BlogHer - Because the phrase "net neutrality" doesn't blast off the screen - Comments

Actually, that's all backwards

Laura Scott — Tue, 23 May 2006 22:55:30 -0500

What we're talking is the lifting of net neutrality, not the imposition of new regulations. We're talking about changing what has been the case since the internet came to be.

It's like allowing the phone company to tell you you can't call your friend because she uses an undesired cellular service.

Notice who is paying for the ad campaign against net neutrality: ISPs.

Who pays in the end? Content sites like this one. This is a development that can kill the long tail, which is where the "new economy" lives and where a new world of small business and true capitalism can thrive.

Capitalism is about free market. It's not about getting government-sanctioned powers to reduce competitive options. Granting anti-competitive powers to an oligarchy of companies who are in a position to gate off areas of the internet is not capitalism, it's protectionism.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog

BlogHer site admin

Thank goodness for opposing

Elise Bauer — Sun, 21 May 2006 23:44:29 -0500

Thank goodness for opposing views. Much airtime has been given to the net neutrality position, but how many have actually taken the time to listen to a different perspective? A friend of mine reminded me that wherever there is regulation, there are lobbyists and the tendency to buy off lawmakers. The Internet is one area where the lack of regulation has served our country very well.

Elise Bauer
Simply Recipes
Learning Movable Type

An opposing view

Shannon — Fri, 19 May 2006 09:17:46 -0500

I hope people will consider another angle. I've posted an opposing view on my site at:
http://phatmommy.com/2006/05/19/save-the-internet-or-hands-off/

As for Milano's statement: "If your Internet provider is Comcast do you think they will allow quick access to iTunes if they have financial stakes in a different music service?" True, but if enough consumers LOVE iTunes and dislike Comcast's option, Comcast would likely provide access (or more likely work a deal with iTunes) rather than pissing off its customers. It's supply and demand. It's capitalism.

I can speculate on that

Laura Scott — Thu, 11 May 2006 18:05:26 -0500

However I did hear a piece on NPR this morning (which I can't find now on their site) on the issue which seemed to indicate that the large content providers are lobbying for net neutrality. After all, why would they want to have to pay more for the service their already getting (which could be very costly ... if we could get facts on it).

They want to be able to secure exclusive deals. Without net neutrality, the big players don't need to worry about competing with the smaller sites. It puts the barrier to success firmly in the realm of deep pockets, and not in terms of having better content or the kind of services people want.

It seems to me to be classic protectionism in the form of lobbying to pass a law to eliminate competition. It happens in every industry, and has been long predicted by business analysts like Debora Spar.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog

BlogHer site admin

More money = more profits?

heivilinj — Wed, 10 May 2006 09:42:49 -0500

The entire issue is murkey at best, especially when we can't find actual facts to base our opinions on. You can be relatively sure that any costs sites incur to provide us with the content we want will be passed on to consumers somehow. Such is the nature of corporate business (not that it *should* be different).

However I did hear a piece on NPR this morning (which I can't find now on their site) on the issue which seemed to indicate that the large content providers are lobbying for net neutrality. After all, why would they want to have to pay more for the service their already getting (which could be very costly ... if we could get facts on it).

While I don't know if this will offset the large doses of money that the Telecoms are throwing at ethics-impaired politicians, it makes me slightly less frightened.

Jim Heivilin

It's Getting Noisier

lizsun — Wed, 10 May 2006 06:17:00 -0500

Thanks Laura.
I've definitely noticed a larger response to my almost daily postings about net neutrality this past week. There must be more awareness about it. Maybe it's just my readers, but I've noticed more of then too.

The question is so darn complicated. I worry about anyone who gets to pick. Small groups in charge of this issue are not the best idea. . . .

It's not charging the consumers

Laura Scott — Wed, 10 May 2006 00:30:50 -0500

It's charging the content providers. It's basically allowing the corporations to charge individuals, businesses, organizations, even governments to be on the real internet -- the internet that people can actually see.

