Network Neutrality Debate: It's All Relative
from the what-are-we-comparing dept
It seems like the whole “network neutrality” debate is back for another round… and just like last time we’re seeing a lot of arguments that seem to be talking past one another, while filling in the cracks with dishonest points, rather than trying to figure out the core of why there’s disagreement and seeing if there’s some sort of middle ground. While I’ve been accused of supporting both the telcos and the big internet companies’ side of this debate, the truth is I support neither, and believe that there really are more than two sides. In fact, I think it’s really just a case where there’s not nearly enough competition in the marketplace. If there were, than no broadband provider would even dare to suggest a non-neutral network, or it would lose a lot of business pretty quickly. At the same time, I’m skeptical that any legislative approach to enforcing “neutrality” will work — and in the long run will most likely create a series of loopholes or a setup that will allow the dominant providers a way to game the system to their advantage.
Larry Lessig recently wrote an op ed piece for the Financial Times talking about the importance in broadband competition and how it’s been weakened in the US. Scott Cleland, who has been one of the loudest “think tankers” arguing against network neutrality, responded by challenging a bunch of facts in Lessig’s piece. Lessig then responded himself, pointing out that the Cleland’s attempt at refuting Lessig’s points did no such thing. You can read the whole debate yourself to see where you come out on it, but there are a few points that deserve to be highlighted. First, Cleland pulls out stats about broadband competition saying that price has been decreasing, even though that’s not really true. It’s mostly stayed steady, once you take out special promotional pricing and the cost of various “bundles” you’re forced to sign up for to get the cheaper pricing. Lessig also points out that on a dollars per bandwidth measurement, prices have gone up. In other words, it all depends on how you set your scale.
The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all.
Comments on “Network Neutrality Debate: It's All Relative”
class of service 7Mb is really 1.2Mb Price is not
One other point is that BB providers say one speed give another. I have Cox 7Mb but using standard tools DSLreports and Giganews (speed test) I only get 1.2-2.1 for download speed…I ran into a Cox rep and asked about this. He state
class of service 7Mb is really 1.2Mb Price is not
One other point is that BB providers say one speed give another. I have Cox 7Mb but using standard tools DSLreports and Giganews (speed test) I only get 1.2-2.1 for download speed…I ran into a Cox rep and asked about this. He stated that no one on residential network gets the published price. Quote “I can sell 10users 7Mb and aggregately only provide 10-15Mb total 10 user bandwidth use, instead of 70Mb that I sold.” Is the old bait and switch. To verify this I while at my computer called tech at cox and asked about the disparity of my speed. He carefully worded that the “UP to 7Mb never specifically discussing my speed. I insisted that he fix it. A few mouse clicks later by cox and I had 6.5Mb…Which changed back to 1.8Mb at midnight. ALL pipes no matter what vendor sells has a chock to limit bandwidth use. Business lines have QOS and users monitor speeds purchased. Residential on the other had are dealt different standards.
What's gonna happen?
My biggest question is this: When will it all strike? Is there going to be a big vote that determines everything? Or is it going to be a gradual process based on one bill that has yet to be passed? I think I understand the concept of net neutrality, but I don’t quite understand what it all hinges upon. 🙁
Re: What's gonna happen?
a few telco bills have come up and pro neutrality congresspeople have tried to get neutrality language added to them. ted “old intertubes” stevens has been instrumental in getting pro neutrality language removed from bills at the senate level. grassroots campaigning has helped to bring the issue into the public eye and exposed telco lobbying for what it is: legislation that is bought and paid for.
“old intertubes” is going to try to get something on the floor and passed in the “lame duck” session following the midterm elections. if you want to do something, write letters and make phone calls to your state’s members of congress.
it should be noted that until recently (with the large scale consolidations of telcos and media companies) the FCC always took pro neutrality action. net neutrality legislation would only make permanent and enforceable what the FCC had always done. by taking the practice away from the executive branch (who is free to change it’s mind with changing administrations) and making it a legislative one, the practice of treating all content fairly is much harder to stop.
the anti-net neutrality ads the telcos are running are saying that silicon valley tech companies (like google/youtube, ebay, vonage, and yahoo) are trying to get consumers to pay more for the services they are already paying for… which in the case of google and yahoo is nothing, and in the case of ebay, the cost is paid by the seller, not the buyer, and vonage and other VOIP services are much cheaper than their teco competitors. paying more for services with a neutral internet is a myth at best and a lie at worst.
