The internet was the pinnacle of a series of benign regulatory choices, clear and present dangers of older models being avoided, and lack of incumbent awareness, and adaptation.
This era has ended, we are in the end game, and how America fights and sets an example here, <despite> all odds, will influence how this resource gets used for generations.
This is not a fight you can give up.
You may have to build your own last mile internet infrastructure. (See comments below about mesh networking)
I assume T-Mobile will join in on this zero-rating of data, based on their "all you can eat" promotion. You may not be able to use a cell phone in the US.
Boycotts do get the attention of the company, but it's going to take a long time and a lot of hard, hard work.
But it must be fought.
The fact that America fought for it under wheeler and the previous administration was at the very least an example to point out the hypocrisy of Facebook, and an example of the country which created the internet valuing net neutrality.
Maybe/perhaps Coders/computer scientists/computer engineers need a body to govern ethics, and that body needs to make the moral and clear call on net neutrality.
There are countries in Europe, the South Pacific, et. al. where carriers offer "free social" where they don't charge for Facebook and Twitter. Wikiepdia is offered for free by some African carriers; which allows them to also benefit from a lack of real network-neutrality.
When it comes to media and freedom vs industry, I think this video from the mid-2000s explains the situation best (in terms of network neutrality):
This is not something one needs to 'keep in mind' to conclude that commercial entities would end up controlling and administering it.
If I want to order a pizza online, it really shouldn't have to go through the ISP gatekeepers, travel along a Level 3 trunk, be inspected by the NSA, and then be routed back down to the pizza joint 3 blocks from my house.
There are some very difficult limits when you try to route traffic where everyone has the same bandwidth. This is why we have trunk lines and undersea fibre cables.
And getting substantial data (including transit) routed through a heap of wifi devices in a city isn't easy. To the next city - hard. Over the big pond - well...
But once have located a large ressource you need, and you start to transfer data, at say 10mbit/s, you use 10mbit/s for every node from source to destination. It doesn't scale with trafic.
I haven't followed the state of the art that close in a few years, so there might have been some improvements, but none that have made much fuss.
We know with newer algorithms like IPFS that complex datastreams can be broken down into 256kB chunks all each individually hashed. Not only that, but most data is shared traffic. Yourtube, Facebook, software, you name it. Most unique data people create is textural or small, not the 10MB/s canard.
Persistent is when you pin something, or add something (which pins it). It's stuck in block storage until you run a command to remove it.
Temporary is when you go to some IPFS site, and download stuff to your cache. This is the same thing as your browser cache. In IPFS, there's a garbage collector that circle around every time you hit 10GB (or whatever you set it to).
What that means, is some content that goes viral ends up being supported by everyone going to said content. I know I don't clean my browser cache every few minutes, or really ever. And if that means that my and others connections are sped up because of that, the better.
Since the vast majority of nodes are not able to keep global routing tables (both because they lack the storage, and also because they lack the bandwidth needed to keep such tables up to date) you have two choices: 1. A subset of nodes are "supernodes" which know how to get anywhere (aka. our current internet topology), or 2. Addresses carry enough semantic meaning to allow nodes to guess which way to forward them (e.g., "I don't know who this packet is going to, but it's somewhere in San Francisco").
That second option would require a complete renumbering of the Internet, and it's still not clear that it would work; purely geographic routing would result in packets from Plymouth to New York getting stuck at Land's End because they want to go West but the cables all land East of there.
Note: This problem doesn't exist with small mesh networks, because for small networks you can have every node maintain a copy of the entire routing table.
Have each node know it's position (lat/lon) and the position of it's nearest neighbors. When you send a packet, you send it to a lat/lon, and every node that sees your packet just tries to nudge it a little closer, until it gets there. Then to speed things up on the return trip we can ask each intermediate to add their position to a list on the packet.
Of course, moving nodes present a bit of a problem. Because they will keep attaching and detaching, there returning packets won't know where to reach them. I suppose if you knew your route through space you could send "scout" packets ahead of you, feel out the terrain, and prepend those positions to the list of your packets (so that they can find you when they return).
Dealing with changes to the (static) topology and also rogue nodes (ones that misbehave, drop packets, lying about their position, etc) are interesting problems. I think they can be solved.
The addresses must have meaning and hosts must self organise into a subnet based on connectivity, which feels like a np-hard problem... That does not imply that there is no reasonably well working approximation that works more or less as good except for edge cases. (Literally, ha...)
Addresses are simply bitstrings of some length.
