Net neutrality

[Eliaures]

This is a topic I would think all of us would be sensitive about. I can see if the telecoms and service providers have their way, sites like this would be priced out of existence or access would be so slow that it would be an exercise in frustration. A tiered system of access to the Internet only benefits large commercial sites and the folks that would profit from restricting the pipeline..."the Internet is a series of tubes" (Ted Stevens, R, Alaska)

If you value the Internet as it is, even as messy as it can be, go sign this online petition.

Net Neutrality Comments (http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php)

Facebook Version (http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum786)

I apologize if I've overstepped the bounds site etiquette, but I think this is important to all folks that use the Internet as we do.

[txa1265]

I don't know how effective those petitions are (generally they are useless) ... but calling your state / local reps is always a good idea. Let them know that it is important to you. When they were actually debating it a while back I did my rounds.

[Eliaures]

I don't know how effective those petitions are (generally they are useless) ... but calling your state / local reps is always a good idea. Let them know that it is important to you. When they were actually debating it a while back I did my rounds.

True, but it's a start. I had heard at one time though that emails to your representatives was useless too at one time, but that's supposedly changed. Maybe they'll pay attention to these at some point. I'll make my calls too.

[Lucky Day]

From a personal standpoint Net Neutrality would be ideal but the kind of government regulation this would need would be stifling to the industry. If they can't make profits and costs start to run high then the ISPs would have no interest in making competitive products.

I've seen quality go up and prices come down in the last 15 years not the other way around. MP3's are the killer app that sold Broadband. The general home user is the biggest market for and if a company decides to have mixed quality service then a competitor could easily come along and take their customers by not offering that.

The net neutrality concept just wouldn't work. Markets are much more effective for industry and the consumer when they are free.

[Prime Junta]

From a personal standpoint Net Neutrality would be ideal but the kind of government regulation this would need would be stifling to the industry. If they can't make profits and costs start to run high then the ISPs would have no interest in making competitive products.

I've seen quality go up and prices come down in the last 15 years not the other way around. MP3's are the killer app that sold Broadband. The general home user is the biggest market for and if a company decides to have mixed quality service then a competitor could easily come along and take their customers by not offering that.

The net neutrality concept just wouldn't work. Markets are much more effective for industry and the consumer when they are free.

There's just one problem with your reasoning: in most places in the world, especially the US today, the Internet is a "natural monopoly." You basically have a choice between your phone company and your cable TV company. This is not an environment where the market can operate efficiently.

[Squeek]

Anyone who's familiar with what's happened with carriers here in the US over the past 40 years understands why they shouldn't be trusted to behave like normal businesses. There's too much to consider, really -- regulation, deregulation, reregulation, innovation, incredible opportunity matched with equally incredible arrogance and stupidity. Today a "Baby Bell" is the new "Ma Bell."

The average Joe has no chance of ever coming up to speed on all of this. The news gets it wrong; the paper gets it wrong, even the individuals who sell ISP services often get it wrong. What chance do politicians have of understanding this technology and this industry well enough to regulate it?

There is no solution I can see.

[Prime Junta]

In this case there is a solution -- net neutrality is a very simple concept both to understand and to enforce. "We hold this truth to be self-evident: that all packets are created equal."

[Lucky Day]

There's just one problem with your reasoning: in most places in the world, especially the US today, the Internet is a "natural monopoly." You basically have a choice between your phone company and your cable TV company. This is not an environment where the market can operate efficiently.

At least in the US there are also options for wireless internet, satellite and even your home powerlines will be able to deliver broadband. If Broadband fails, dialup ISPs still exist. My own campus is both wireless and cabled.

Also in the US phone companies are required by law to give "last mile service" so matter what "Baby Bell" is providing service for their competitors are giving free access.

So there are options and there are new alternatives being made available.

How is Net Neutrality supposed to be enforced? Do governments need to step in and take over the industry? How does it get regulated? It would certainly become politicized. Net Neutrality is by no means simple.

I understand some countries have near monopolies or crown corporations to run these industries and unfortunately that can neither be helped nor stopped in some cases. However, even they have to stay competitive on the global stage or risk falling backwards.

Its an ideal concept but trying regulate Net Neutrality would take a lot of work government doesn't and shouldn't be involved in.

The chaos of market sorts these things out much better. Its been proven time and again.

[Prime Junta]

The chaos of market sorts these things out much better. Its been proven time and again.

Then how come Europe, which is regulated, has cheaper and better broadband than the US, which isn't?

[Squeek]

Then how come Europe, which is regulated, has cheaper and better broadband than the US, which isn't?It does? Can you provide examples? There's all kinds of regulation here, by the way (as I mentioned earlier, it's a story that's unfolded over almost forty years). The rules for it are about as complex as the tax code.

[Squeek]

Here's what I get for $35/month (I just ran this test a minute ago):

Speedtest (http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3820/speedtestly5.jpg)

EDIT: I upped it from $30 to $35 after double checking.

[Prime Junta]

It does? Can you provide examples? There's all kinds of regulation here, by the way (as I mentioned earlier, it's a story that's unfolded over almost forty years). The rules for it are about as complex as the tax code.