And then it's pay for play, or your off the list. And that kills off, or at least threatens, the growing part of the economy -- the economy of ideas.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog

BlogHer site admin

There's the rub

Maria Niles — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:55:36 -0500

If we were talking about an industry in which there were true competition I would agree that they should be able to price their services and provide content based on what their customers desire and are willing to pay for - but phone and cable companies have, to some degree, a monopoly.

I can choose between dial-up, dsl and cable ISP's but if I want cable technology to deliver my internet access and non-broadcast television where I live, I can only choose between Comcast and Comcast. And if Comcast chooses to put non-profit websites who can't pay a fee into the highest priced tier of service then I lose something, the non-profit loses something and I think society loses something.

The trade off for cable companies for getting exclusive access to large pools of customers with no direct competition is that while they pay the cost of laying the cable, in exchange for lack of competition (which is worth much more than the cost of building out the infrastructure) they provide a degree of public access. Lifeline plans for telephone service or public access television channels are examples. This is why the oversight for this industry is done through public utilities commissions and such.

I believe that there is an important question of public good that would be compromised by giving already monopolistic corporate interests the right to limit what we can and cannot access on the internet.

And beyond the public good argument, I'd just really like to see companies compete on the basis of truly offering the best products and services that people genuinely are willing to pay for rather than run to Congress to seek protection for their profits and absolution from good business practices. Cable and phone service providers in particular have a long way to go on that count.

Yes, I agree that is bad, and...

Elisa Camahort — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:42:14 -0500

...my point is that it is muddying the waters and a weak argument to complain about charging consumers for different levels of access or speed or bandwith, and that is what many prominent net neutrality supporters are doing.

And it certainly part of the message that is coming across, as evidenced by the comment on Morra's post about this very issue: raising consumer prices to get better service.

On the Save the Internet site they pose this question: "Imagine if the students who created Google or Yahoo had been charged a fee by a phone company for the privilege of letting their potential users have fast access."

Well, I'm sure that is and has been happening already and for a long time. If they are running server traffic over a residential service they are either going to pay for higher levels of service or their upstream server traffic will be throttled.

Majikthise says: "If we lose net neutrality, the telecom companies will unleash gouging on an epic scale. Net neutrality means that your service provider can't blackmail you into paying for upgraded service in order to download podcasts or make purchases online. Under the new rules, the companies would be able to force ordinary users to the back of the line unless they pay stiff "upgrade" fees to buy back the capacity that used to be guaranteed to all subscribers."

So, it IS charging consumers that many net neutrality supporters seem worried about, and I think it's a losing argument, compared to focusing on the monopolistic and predatory tactics you describe.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

It's not charging the customers

Laura Scott — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:06:23 -0500

It's charging the websites. So, for instance, if BlogHer is seen as a competitor of Comcast's own women's-oriented network, Comcast will be within its rights to block all of its users from accessing BlogHer.

Or maybe put you on a dial-up-speed connection.

Or force people to watch ads before getting to your site.

Don't like it? Well, you can go to your phone company and get DSL so you can visit BlogHer, but wait -- they have their own women's-oriented network, so again, BlogHer is out of luck.

Well, you can call your Congressional representative to complain. But wait, you have Vonage, and your ISP has blocked Vonage connections because they are selling their own VOIP service!

So you can send an email, but then you get an automated notice from your ISP saying that they will not forward your message unless you visit this secure website and join their premium email service for only $10/month (plus per-message fees).

Well, you can always go find an independent company. But wait, seems like the phone company and cable company aren't letting independents have access in your neighborhood.

But don't worry. You can always turn on the TV.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog

BlogHer site admin

An unpopular position based on an uncomfortable reality

Elisa Camahort — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:37:50 -0500

I'm no network neutrality expert, far from it. I did however work in the cable industry for years (on the equipment vendor side, not the operator side) and I can tell you the 'net already is far from neutral on many levels.

Particularly in cable networks, the access pipeline is shared, and in any zone where a business shares the pipe with residences you can bet the cable companies offer business services. And with those services they offer service level agreements (SLAs). And they use various QoS techniques to make their contract guarantees. Cable companies similarly have to manipulate the prioritization of IP packets if they ever want to offer primary voice service. (Although I think they're fools to want to offer it.)

