How do HN readers feel about net neutrality?
I generally oppose it -- why prevent google from making a deal to offer me free access in exchange for blocking bing ?
I generally oppose it -- why prevent google from making a deal to offer me free access in exchange for blocking bing ?
Why allow an ISP to force one service or website to pay for "enhanced" access, while another service gets a free pass?
If you run a website, you are already paying for your bandwidth to your ISP and the customer of the ISP on the other end is already paying for their bandwidth. By throttling websites until they pay for "enhanced" access to customers, the ISPs would be getting paid twice for the bandwidth.
The consumer ISPs could then charge exorbitant rates -- should they so choose -- to companies (such as Google and Microsoft) if they want their website(s) un-throttled. Meanwhile, the ISP could run their own "competing" service, pay nothing, and make a run at unfairly overtaking another service (for their group of customers) because the other service couldn't/wouldn't pay up.
Doesn't seem quite so fair to me.
Also: "Areas where less than 50 percent of households have no access to broadband will be considered underserved and eligible for grants."
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems there is an extra "no" in there?
Why shouldn't ISPs be required to make all CDNs open and allow any company to host its assets there to create an even playing field for content? Why should google's pages load faster on someone's computer than my startup's?
However, there's not much competition when it comes to infrastructure. Most of the major players have significant capital investments and have been receiving government subsidies to build out their network. So, short of a large technology breakthrough (mesh wireless networking?), there seems to be a huge barrier to entry for new competitors. Furthermore, attempts to improve the situation are being fought (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/telco-wont-instal...).
Then we have the internet, which has spawned an incredibly active and competitive market with little-to-no entry cost. If we didn't have something like Net Neutrality, then this market would be at risk. Small startups wouldn't have the capital required to partner with ISP's and would have difficulty competing on their merit alone. So, the question becomes, do we let government stifle competitive practices in a market that's already subsidized and has a large barrier to entry, or do we risk stifling competition in our most promising new market?
If the infrastructure business was more open and competitive, then I'd say let the market solve the issue and keep government out of it. However, that's not the case, so I think Net Neutrality is the better option for now.
I have no objection to you making that deal on behalf of yourself or your company.
I do object to my access provider making it "on behalf of" me.
I'm paying for access to the whole internet.
If the gov't wants to insist on honest disclosure of traffic-shaping policies, that'd be a pro-consumer reform. But anything which dictates what services can be offered limits the ability of firms to search the competitive space. It makes the core problem, insufficient competition and service diversity, worse rather than better.
Also, when political regulators have discretion over an industry's activity, it can be used as a kind of soft, subtle censorship. For example, big media companies don't savage the executive branch as much when they need FCC/FTC approval for a desired merger.
And what if someday, under the same paternalistic reasoning that regulates radio/TV content, an ISP is only considered 'neutral' if it carries enough 'underrepresented' viewpoints, or ensures that pro-government voices get 'equal time' against critics? Oh, and to prove compliance, keep a log of all traffic for the past 6 months, in case we need to audit.
We need no 'neutrality' regulations of newspapers, magazines, or books; we shouldn't need them for electronic speech.