In support of Net Neutrality
A lot has been written about the issue of Net Neutrality, but on the eve of the FCC’s Chairman speech about the subject, and given Boxee’s position as a stakeholder in this debate I thought it would be worthwhile to share our view.
Broadband networks (wired & wireless) are on their way to becoming a new type of commodity (like water, electricity, sewage). They also represent an opportunity for a world where geographical, economical, and racial barriers matter less.
The principle behind Net Neutrality is that broadband providers should not put any restrictions on the data they deliver (not on content being delivered, not what site is being accessed, not what device is being connected, etc.). All bits are made equal and should not be discriminated against.
I realize many of the people who read this blog are familiar with the subject, so I’ll jump right into the debate (if you’re interested in a more elaborate introduction to the subject see links below).
Opposing Net Neutrality is like:
… posting a sign on the entrance to the US Internet saying “take your business elsewhere”: If starting an Internet business in the US means additional cost companies need to pay to broadband providers then entrepreneurs will start their businesses in countries that have neutral Internet policies. Europe?, Japan?, Canada?, China? they’ll be happy to welcome the entrepreneurs that were turned off by the new US “tax” on running an Internet company.
… giving incumbents a free pass: The Internet is a great platform for disrupting industries. Part of the reason it is so powerful is because there is a level playing field. A segregated Internet with exclusive “expressways” only the rich can afford will mean that a start-up will not be able to effectively compete with an incumbent who has deep pockets.
… telling investors to put their money into a different field: The Internet is a great investment opportunity. It is cheap to start a business and dream of changing the world. If the cost of starting an Internet company artificially goes up there will be less innovation and less opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs.
… killing the Internet as we know it: An Internet where only devices approved by the broadband provider can connect to the network, where only protocols that are friendly to the broadband provider’s business model will be allowed, where a site generating lots of traffic but little revenue for the broadband provider will run the risk of being put on a blacklist is not the Internet we know today. It will be a corporate, boring, stagnating, censored, complacent, crippled shadow of today’s Internet.
There are potential risks to Net Neutrality. The most prominent are claims that once Net Neutrality is in effect the broadband providers will have no incentive to invest in their networks and will not be able to fight piracy. We believe that in a competitive market the motivation for investment will continue to exist and that the best way to fight piracy it to offer an easy to use and affordable legal alternative. It seems, however, the risk of inaction on Net Neutrality is greater.
Net Neutrality is crucial for the future of the Internet and the role of the US in a global economy. Besides making any data network (wired and wireless) neutral we should set an ambitious goal for a ubiquitous, affordable and fast broadband network in the US. It should be a national and strategic priority, and I hope the Obama administration and the FCC will take on the challenge and make it happen.
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://www.savetheinternet.com
http://www.handsoff.org
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519841106
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/broadband/v070000report.pdf
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Update: read the Chairman’s speech.
subscribe to blog
join boxee
boxee on twitter
I would agree that ideally access providers would not decide to regulate the data that travels over their pipes but we need to be careful as to how the customers keep them from doing so. The market can handle this situation and I hope that others who favor data equality over the internet don’t run to government to regulate it as such. If the market demands net neutrality it will have it. The best thing the government can do is destroy artificial barriers to entry. Remove restrictions on wireless, remove municipality monopoly privileges given to some cable or telephone providers, etc.
I take part of your post to call for government deregulation, though I am sure you would disagree with my assumption of your comment. Your simply not going to remove barriers, monopoly or oligopoly situations without Government regulation and/or de-regulation. It was de-regulation that was successful in Japan.
The American telcos actions are extremely well documented. They have had 20+ years, have received in excess of $900 Billion (grants, taxes and additional fees; yes your tax dollars) specifically to build out fiber.
Instead of building fiber, they whine that it is too expensive while lobbying our elected officials in D.C. alone at the rate of $18 million per WEEK! (So that is why I pay $50 per month for 100Kb / 4Kb, great! )
Where’s the fiber?
As to cost, once the fiber is in the ground, maintenance is cheaper, just ask anyone that lives in a state with allot of lightning. In Japan, officials are on the record stating that with fiber it costs pennies to offer 2GB, I believe it cost them less than .50 cents to offer 100MB per month and the cost did NOT increase to offer 1GB per month. They stated that they are still making over 300% profit even when offering higher bandwidths of either 100Mb / 100Mb or 1 GB / 1 GB.
To increase bandwidth on fiber, you switch out the router on each end. That is the only additional cost, which can be spread out over many, many years as is any capital expenditures.
in general I am in favor of letting the market handle quickly and constantly changing tech space, but this situation may be a bit different:
- in many markets broadband providers are a monopoly or duopoly, which is not a very competitive situation
- there have already been cases where ISPs blocked/slowed certain protocols/sites, without the users knowledge
- the market is not perfect, and in cases where there is clear public interest sometimes the regulator needs to set basic ground rules
- in many markets broadband providers are a monopoly or duopoly, which is not a very competitive situation
sounds like a good place to start a business.
- there have already been cases where ISPs blocked/slowed certain protocols/sites, without the users knowledge
and what was the response? what happened when consumers learned of this? how did the ISPs respond?
- the market is not perfect, and in cases where there is clear public interest sometimes the regulator needs to set basic ground rules
Most of your arguments are based in what you think may happen in the future should we not institute net neutrality. Shouldn’t we wait until the market fails before instituting a regulated system? I agree that markets are not perfect, but isn’t the internet working pretty damn well as it is?
it is not a theoretical issue, there have already been cases of ISPs blocking VoIP apps, legitimate Bittorrent traffic and even political sites.
the problem with waiting till something really breaks, is that it may be too late. there is a real risk for the Internet as we know it (and for the emerging Mobile Internet), so it seems like the right time to address it.