If my address is a=a1a2...an, I need to store the first segment of the shortest path to each r_1=a'1a2...an, r_2=a1a'2...an all the way up to r_n=a1a2...a'2, where a'k != ak (i.e. all the addresses with a hamming distance of exactly 1 from me). I then simply route a message with an address b=b1b2...bn to r_i where i is the first non-zero bit of a xor b.
The problem, as with most P2P-networks, is that its not resistant to high network churn.
It is important to first apply basic computer science theories before trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.
That seems like a feature :) Why do I want my messages to be available for analysis?
So I think you already have a lot of options for that.
Marketing needs shouldn't hamper technical progress.
Mesh networking is a collection of multiple technologies in its ideal form.
Are you active in the Mesh Networking space? If so, what's the latest? Anyone else out there is welcome to ring in as well.
I can't believe there's an entire /8 block dedicated to this. That's like owning a square mile of land in downtown San Francisco.
The radio spectrum is scarce - and while there's a lot to criticise about how governments "hand out" chunks of that spectrum to telcos, commercial radio networks, tv networks, et al - there's clearly a public-interest-need to be able to slap down _hard_ people like this:
Why they would do this is many fold and if you'd like to hear why the government might want to do this I'd need to write in longer form them a comment.
Also, for what it's worth, transmitting on CB (Citizens' Band) radio doesn't require a license, but I think it's restricted to very low-power bands.
All of it is low bandwidth, but how much bandwidth do you really need for "large pepperoni and 2 liter pepsi"? Same goes for all these 140 char messages flying around.
In a world where mesh networking is a reality, when a franchisee buys into a chain business it will come with local networking hardware, part-and-parcel with the branded window-signs and soul-destroying uniforms.
In my personal little dream-future, anyway :-)
(You tell em "$5/month isn't an appropriate webhosting plan for your online ordering!" and they say "Yeah, I can get it for $12/year with GoDaddy!")
British providers have happily performed deep packet inspection in order to "prioritize" traffic with little to no resistance from the public. Britain just doesn't share this principle.
The shittiest providers in the UK are usually the vertically integrated players (Sky, Virgin, BT) that optimise their business around selling bundles to consumers (TV, mobile, net and movie subs).
Fortunately, thanks to local loop unbundling providing a relatively level playing field, there are lots of "net only" providers that focus on delivering a technically strong, unadulterated connection to the internet for consumers that value that.
Bonus: VOIP is also really easy in the UK. When I lived there, I ported my landline number to http://www.voiptalk.org (which I still maintain now), had a 4G unlocked SIM from Virgin with virtually unlimited data and an 18MBit ADSL connection from Andrews & Arnold. All monthly contracts, no tie in. Total cost was ~£50/month iirc. Worked beautifully and felt very "free" (as in freedom) to me.
It seems to me to have done reasonably well at encouraging suppliers to compete on price, and on customer service quality (provided you don't take the ISP's word for it).
It hasn't been great at hastening the widespread availability of > 20Mbit broadband, and that is probably in part because of a particular technological and financial internet access model becoming somewhat entrenched, due to the very same regulation.
I tend to be of the opinion that net neutrality is a useful tactic where a functioning competitive market doesn't exist, and is beyond hope of being made to exist. Outside of that, I'm much less certain of how valuable it is.
(I'm not going to address the whole UK internet censorship and data logging thing, because it's orthogonal to the structure of the market. And also because it's really fucking depressing.)
Re: UK internet censorship and data logging - agree not connected to this debate (and, yes, it's fucking depressing).
Real anonymity is hard, and takes a level of paranoia not many can sustain without suffering mental health issues.
The situation is a bit like drug addiction. Obviously it's better for a person's health to not shoot heroin. But an addict will always find the immediate benefit of one more hit more compelling than the vague, long-term benefits of getting clean.
Telcos understand this dynamic, and they're trying to play up the short-term pleasure - by offering so-called "free data" - in order to distract people from the long-term harm and drum up support for suppressing net neutrality.
We've always had data-caps that would sound insane to those of you in the Americas or Europe, and we've always dealt with them by not having net neutrality.
As an example, I remember the first time coaxial cable Internet started becoming something that was really purchasable by a large number of residential users. The speed was 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up. The data limit for the month was 10GB. Extra data was available at the low low rate of 14c/MB (or $140/GB, for those who don't want to do the math). The provider, though, maintained a large private mirror of downloads that were "free" -- they didn't count towards your monthly cap. They mirrored things like patches for games, linux ISOs, and they had a fairly large shareware repository.