Here's a recent article on the topic: [ http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348963&story_id=10534573 ].

[Squeek]

There's no way I'm wrong about this, PM. I have an extensive background in the communications industry, and I can assure you there's plenty of regulation over here.

The article probably has some value, but it's hard to trust its facts since the author obviously struggled (and that's to be expected, frankly). I'm not about to explain this stuff, but I will clear up one thing the article got wrong.

Communications services always roll out in major metropolitan areas first, so countries with only one or two major cities will benefit quickly. The US is big (larger than all those other countries combined), so it will naturally take some time before there's complete coverage.

The article commented about regulation but oversimplified it in what was, apparently, too confusing to follow. Re-read it, I suppose. He was talking about CLECs, how they take advantage of regulation, and how incumbent carriers find loopholes to deny them access to their networks.

I've had broadband for over ten years now. That's nice, but it's also old. Like everything else high-tech, the latest is greatest. Areas that have to wait get the good stuff when it finally arrives.

Regulation is the right idea, I think. But it's been a mess over here.

[Prime Junta]

I'm sure you can find other articles like it if you do a bit of Google-work. I've come across this discussion any number of times. I'm not familiar with the details of US telecom regulation, beyond the very roughest outline; I'll take your word for it.

On this side of the pond, the regulation has worked pretty well to permit real competition in broadband offerings; there are perhaps a half-dozen to a dozen operators active in my area -- one cable, one wi-fi, lots of HomePNA, and at least one outfit that'll lay their own cable if you can find six apartments in your building to connect. (And, of course, plenty of options for commercial-grade connectivity.)

The net neutrality thing is IMO rather important, as it is just complex enough to confuse buyers -- and it has enormous potential for abuse in anti-competitive practices. There is a case to be made for not requiring it, for sure, but IMO that would need far more complex regulation to prevent abuses. And no, I don't trust the market to take care of it (in this case).

[VPeric]

It does? Can you provide examples?

No idea about regulations, but I've got a chart:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9162/broadbandprice2dd4.jpg

So, with your 3.88$ per megabit, you're around the top, but not exactly AT the top (and, incidently, below Finland).

[Corwin]

Note Australia, near the bottom!! :(

[Bartacus]

In Belgium you have the choice of going for ADSL (or that upgrade 'ADSL 2') or you can go for cable. The downside is that when you chose for cable (TV+net+phone), only one compagny offers this. The price is around €40 for a not-guaranteed 10 Mbps. (Most of the time I download at 650KB/s ~ 5Mbps) . There are two big operators in Belgium: Belgacom and Telenet. It's that second one that controls the cable. That first one can be used for phone+ADSL+digital broadcast(TV trough ADSL), but in that segment you can chose for another ADSL operator.

[txa1265]

Note Australia, near the bottom!! :(

I think a lot of it has to do with geography ... heck, there is more distance between some *houses* in Australia (and even US upper midwest) than is physically possible in many European countries.

[Eliaures]

The other nice thing about how the telecoms have treated us, in the US, is that we have already paid for a fiber optic system through the deal made with the telecoms to overcharge us for phone services such as caller ID, call waiting, etc. They were supposed to take that money and use it to install a fiber optic network across the country. NOW they say they won't do it because it costs too much money and they would require government assistance to do so.

Why would allowing market control of the Internet make it any better than it is today? It's been proven over and over again that privatization and market control of everything is not "more efficient" as conservatives would have you believe.

[Squeek]

I'm sure you can find other articles like it if you do a bit of Google-work.Or I can just pick up the phone and call some of the folks who are doing all this stuff, because I've known them for a long time.

In order to accommodate the kinds of future applications everyone wants, carriers need to build end-to-end fiber optic networks with powerful switching capabilities. That's enormously expensive. So carriers charge as much as they reasonably can for their data services.

Some have experimented with various pricing schemes and a variety of value-added services, so far without much success. At this point regulation seems to be about the only thing that will change the situation, for better or for worse.

In the meantime the future is somewhat uncertain technically and includes wildcards like wireless (and some of the other stuff Lucky Day mentioned).

EDIT: Hmmmmmm. Cross posted with you, Eliaures. I see what you mean.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Through the site of the German gaming mag PC Games I read today or yesterday that still about 5 Million people here in Germany don't have DSL.

And they all live in rural areas, I assume.

Source (http://www.pcgames.de/aid,629917/DSL_in_Deutschland_-_5_Mio_Menschen_leben_noch_in_der_Internetsteinzei t)

[KazikluBey]

My brother lives in a house/villa in an almost rural area (well, a town of maybe 1000 inhabitants way up north) and they have fiber internet access since the municipality is desperately trying to make people stay instead of moving south. The municipality owns the network and lets private companies hire the capacity to offer the inhabitants internet access, much like the former government telephone monopoly was forced to make its copper cables available to competitors, so there are at least some five (or more, I don't remember them all) companies fighting about offering the cheapest DSL and phone services over pretty much the whole country.