It is theoretical. So far, all of the egregious offenses like VoIP, Bittorrent and political site blocking have either been circumvented by interested third parties or the ISPs have changed their behavior. The only exceptions are where governments step in and prevent the ISP from doing so (such as China but even then, proxies have been made available). So far, the market is working quite well.
Sounds like a great set of principles. In your future posts, please do talk about what caveats there may be in how these rules are passed as a law and practiced in the real world.
What you said could not be further from the truth. Net neutrality will have the government messing up with the Internet. The free market has and always will work.
there are already early signs that relying on the market to insure an open Internet is failing, so I think it is a good time for the regulator to set some savvy, basic rules
Free markets working, what a joke. They do work, but in the USA, specifically in this market place; there is a very factual 20+ year track record showing factually that the market is being prevented from working.
You can deny its true, but the facts speak for themselves.
Follow the money.
What do you suggest now? The market is most certainly NOT working.
i have to admit that net neutrality sounds wonderful. the comforting arms of big brother looking out for me the pleb. but here is my problem. as someone else stated the internet isn’t broken and the government shouldn’t be tinkering with something that isn’t broken. AND i want open access but if AT&T’s inability to handle apps like sling player, google voice,you-tube videos or any number of data intensive apps (ohhh wait take back the Google voice “lol”)is any indication of what we have to look forward too.how is net neutrality going to improve a companies ability to manage intense data traffic.
I’m afraid you don’t understand the debate at all. The government is the reason we have the Internet in the first place. Without it we’d all still be using Compuserve, AOL, or Prodigy.
The reason the Internet is not “broken” as you say is because no ISPs (except wireless ones) have taken any bold steps yet in violating neutrality. Yet. They want to. They openly say they want to. They want to be able to tell a customer, “Hey we’ll give you Internet half-off if you let us block access to YouTube.” If you can’t understand how devastating this would be to everyone, then I’m just sorry.
If AT&T can’t handle a certain amount of bandwidth, then they need to cap the data rate lower. They don’t have a right sit there and make qualitative decisions as to which apps you can and can’t use. That’s fvcking ridiculous! If their network can’t handle that much traffic, then they need to cap everyone’s bandwidth and stop calling it an unlimited data plan.
What is your suggestion when the company does NOT want to fix it, as it allows them to charge you more each month for less?
At&T and the other wireline/wireless providers could offer this but they do not want too. Now what do you suggest?
I would like to see the airwaves belong to the people who have received the shaft on any other national asset.. So far I don’t believe there has been a tax attached to breathing, but, there are so many sick and dying people due to breathing some of our terribly polluted air and then having to deal with the money changers to buy breathing medications and oxygen, etc..
I would also think we could have free air internet so everyone can stay in touch with their families without a bill attached to the call.
Everything has become so expensive it would only be fair for those riding the waves of the labor we and our ancestors have created and not all can afford..
I support net neutrality except for one caveat. I think ISPs should have the right to treat traffic differently based on the way that the site/service chooses to identify itself as. So if you’re Gmail, you identify yourself as an email app that doesn’t require low latency or high bandwidth. If you’re YouTube you need high bandwidth but don’t need low latency (everything is buffered). If you’re Skype, you identify yourself as VOIP which means you need decent bandwidth and the lowest latency possible. The ISPs should have the right to build different networks optimized for different types of traffic and route them accordingly. The key difference between this and opposition to net neutrality, is that the ISPs would not get to determine what sites and services are what. So when coding my blog, if I decide to identify it (on some registry perhaps?) as a VOIP service (even though it’s just a blog) the ISP would have to treat it as a VOIP service. It’d be dishonest of me, but most people would be honest about it. Often there is a trade off between latency and bandwidth so most services would want to be honest so they get routed in a way that truly benefits them the most.
makes sense. i think optimizing the network for different protocols is a good idea, and i know that the ISPs and their vendors are doing stuff on this front.
it needs to be done in a way that does not let the ISP “abuse” the system to degrade services that it deems competitive or unprofitable for him (e.g. VoIP, Video?)
I agree with, but without net neutrality they will out right block, throttle (shaping software) back, or prevent a competitor’s VoIP product from receiving as good service as their own VoIP product, which of course they want you to purchase instead.
Many did not believe that a cable company would craft a stop TCP/IP packet until they did it, were taken to court and it was proved they had done it. (Of course they denied it for a long time).
We MUST have net neutrality. We also need minimum bandwidth guarantees for both upstream and downstream.
Say no to net neutrality! The government is far more insidious than any isp. Political hacks from all parties use vague sections of a law to justify their actions. Be it to minimize or eliminate an opponents view from the public arena. Humans are not perfect, which is why well intended laws are often twisted into some perverse rule to benefit the group in power.
We look beyond the gentle phrases and soft smiles into the souls of those touting a law or rule to be for the benefit of everyone, Far too often the unintended results haven’t been accounted for because the developer was a Pollyanna or started with evil intent.
A lack of regulation worked so well in the financial and home mortgage industries. It cracks me up when people think the government is the problem. The government is owned by big business.
[...] out Net neutrality framework: Transparency of network management eyed Avner Ronen / boxee blog: In support of Net Neutrality John Paczkowski / Digital Daily: FCC Chair Proposes Net Neutrality Rules Frederic Lardinois / [...]