I couldn't get cable Internet at home -- they never ran the cable down my street -- so I was stuck on 28k dial-up. I would have killed for cable, data restrictions or not.
But that was back then. What about now?
Now? We have companies that deliver data over LTE who do similar-but-different things. I have a cellular plan with Optus (AKA Singtel), which is $80 a month. For that, I get 20GB worth of downloads, but I also get absolutely unlimited streaming of Netflix, and unlimited streaming from most of the popular music services (Spotify, Google Play, I Heart Radio, Apple Music, and maybe others I can't remember). I stream tens of gigabytes of video and audio every month, and I can do this because of the lack of net neutrality here. Some other provides on pre-paid services which typically have tiny data caps will provide "unlimited social media access" -- because that's how they draw in teens, what I assume is the most valuable market segment for pre-paid.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that when a service becomes big enough that it's marketable to with free data, then one of the providers will pick up on it as a value-add. Something they can do that improves their service so they can grab more market share.
Some of you are probably going to argue that this is a symptom of a broken market, and I'm not sure that's the case. Networking in Australia is hard. We have 1/10th the population of the US in a country about the same physical size.
It's possible I'm really very wrong about how this all works. Maybe I'm naive and it's all really terrible and I should be upset. It's just hard to see from here how perfect net neutrality is an issue.
The way I see things is that having an Internet service that is in high demand is simply incentive for ISPs to peer with you.
Netflix reportedly said (link below) that it regretted offering 'unmetered data' to Australian ISPs, because they feared it would have a chilling effect on the availability of other streaming services.
Their fears were unfounded: Stan & Presto are both available unmetered on certain ISPs. (Quickflix went out of business, but not because of ISP deals, but because they couldn't compete in library size and other major ways -- I suspect there's simply not room for three Australia-based streaming services to license enough content to keep themselves afloat.)
Stan seems to be a good competitor, but that's only comparing it to the Australian Netflix library. I'm of the opinion that all competition has done is split the market, as they fight over the same set of exclusives.
I'll often browse US Netflix rather than switch between Aus Netflix and Stan to find a movie I've seen previously. US Netflix seems to have 90% of the missing content Stan offers over Aus Netflix.
Home-broadband wise, here's a link to Telstra (Australia's largest telecomms company by a large margin) and their policies around free content on their residential "BigPond" ISP: https://www.telstra.com.au/support/category/broadband/manage...
And a link to services available for 'free' on Internode (now owned by TPG, which is I think at this point Australia's second largest ISP) http://www.internode.on.net/residential/entertainment/unmete...
TPG themselves do free Netflix, although I'm not sure what else is unmetered.
That's nightmarish to me. 6 corporations owning 90%+ of media outlets in the US is already bordering corporatist dystopia.
If you don't happen to watch much Netflix, but another carrier offers a deal on something you do use? Switch! Or maybe you don't need the value-add services and just want an overall cheaper plan? You can do that, too! Porting to a different ISP or cellular carrier is a legally enforced right here. 99% of the population of Australia is able to switch at will to a number of different providers, and there's nothing like the regional monopolies that companies like TWC or Comcast have in the US.
There's huge, fundamental gaps in the way different continents provide Internet access. Maybe if there were no competition of ISPs at a local level in Australia, net neutrality would be a huge problem here. It isn't a problem here, though. I don't think it's something that the average Australian in the street has thought much about, and if you explained it to them they probably wouldn't understand what the big deal is. Despite the fact that we don't have net neutrality, the sky isn't falling, and Australian access to the Internet is basically as free-as-in-freedom as it is in the US.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and the idea that ISPs must only ever be dumb pipes is one way to solve the problem of competition in the Internet provider space, but it's certainly not the only one.
Name just one (in Australia) that isn't owned by Murdoch or Fairfax :P
> that anything that's anticonsumer will get punished by the market
many large telcos are going the way of mobile networks, by tying you in with complex, one-sided contracts, salesmen-sold "bundles" etc.
How many inexpensive, short-term mobile contracts can you get? If internet contracts aren't there now, they will be soon.
I'm not atypical. It's easy to switch in the UK, easy to port your number, and people have little carrier loyalty. Switching home broadband is more of a pain, but switching cell carriers (or, rather, "mobile providers") takes a phone call and a day of questionable connectivity and that's it.
For home internet, if you have a choice, it's usually between only two companies with different technology, and often significantly different bandwidth options, there's not much room to compare on price, and very little room to compare on routing or terms of service.
