Arguments against Net Neutrality?

[nslay]

Can someone explain to me the arguments against net neutrality?

I haven't heard a single argument from opponents that makes any sense! The people who oppose net neutrality seem to be technically illiterate.  When opposing politicians and biased news anchors talk, I hear technical terms incoherently strung together with no basis or meaning!

One good argument I heard against FCC passing net neutrality rules was that FCC doesn't/shouldn't have that kind of power and that net neutrality should be passed into law by the legislative branch of the government.  However, this isn't directly related to net neutrality itself.

What I find so incredibly odd is that a lot of free market advocates oppose net neutrality. Is it me, or are they contradicting themselves?  Allowing network operators to discriminate communication could potentially hinder competition in a variety of ways.  Isn't that bad if you're a free market advocate?  Talk about duh!

As for net neutrality advocates ... I almost feel like they're just as stupid!  Look at the SaveTheInternet website.  Play the flash video: Real vs Fake Net Neutrality.  I'm not sure what to take away from that presentation ... I'm not even sure what the purported fake net neutrality rules are or what makes them fake!

Look at this letter-to-congressman template:

Dear Member of Congress [cc: FCC]
Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

More than 1.9 million Americans have expressed support for Net Neutrality at Congress and the FCC. They want control over the Internet to remain in the hands of the people who use it every day.

Please stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all.

(URL: http://act2.freepress.net/letter/two_million/)

Two million people have mailed TOILET PAPER to their representatives.  This isn't a good, well thought out reason to support net neutrality!  Where's the compelling argument for healthy competition? The government doesn't give a fuck about the innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet (What ever that means!).

I am very afraid for the Internet!  We have complete morons arguing on both sides!  It's like two headless chickens duking it out!

[deadly7]

I am very afraid for the Internet!  We have complete morons arguing on both sides!  It's like two headless chickens duking it out!

How is this different from any other industry in the world?

[MyndFyre]

I'm actually gearing up to post a blog article about it (and will link it here later when I do), but basically it boils down to this: businesses have an inherent self-interest to be as net-neutral as financially possible, and so it's more free (free as in freedom, not beer) to allow businesses and their consumers to determine the neutrality level of the offered service than to ask the government to come in and regulate it, because when the government regulates things, it is at gunpoint.  When a business and a consumer negotiate, the consumer has the greater power; but it takes effort to assert that power, and the problem is that most consumers would rather just roll over and let the government strike a mediocre deal than assert their own power.

[deadly7]

When a business and a consumer negotiate, the consumer has the greater power; but it takes effort to assert that power, and the problem is that most consumers would rather just roll over and let the government strike a mediocre deal than assert their own power.

If you aren't a major stockholder, the business could give less of a shit what you as a consumer think. Don't fool yourself. I could call Comcast tomorrow and berrate the highest-level manager to whom I spoke about this Comcast-Universal merger. The resulting action from Comcast? "Lolz kthxbai".

[MyndFyre]

When a business and a consumer negotiate, the consumer has the greater power; but it takes effort to assert that power, and the problem is that most consumers would rather just roll over and let the government strike a mediocre deal than assert their own power.

If you aren't a major stockholder, the business could give less of a shit what you as a consumer think. Don't fool yourself. I could call Comcast tomorrow and berrate the highest-level manager to whom I spoke about this Comcast-Universal merger. The resulting action from Comcast? "Lolz kthxbai".

Note what I said: it takes effort to assert that power.  If all of Comcast's customers said "We're not happy that you blocked ESPN3.com because your owner and their owner had a sordid affair that ended badly, and therefore we're going to go to an alternative service" then guess what - Comcast would quickly unblock ESPN3.com.

Consumer unions could hold FAR more power than employee unions because consumers PAY for services.  But - like I said - it takes effort to assert that power.

[nslay]

I'm actually gearing up to post a blog article about it (and will link it here later when I do), but basically it boils down to this: businesses have an inherent self-interest to be as net-neutral as financially possible, and so it's more free (free as in freedom, not beer) to allow businesses and their consumers to determine the neutrality level of the offered service than to ask the government to come in and regulate it, because when the government regulates things, it is at gunpoint.  When a business and a consumer negotiate, the consumer has the greater power; but it takes effort to assert that power, and the problem is that most consumers would rather just roll over and let the government strike a mediocre deal than assert their own power.

The problem is that a majority of users are too technologically illiterate to realize that there is a problem.  For example, degraded service (versus prioritized service) will look normal to them.  Remember, we're talking major DUH factor here.

