain wrong, but not unheard of.
Or... throttling down NetFlix so you'll use OnDemand.
Throttling down Hulu.com so you'll watch your shows on the TV.
Net Neutrality FTW!
Comment by Jack — September 25, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
I've been mixed on this. Then I started thinking about other commodities that people use that can be viewed similarly. People use phones, the internet, and water in vastly different ways. Some people only use a small amount of water or make a handful of calls, and they pay small bills. Likewise, there are people who have their phones surgically attached to their ears and who re-fill their pools on a bi-monthly basis, and they pay quite a lot more for what they do.
Looking at the internet, I used to be very opposed to any sort of extra charges for bandwidth...then I started thinking about it differently. Bandwidth hogs like what Henry mentioned, or people who do a lot of gaming or downloading/file tranferring eat up huge sums of available bandwith, and that impacts all users by slowing down networks. When everyone pays the same flat fees for something like DSL, regardless of whether they are an e-mail only user or someone who streams high-quality movies and TV shows from places like Netflix and Hulu, it does nothing to discourage heavy users from doing what they do, it actually encourages it.
We had to switch to satellite internet and we have daily bandwidth limitations and bandwidth speed levels for our service. We can pay the minimum fee and have a small daily limit and the slowest speed...or we can pay more and get the ability to download more at a higher speed. I think this actually makes sense now, because the people who use more of the comodity pay more for it, and people who use less pay less. I don't think it should be arbitrary, but somehow measurable and factored in. People or companies who gobble bandwidth should pay more for doing so. It will either act as a discouragement to doing it, or will help to fund improvements to networks to handle that needed capacity without degrading service quality to the vast majority of customers.
Comment by Other John — September 25, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Jack, That's a good point I had not thought of when I made my earlier post. More food for thought, that could create some unfair competition situations if applied in the fashion you mention. I hate sticky wickets.
Comment by Other John — September 25, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Be careful not to confuse bandwidth pricing with net neutrality. Nothing under discussion says that an ISP cannot charge based on how much bandwidth someone consumes. If a company wants to cap how much an individual account can use in a month, that would be fine. (With the caveat that it is open with its customers about any limitations.)
Ne neutrality addresses a different issue. The principle is that an ISP cannot charge more or throttle data based on where it comes from or it is going.
To run with your water example, which is a good one, everyone pays the same amount for water based on how much they use. If you and I use the same amount of water in a month, we pay the same. What a net neutrality for water would prevent is the utility from charging based on what we do with it. Say I take five showers a day and you fill a hot tube once a week. We might use the same amount of water, but the utility could decide that it doesn't want you filling your hot tub so often, so it charges you more for that use.
Comment by C. Trejbal — September 25, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Interesting CT. Would Net Neutrality allow an ISP to charge a website, say like Netflix, more because they are responsible for generating so much usage (I see the inherent problems with just sort of arbitrarily saying one company must pay while another would not be charged)...or would it need to come back to the customers bill and have the ISP start having speed/download levels they based their pricing upon?
I guess I am having trouble understanding how the 2 are different since they seem to be linked, or at least my perception is that they are. Maybe I'm getting it wrong.
Comment by Other John — September 25, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
No. Netflix does not actually generate the traffic; the ISP's customers do. It wouldn't make sense to charge Netflix when the decision to bring its content into the ISPs lines is in the hand of the ISP's customers.
Comment by C. Trejbal — September 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Other John,
I see what you're saying in #3, but Cox already has tiered pricing for internet.
I pay $60/month for Cox HSI and my mother pays $30/month.
I have more bandwidth allocated to me and a higher monthly capacity than she does because I pay more. There is no reason that I should pay more than the $60 if they are capping my bandwidth at a certain amount anyways.