I think people are missing the point of the posted article, or maybe I am. As I understand it, the complaint is that giving free data for the incumbent tech giants' products gives them a distinct advantage in the marketplace over small / startup offerings which do not have deals for free data. This advantage means the "level playing field" of the internet frontier is dead.
Turns out, you get what you vote for.
You want a US version of events? Slipping CISA in its entirety into an Omnibus Bill in late 2015 after it was initially rejected as part of the National Defense Authorisation Act.
The outcry worked when Wheeler was chairman of the FCC -- he cared/listened. The current chair takes calls from big telecoms, not from you.
Watch some of the older videos with the last chairman, the new guy was always the one arguing on the side of short sighted business interests. The guy disgusted me when he was just a board member, now he's running the shop.
Maybe Google can reconsider their decision to deproritize Google Fiber.
Edit: how exactly would this have a negative impact on SnapChat?
Double edit: I think net neutrality is a good thing, and worth finding clear arguments to fight for.
Triple edit: Reasons I believe the net should be neutral...
1. Consumers should be able to use any internet service they choose.
2. Consumers should pay the same for data usage regardless of what the service is.
3. Businesses should be able to provide their service for the same data usage cost as any other business.
Luckily, most of the largest technology companies are incentivized in one way or another to keep net-neutrality as it is. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon literally sell cloud computing services to tons of companies large and small who could be negatively impacted. Apple wants new apps made in the App Store and would prefer these new apps hurt Facebook, Google, and Amazon in some way if possible. Facebook relies on third-party mobile applications and websites for collecting tons of data to feed back into their ad system. Google prefers an open web to index and serve search ads against.
I don't think the lines are as clear as Fred has drawn here. There are plausible reasons for major technology companies to come out in support of net neutrality that are in their own self-interest, not just good-will.
With net neutrality, they are essentially forced into a very low margin business of selling data pipes, where it's all very comoditized, and it's difficult to 'add value'.
Without net neutrality, they can pick and bundle services over the top and give them prioritised traffic on their network, so watching Comcast Video is prioritized, but watching Netflix buffers every 4 seconds. Offer subscribers a short term discount to try Comcast Video, and then watch as the money rolls in when everyone dumps Netflix and moves over to Comcast Video.
This helps Facebook in the battle against Snapchat, but hurts Facebook in that they have to pay an extra fee. A similar argument could be made with other tech companies and their rivals.
Is this a correct interpretation?
It also has knock-on effects in the allocation of financial gains of successful startups. The more money required to launch/scale a company, the more likely it is that investors (capital) get a larger share of the profits than founders or employees (labor). That's not necessarily a direct reason to oppose/favor net neutrality, but is worth considering alongside all the other data points.
Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying that there are plausible reasons for major technology companies to support net neutrality because of their self interest?
(I found your statement a bit hard to parse.)
I meant these tech companies have reasons to support net neutrality besides good will.
They don't even need to truly block traffic, just refuse to upgrade peering links at POPs and let continued growth of traffic do the work for them, which is basically what they did to Netflix.
If we unbundled the last mile and had true competition none of this would be a problem; people would just switch ISPs. Unfortunately we don't have competition. Don't tell Ajit Pai though; he thinks competition is "robust" because you can choose from metered wireless plans on already crowded spectrum. From the point of view of his paymasters that's true: Verizon would be happy to have you switch from Comcast so you can buy data by the GB on their wireless network. It is vastly more profitable for them! They inherited their core spectrum for a song and don't have to lay fiber to millions of homes. The capital costs are vastly lower than wired broadband and the scarcity jacks the prices.
If Republicans still gave half a shit about a free market economy they'd follow the Texas electricity plan: A heavily regulated company that owns the last-mile lines. It charges cost plus a margin for future capital upgrades. Terminate at the closest NOC/POP and dump the traffic on the ISP's network. You could go even further and just task the infrastructure company with providing unlit fiber from every home and business; let the ISPs compete in providing the ONT/CPE so you can get innovation there.
People forget: the federal government spent a ton of money to get electricity everywhere. Much of the power infrastructure wasn't funded by private companies. Even the trans-continental railroads (so lauded in Atlas Shrugged) weren't built by private enterprise. The federal government back-stopped the whole thing with money and soldiers.
The client-server model of the WWW seems to tilt in favor of consolidation. What about something more akin to database replication for sharing information? Data moving around asynchronously, viewed at the users leisure, and synchronous actions are only needed sometimes (e.g. for buying things). Right now, a lot of synchronous things happen, requiring users' action and attention for little reason (but encouraged by the client/server model because you need to make a request).