The Internet is a platform of goods and services exchange.  Many ISPs provide other services such as VoIP and Streaming Movies/TV.  It's not hard to believe that ISPs would prioritize their services (or block competitors) over other services (it's happened with VoIP).  This is not fair competition.  There has also been talk of ISPs selling prioritization services. Let's suppose, for example, Walmart buys prioritization services from Comcast. Then Comcast customers may be less likely to visit competitor sites in favor of a more responsive Walmart site.  This is also not fair competition.  Prioritization brings money to the ISPs but essentially degrades small time websites, businesses and organizations who might not afford prioritization.

Some would argue that you could switch your ISP service in protest. The problem is that most areas have little to no competitor services and some residential complexes have special deals with ISPs that prohibit a different service over the same medium.  Though this wouldn't prohibit you from using a different medium.

I have yet to see any argument from net neutrality opponents that address these points.  In fact, all I've seen is an aversion to big government (FUD tactics).  For example: Do you really want Big Government regulating the Internet?  If you can't win the argument, scare them all.

[deadly7]

Note what I said: it takes effort to assert that power.  If all of Comcast's customers said "We're not happy that you blocked ESPN3.com because your owner and their owner had a sordid affair that ended badly, and therefore we're going to go to an alternative service" then guess what - Comcast would quickly unblock ESPN3.com.

Consumer unions could hold FAR more power than employee unions because consumers PAY for services.  But - like I said - it takes effort to assert that power.

This is the fundamental issue with "free market" theory. Ideally yes, every consumer could go up in arms. This would mean every consumer is:
1. Up-to-date with the ongoings of every company of every company with which they interact.
2. Knowledgeable about the implications of a company's actions within its industry.

Given that it is impossible for an economy the size of the US to satisfy both of those conditions, how else would you approach the issue? Every naysayer I've heard has said that "company self-regulation" is the magical answer. If the companies weren't granted monopolies in regions with limited cable capacity then I accept competition could be an answer to this problem.

[nslay]

Note what I said: it takes effort to assert that power.  If all of Comcast's customers said "We're not happy that you blocked ESPN3.com because your owner and their owner had a sordid affair that ended badly, and therefore we're going to go to an alternative service" then guess what - Comcast would quickly unblock ESPN3.com.

Consumer unions could hold FAR more power than employee unions because consumers PAY for services.  But - like I said - it takes effort to assert that power.

This is the fundamental issue with "free market" theory. Ideally yes, every consumer could go up in arms. This would mean every consumer is:
1. Up-to-date with the ongoings of every company of every company with which they interact.
2. Knowledgeable about the implications of a company's actions within its industry.

Given that it is impossible for an economy the size of the US to satisfy both of those conditions, how else would you approach the issue? Every naysayer I've heard has said that "company self-regulation" is the magical answer. If the companies weren't granted monopolies in regions with limited cable capacity then I accept competition could be an answer to this problem.

And in this case:
3. Knowledgeable about normal technical behavior.

Comcast recently pulled a stunt where they sent RST packets to BitTorrent clients to clobber file sharing.  Do you think the average user could guess that Comcast was the culprit?  The average Joe would just shrug and sigh rather than furiously search for a new service.

[MyndFyre]

So, I was replying, but I was using Mac, and I was switching to another program but accidentally hit Cmd+Q on the way to Cmd+Tab, so of course my browser quit. So I decided not to revisit it but to finish my blog post:

http://robpaveza.net/net-neutrality-are-you-sure-its-what-you-want

Have at, thee!  (If you want me to reproduce the text here, okay, but... meh.)

[nslay]

So, I was replying, but I was using Mac, and I was switching to another program but accidentally hit Cmd+Q on the way to Cmd+Tab, so of course my browser quit. So I decided not to revisit it but to finish my blog post:

http://robpaveza.net/net-neutrality-are-you-sure-its-what-you-want

Have at, thee!  (If you want me to reproduce the text here, okay, but... meh.)

With regard to your bolded text in the Today section, what about this?

Based on the slide, suppose Verizon say, marked up Facebook at 20 cents per MB and Myspace at 10 cents per MB? Is that fair competition?

I'll read your blog in its entirety as soon as I've finished dinner.

[nslay]

Here is another very real problem. Given that Comcast allots its customers 250GB monthly, I find it hard to believe that it really needs to toll Netflix.  To surpass the 250GB quota, a user must download 2 DVD movies daily. However, streaming video is highly compressed and so I doubt that Netflix incurs this kind of bandwidth usage.

Given Comcast's recent behavior and proposed behavior by wireless carriers, I fear the Internet may splinter in the near future.