Comment by Jack — September 25, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Ok, now I think I'm more clear on this. I had my logic right, but was crossing lines with what the concept of net neutrality is. Now I get it, and I understand why the rules are needed. Unfortunately, I think the end game is going to be that unlimited data connections for consumers are going to go by the wayside or be very expensive to purchase. For most customers, that may not make a difference or matter much, but I suspect that a solid number will either have to throttle back on their use or prepare to fork over a lot more for their service. But, I think that's probably the most fair approach, and certainly makes more sense than charging websites like the example mentioned. Thanks for helping my level of understanding.
Comment by Other John — September 25, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
OJ,
Net Neutrality would prevent Cox from throttling bandwidth to/from Netflix simply because it is from Netflix or a specific type of traffic.
Throttling it lower because YOU pay less per month is fine, but it cannot be different based on the type of traffic or who you are sending it to.
Suppose Cox decided to get into a partnership with Microsoft (bing) for searching. They would likely get a sum of money from Microsoft every month to put Bing search on everyone's start page. Then, without net neutrality, they could throttle bandwidth to Google making sure that the Bing search provides a better user experience.
That is the type of thing that Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent.
I'm also very concerned about the unfair business stuff, too, like I mentioned in number two.
Christian... They could very well target Netflix. Cox could tell Netflix to pay them if they want their customer's to have a decent experience at the site. They're going to go for the money where the money's at, so to speak. They'll get more money from Netflix than they will from the customers.
Comment by Jack — September 25, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
@10 I agree, Jack, they could target Netflix. I was just saying doing so is not justified except as motivated by sheer greed at the expense of stifling digital progress. But I think we've convinced OJ, so I think we're good.
Comment by C. Trejbal — September 25, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Netflix is the sender of the large amounts of data. Face it, we are talking movies here. Amazon's bandwidth needs per customer are slight unless they are distributing books, music or movies. It wouldn't matter if they were throttled unless you crippled the server. But if you are receiving a 4 gig movie down the wire, speed makes a big difference.
So if the ISP passes infrastructure costs on to its highest bandwidth users, that makes good business sense.
I wonder of the ISP's will be allowed to throttle the European child porn and warez sites under the new law.
Comment by Henry — September 25, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
The additional deiscussion has really clarified things for me. I definitely was confused, but I've got it now. Thanks Jack & CT for the explanations...I've not stayed as up-to-date on my technology and computer knowledge as I should have. Too much time playing in the dirt I think.
Comment by Other John — September 25, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
The Bandwidth argument is Bogus. Nor is the problem Net neutrality - It's the desire of the ISPs to not have to upgrade to supply a product when they can essentially force customers to accept what they sell them, and dictate how they use it.
Say you buy watermelons, and farmer joe is the sole person permitted to sell watermelons in your area, and over time farmer joe gets so many customers that now, he limits you to buying one watermelon a week because he doesn't want to plant more watermelon fields, and because Farmer joe has a exclusive deal to provide all the watermelons in your area, you have no choice but to accept his terms and because he owns the market you cannot bring in watermelons from another source.
He's throttled your ability to purchase watermelons.
It's not that he can't plant more, it's just that he doesn't want to have to take the expense of planting and harvesting more because he essentially has no competition, and has a protected market so he can raise prices, and control supply as he sees fit.
The internet providers essentially have the same deal even though the technology is out there to keep the system growing to accomodate everyone doing anything they choose.
Here in the USA, the speed and capacity of our system is many times slower, and carries less traffic (bandwidth) than in many countries because most areas have exclusive provider contracts - many regions have only one provider - essentially an unregulated monopoly. And where they do have a (limited) choice, there is still no real competition.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-10-30-3980507100_x.htm
Comment by joe Mostowey — September 25, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Yeah. America is suffering because we aren't getting our porn fast enough.
Comment by Henry — September 25, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Henry,
It is not about porn. Joe is right in #14. America has slower internet bandwidth speeds than most other connected countries.... and not slightly lower. WAY lower.
Comment by Jack — September 25, 2009 @ 10:34 pm