It would certainly change things. "Engagement" might be harder to measure and monetize, so it might force us toward something more like micropayments. But micropayments might be more possible in such an environment as well. With little money on the line, it's easy to update a database record and move the real money around later (if that's even required -- you could imagine digital IOU records acting like currency).
And more importantly, I think it would reduce the need of companies like facebook and other consolidating forces (though perhaps not google search).
Occasionally technology produces moments where dynamic conditions allow for people to leverage large amounts of energy if they get lucky. But all those people participating on a "level playing field?" they are "cheating" as hard as they can at every step.
The perception that things were ever even is just that. A perception. Our ecosystem is not "even". Nature doesn't "know" what "fair" is.
The idea being presented—which I agree with—is that the nature of the Internet up until relatively recently was that any organisation could participate with equal access to any other – regardless of their size. That was a good thing, and is a really excellent tool for democratisation of a resource, because it removes essentially all barriers to entry. Any company could, for example, offer streaming audio or video services, and Internet users were free to purchase those which they think are worthwhile.
This changes when the Internet stops being a public communications network in principle.
My point is that the principle of an open Internet is a fallacy of narration, trying to fit a story to the situation for the purposes of journalism.
Basically, there's new people at FCC, where will we see the effect of new policy first and when?
Is my Verizon bill going to double? Is my phone going to give me mild but painful electric shocks if I don't click on any fucking Google AMP links? Fred, what is going to happen?
wont be long at all before these monopolies start double dipping i.e. charging customers for netflix traffic (either via having it count towards a cap while hulu doesnt or some other method) while still charging netflix.
there's no business incentive for this not to happen because 90% of people have no choice, and when verizon and comcast both do it almost no one will have a choice
Otherwise individual creators or those who can not pay for preferential treatment are at a disadvantage to those who can, with the spoils going to the most predatory actors.
It's heavily biased toward current protocols and their current uses, and is just as unfriendly to potentially groundbreaking tech as an "unfair" QoS.
While the alarmists predict that all google.com requests would be redirected to bing, I think the reality is likely to be far more like T-Mobile's recent controversial approach.
Some factual points to keep in mind:
- There is a big difference between peak and average bandwidth, and it's very specific to the protocol what defines acceptable performance. This applies to every upstream provider, not just ISPs.
- Bandwidth providers (ISPs, ISP's ISPs, etc.) are often in the business of speculating on demand. Simply put, this means that they preorder bandwidth that they expect to be adequate for the peak and average bandwidth demanded by their downstream nodes.
- The characteristics of bandwidth demand are a function of the protocols in use and random variation. QoS is used to create a graceful fallback when there is not quite enough bandwidth to route all traffic instantly. Optimal QoS settings are a function of the protocols being used by downstream nodes. It is not guaranteed that every network congestion situation can be mitigated by QoS without a desegregation in service to someone downstream. This applies to ISPs as well as upstream providers.
- So aside from the google => bing scenario everyone pretends is worrisome, in reality what would happen is that removing net neutrality would allow for bandwidth speculators (ISPs and everyone upstream) to make smarter longer-term deals which required less extra bandwidth. This is analogous to an improved financial instrument to make longer-term thinking (and longer-term deals) possible, with less uncertainty about demand, etc. For example, a startup could offer a 4K streaming service by negotiating a deal with ISPs to ensure high quality. See the next point for an example of why this matters.
- Services with heavy demand such as youtube are not vulnerable to QoS (except for the google=>bing dystopia). Why7? Because there is extremely predictable demand. If you are an ISP and your upstream provider offers you discounted bandwidth for youtube only traffic, you can safely make that decision for the medium/long term because you know youtube is infrastructure and your customers are going to use it. This predictability creates the incentive for firms to add fiber links and capacity between youtube and ISPs so that customers get high quality video without slowdowns at peak times. Note that Youtube encouraged this competition between ISPs by having an ISP ratings page a few years back.
- For services like Tor or BitTorrent, there may be increased fees for residential circuits that require those services, because they will opportunistically use up any available bandwidth. This doesn't really fit the residential pricing model that is arbitraged by ISPs, and is more akin to a business level circuit. If the protocols become more widespread then that will change, and it will be included in the profile of residential data.
In conclusion, net neutrality limits the ability of firms to offer long term deals. It's why we don't see things like $4.99/month youtube only data plans or $1.99/month email only plans. Sure you may think that all users should subsidize those running tor or bt nodes, but that's really more of an extreme position.