To be honest I don't even have a big problem with telcos selling different levels of service to different levels of customers. If we're willing to pay for the speed of DSL over the speed of dial-up (which uses the same in-home wire, if not the same overall infrastructure) then what is the philsophical difference to pay for even higher-speed service? So priotizing customers is a commercial reality in many many businesses, and I'm not philosophically opposed to it purely on principle.

What I have a big problem with is prioritization based on content...the politicization of prioritization, as opposed to the commercialization of it.

I'm sure many will argue "slippery slope", but I'm not sure that the argument will ever be won if we don't acknowledge that there are legitimate business reasons that bit parity doesn't actually exist...and go for the really egregious potential violations of the spirit of the internet. I wrote a post along these lines over at the Browster blog.

I have a feeling I am in the minority of Internet denizens with this position, especially being a bleeding heart liberal as I am, but there you go.
Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Taking action counts more than comments

Laura Scott — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:07:36 -0500

Thanks for both!

This legislative push is truly disturbing.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog

BlogHer site admin

Thanks Laura

Maria Niles — Tue, 09 May 2006 14:50:42 -0500

Thanks Laura for helping to keep this issue front and center.

I appreciate your blogging on this issue especially because you've highlighted things I hadn't read elsewhere like Bobby Rush's position. I fear that we've reached a point where there are just not enough politicians on any side of any aisle that are willing to prioritize constituent concerns ahead of corporate cash.

Even though I have not commented previously, I have taken action and written to all my representatives and signed petitions through both Move On and Consumer Reports. I am hopeful that people are speaking up - I just hope our collective voices can actually make a difference this time.

Because the phrase "net neutrality" doesn't blast off the screen

Laura Scott — Tue, 09 May 2006 13:49:09 -0500

Contributing Editor Laura Scott blogs at pingVision and rare pattern.

Given the incredibly profound impact the elimination of Net Neutrality will have on all of us who have websites of any kind -- including this BlogHer space -- I confess that I'm feeling a bit disheartened at the underwhelming response here and elsewhere in the blogosphere regarding Congressional plans to allow ISPs to gate off different websites from access. The few comments on Contributing Editor Morra Aarons' post, as well as my last post on this topic, seem to indicate that, even here, many people don't seem to realize that their favorite websites could end up being unreachable through their ISPs.

So how to get the word out? This Spartan Life has an interesting way to reach a new demographic: the first-person shooter fans (specifically, Halo gamers).

Check out the video.

On BoingBoing, Cory Doctorow says:

This Spartan Life is genius, a videoblog on a public shoot-em-up server where the host and guests are periodically interrupted by marauding players with plasma grenades.
This episode is really more of a public service announcement about Network Neutrality, a witty look at how a non-neutral network would be very bad for innovative publishers like This Spartan Life.

I know this is my second post here on the subject. My apologies, but the issue is not law ... yet. Morra already linked to Alyssa Milano's blog on the subject, but what Alyssa says bears repeating:

If we are silent and these companies win, say goodbye to small and start up businesses. If we don't stand up for Internet freedom, big business will pay for dominant placing, making it impossible for young entrepreneurs to compete. Corporations will have the ability to steer you to the services they are partial to. If your Internet provider is Comcast do you think they will allow quick access to iTunes if they have financial stakes in a different music service? These corporations will take away our right to choose. They will impede innovation, stifle consumer choices, and block information and content that you may need or just want. It's up to us to make our voices heard. Please take a moment and empower yourself on this issue by clicking on the links bellow. I implore you to sign the petition and contact your representatives. Together we can make a difference.

Sign the petition: http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/

Take action: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet

Learn more about how this affects you: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat

Some recent blogs on Net Neutrality:

Liz Strauss at Successful Blog (with links to other blogs)

Kellie at MySpace

WLFnet.com

Gal Tuesday at Drudge Retort

Instapundit links to Daniel Glover's nice overview of the subject.

and, of course,

Save the Internet, the coalition. (Check out Matt's latest blog post.)

Whatever your politics, if you believe in the web, then this is a political subject that concerns you.