the point in all of this is that there is little competition in the internet access market… most cities in the US have a choice between DSL and cable, if they have a choice at all. if there were more choices (muni-wifi, satellite, wimax, EVDO service from mobile companies) then we could change providers if we were unable to use the internet the way we want to and at a price that we like.
my question to the consutants and the think tankers is this: why not just charge everyone the same? you charge google and vonage by the gigabyte, why not charge residential customers the same way you charge service providers? then everyone is paying you to use your pipes the same way. with all that new-found revenue you can get into all sorts of other services.
or is it that the telcos and cablecos have been overcharging and overselling internet access for so long that if they charged by the gigabyte, you would make less than half of what they are making now?
So Cleland Was Lying
So basically what your saying here is that there really was no debate. Lessig was basing his argument on solid data while Cleland was flat out lying. Duplicity seems to be Cleland’s M-O of late. Ever since he started accepting AT&T money to flack for the phone companies, he has had no qualms stretching the truth to construct an argument against Net Neutrality. He’d be laughing all the way to the bank if it weren’t for sites like this and others who routinely lay bare Cleland’s deception.
Re: So Cleland Was Lying
No, I actually don’t believe Cleland was flat out lying. I’d like to believe that, somewhere, in the back of his head, he actually believes what he’s saying. The problem is that the two sides are discussing two different things.
I do get the feeling that Cleland is more interested in reinforcing his opinion, while Lessig is more interested in understanding what the real issues are, but that may just be based on their writing styles.
I don’t want to get into the specifics of what goes on in the back of Cleland’s head. But when someone places money in a person’s palm, it’s interesting to see the logical somersaults that person will perform to justify the position that he or she is being paid to defend.
Cleland will say and do anything to justify the phone company argument against Net Neutrality. This includes citing data that has been widely discredited and just plain making up conclusions based on data that suggests the opposite.
I appreciate that you are even-handed on this issue and respect your commentary, but to suggest that Lessig is somehow skewing the debate on par with Cleland does a disservice to the professor. Lessig is widely recognized for his career-long exploration of issues regarding equality and the Internet.
Cleland is a well-heeled Washington operator who is basically a gun for hire for special interests. There is a difference and it should be highlighted. In this case you cannot remove the context of the participants from the content of the debate.
Cleland is a consultant
Perhaps because I’m a think-tanker, I would point out that Scott Cleland is not one. The Precursor Group is “an independent research broker-dealer, which provides investment research to institutional investors,” according to Cleland’s 2001 Senate testimony. The Web site points to offerings in “Industry Reasearch | Consulting | Speaking.” I think he’s pretty transparent about his business model and clients, so people are free to judge, but I’d prefer not have a consultant characterized as a think-tanker.
Get your analogy straight, though...
The telcos don’t want to charge me extra for connecting to Google. They want to charge Google something extra for it. The analogy would be if my telco said that if I pay for unlimited local calls, I’m free to call my sister, but I can’t call Pizza Hut to order pizza, because Pizza Hut has a business model where they profit by people using the telco’s “pipes” to place orders, therefore Pizza Hut needs to strike a special high-priced deal with the telco.
Re: Get your analogy straight, though...
or the telcos sending guys in pinstripe suits and carrying violin cases to pizzahut and saying “those sure are nice packets, it would be a shame to have something bad happen to them… perhaps you could pay us to guarantee that nothing happens to them packets.”
re: when will it strike?
They’ll debate it, put it on the back shelf… then attach it as a back room rider to some must pass bill on defense spending.
Isn’t that how all controversial laws get passed?
They'll never give up
There’s so much money involved here that the telecomms companies will never give up. To get the potential billions down the road they’ll pump whatever millions into whatever lobbying firm, election campaign, or ‘fact finding’ trips necessary to get what they want. With Warshington clearly in the pockets of these co.’s (see recent history of mergers of the old Bell derivatives) there’s little hope, unless a wealthy (very wealthy) white knight with a bunch of dark fiber decides to create an alternative to Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, T/W, SBC, et al. Did someone say “Google” ?
Re: They'll never give up
Did someone say “Google” ?
My .02 on Lessig
For what it is worth, I added my .02 on Lessig’s FT piece on Cisco’s High Tech Policy blog…blogs.cisco.com/gov. I think his arguments are a bit hollow and his response to my thoughts were…well, you can read them and judge for yourself. He still has cool glasses. But, he’s wrong on the net neutrality issue.