Also, it would probably be better for privacy if protocols like Tor and BT started to be more indistinguishable from regular residential traffic.
It's a good thing that we don't see $4.95/month Youtube-only plans. They would basically kill the internet.
I've never heard anyone say they're worried about google.com requests being redirected to bing. The problem isn't that an inferior service would pay to kill a superior and already-popular existing service. It's that a non-neutral internet would kill innovation and hurt small businesses and entrepreneurs. $4.95/month Youtube-only plans would make it all but impossible for anyone to ever create a competitor for Youtube. It's very hard as it is today, but not impossible - e.g. Musically, Vine for a while, even Snapchat to some extent. Open accessibility has been a critical component of what has enabled all the innovation on the internet.
Maybe it's appropriate to allow less-than-perfectly-neutral data transfer in some situations. You make a fair point about things like Tor and BitTorrent. But promoting highly targeted incumbent-only plans to consumers would be bad for everyone overall.
No, it doesn't. The Open Internet Order doesn't dictate any particular "QoS setting".
> While the alarmists predict that all google.com requests would be redirected to bing
No, they don't, they predict that prioritization of ISP-preferred (either first-party or because of payment to the ISP, often for exclusive preference in a category) will result in degradation of service to competing services and squeeze out competition, particularly for services like internet telephony and video streaming, where ISPs are often first-party providers.
No one, or nearly so, has predicted redirection of the type you describe; that's a strawman.
Currently the payment to ISP is conveniently handled by the CDN industry. They pay the ISP for the privilege to place a server rack or two in the ISP's data centers, and then charge customers for speedier delivery of their content to the subscribers of that particular ISP.
So what is the change that's being protested here?
These regulations are a solution to a non-problem, and as is often the case with regulations, they appear to be just as likely to cause harm as to help.
It would probably prohibit the latter (or any other instance of capping any particular use outside), but provider- and content-neutral (content in terms of message, not protocol) prioritization would probably in some cases be acceptable under the exception for reasonable network management.
> These regulations are a solution to a non-problem
The anti-competitive behavior by ISPs that they exist to solve had several precedents encountered by FCC case-by-case both before and after they started drafting general rules.
Thanks for this. I completely disagree with your conclusions, but this discussion is one of many public policy discussions where it's not a clear-cut thing. Having good arguments on both sides is the only way voters can stay educated and able to deal with proposed changes.
I'm not going to go into a rebuttal in-depth. In general I feel there are many areas where regulation is not needed -- but market/product definition is. It's far too easy for companies to create such a complex market that buyers don't know exactly what they're purchasing -- and don't have time to research all of it. Insurance is like this. We don't need ISPs heading down this same route. It's not in the interests of a free and open market.
Good stuff, though. Thanks.
I'd be curious what unwanted scenarios you view as the most likely to occur in the absence of net neutrality.
In thinking about it a bit more, it would seem that unless VPN access were banned, users could work around nearly any port/protocol oriented non-neutrality simply by using a VPN.
But this also creates problems, because an ISP that prioritized all VPN traffic equal to known low-latency traffic would need much more bandwidth headroom to prevent degradation of service.
I think net neutrality is a very interesting issue, and argue against it largely to play devil's advocate, but also because this is a case where many of us have concrete experience and detailed knowledge of the thing being regulated, and so it is fun to attempt to argue against it based on technical points.
It would seem that if we're truly interested in a neutral internet we would also require upstream providers to purchase some percentage of extra "headroom" bandwidth, just as we require banks and insurance companies to hold reserve/underwriting capital.
by offering bound services the carriers are only going to increase users appetite for more and they will have to open the gates as the carriers will not have access to exclusive content that requires a data connection. those that offer unfettered access will win subscribers to their cell service and those that do not will adapt or just take what they can get.
would I like to see a bit of pressure from the FCC, sure but I would like to see the market work. the carriers for the most part cannot deliver bandwidth reliably but this will push them to get better
He goes from "Companies can pay for competitive advantage" and cites a S1 which is not backed by evidence, and jumps to the conclusion that the free net is over.
Somebody had some column inches left to fill or a click quota left unfulfilled.
That's some pretty extreme hyperbole.
> He goes from "Companies can pay for competitive advantage" and cites a S1 which is not backed by evidence, and jumps to the conclusion that the free net is over.
The IPO story was merely illustrative. He's basing his argument on what he sees happening in the market today and the changing regulatory climate.
> Somebody had some column inches left to fill or a click quota left unfulfilled.
He's not a journalist. He's a (very successful) VC and that is his blog.