Net Neutrality, New Monopolies and Capitalistmic Type Stuff (Now Featuring 100% More Speculation on the Extents of Government Regulation!) (427 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0 on 18 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Rawrg (View user info) at 2006-08-29 04:53:26 EDT
10 Dollar Title, -2 Dollar Article. Enjoy.
As I was browsing one of my favorite video clip sites (no, not porn, although porn is a close second) I stumbled across the topic of Net Neutrality in a short clip from the daily show. As I sat and watched, I was less amused by Jon Stewart and more intrigued by a portion of legislation limiting internet gambling restrictions with the exclusion of restrictions on horse racing and state lotteries. Stewart didn't focus on the issue though, and all I learned was that it's fun to make politicians look like idiots (and not that hard sadly...). So the logical next step when you're in the dark about something is to google it. I was honestly taken aback by what I read next about Net Neutrality and its complications. If you aren't familiar with it, I'll summarize it:
Net Neutrality: A Term most notoriously pushed by the website http://www.savetheinternet.com is used to describe an internet where all subscribers are given equal access to the internet as far as transfer rates, latency and otherwise bug fixing is concerned regardless of what site you are currently visiting. Currently, the FCC will lay the pimp hand down if an ISP blocks non-illegal content or intentionally slows down service when visiting certain sites for any reason.
As I read further, I found it even more interesting that there is a bill currently in the Senate to privatize the internet by removing the government regulation already in place. Apparently, the big Internet providers feel that they should be free to charge websites that drain their bandwidth, for "Higher Quality Service" or otherwise restrict the bandwidth for users accessing those sites. For some things, there are cut and dried answers. Is stealing wrong? Yes. Now as with most other issues we encounter in life, there are pros and cons to evaluate, and with the issue of Net Neutrality, I believe there is no objectively right or wrong answer here, only a choice based on what you believe in.
Pros and Cons if this bill passes:
Pros: High demand websites pay individual ISP's such as AT&T and Verizon for preference because they use so much bandwidth, low demand websites pay less or not at all for standard service. In a sense, this is only fair as some websites are more demanding than others.
Cons: The major ISPs can essentially blackmail websites with the threat of dropping client side bandwidth for their site.
Example: So a big commercial company like Paramount can pump out money to those ISPs and the ISP's clients will have fast access, but a competing Independent film company, Brand X movies without that money can't. The ISP is now free to slow, or in theory, altogether block access to Brand X movies' website, so the small company that might come out with a brilliant film will find it much harder to hype it and lose untold amounts of money because they can't advertise their previews.
Example of the Net Neutrality pros and cons:
Pros: Every website I go to operates at the same fast speed.
Example: If I want to visit anything from as small as a blog on imaloserwhoblogs.com or as large as Microsoft, I, the ISP subscriber, get the same client side bandwidth to each site. The government will prosecute for site preference.
Cons: The ISP is stressed by certain websites over others without any direct compensation from them.
Example: If everyone else on my service is using Telephony protocols, internet TV service, trading untold amounts of files or playing lots of online games and is clogging up my bandwidth, everyone's connection is slow and the ISP has to raise rates to buy new equipment.
Now this created a big rift in me. Normally, I like the government to stay out of business' business, but I'm not so stupid as to say that there should be no regulation. I was also saddened to see that an overwhelming majority of the bill's supporters are Republican, as I've always been a little more conservative than liberal. As I see it, I can see nothing good for the general public coming from this bill. But there are moral implications here too.
Normally, if it were a small business, of which there were many, like say restaurants, I'd say it would be an outrage to mandate something similar to Net Neutrality like saying: you must have as many vegetarian items on the menu as items with meat. The difference between the big ISPs and the restaurants though is that there are thousands of restaurants in every major city, the customer has the choice to go to a vegan joint or a steakhouse. Same thing goes with smoking restaurants and bars, etc. Here in Kansas, suburbs of KC are outlawing smoking (a LEGAL activity) in bars with smoking sections. To me, that is unfair as the businesses were started under the presumption they could accommodate smokers. For bars, this is at least half of their business, and there are lots of establishments with small isolated smoking sections or none at all by freedom of their choice. Freedom is what America is ideally all about, but ideology is only applicable to a point.
With companies as large as ISPs, it becomes somewhat of a commodity and subject to regulation. Modern day Anti-Trust laws don't really stop monopolies from forming, but they are a manifestation of the philosophy that sometimes monopolies are a necessary evil and must be contained. We have created what I like to call, the New Monopoly. (I'd call it a Neo-Monopoly, but I'm not under the impression that I speak Latin or have a right to utilize it when I'm making up terms.) You can't get coast to coast communications efficiently if you have to go through 1000 individual's phone lines and network bridges, you have to have large unification. The same principle is considered with power companies and farm subsidization. The downside to monopolies is this: competition and alternative selections. Where else can you go to get power than your local power company? Where else can you get a cell phone other than the big 3 or 4 companies? Who's keeping these businesses in check?
Giant companies have wiped out all the small competition in certain fields and for good reason that played to our benefit most of the time. We have cheap food, relatively cheap gas ($3 a gallon is nothing to what it could cost...), reasonable energy prices, massive amounts of goods and services within mere miles of where most of us live. However, at the same time, these monsters of capitalism (capitalism which I firmly stand by) must be tamed and harnessed for their meat. At least, that's the way I see it.
So in those situations, it is acceptable to involve government regulators to reap the benefits from these large companies. In an microeconomic sense, lots of competition is all the regulation you'll ever need. There's no way 1000 business are going to conspire to raise prices or offer the same thing. In a macroeconomic or large scale sense however, lawmakers are the only protection the consumers have against fraud and profiteering. The internet is a universal commodity that the ISPs have done nothing but profited from, and I believe that if this bill passes, it needs to possess significant legislation regulating these companies so they can't block out or slow down access to certain sites that don't pay the ISPs individually.
Think of what it could lead to. The big companies could only get bigger and choke out the small competition that can't pay ISPs to allow access to their sites. The political groups that pander to the ISPs agenda would be able to have the ISPs block out sites with opposing views. Is there something the Republicans/Democrats don't want you to see? No problem, they can have those sites put on a block list to silence their voices. Freedom of information on the internet could be no more and you'd be left with Cable TV for an internet where you see what the ISP is showing, putting everything else behind a curtain because some people can't buy their way in. Before you know it, cities are left in smoldering ruin and I'm marauding around the dessert on a tandem bike with 4 of my drunk buddies wearing nothing except for our shoulder pads which we've most awesomely glued the treads from old tires to.
...
But that's a worst case scenario, except for the shoulderpads which rule almost as much as tandem bikes. Honestly I have very little knowledge of the technical aspects of the bill. For all I know, there's regulation for how they would charge sites for service and if they could block or intentionally slow smaller sites. I just found it an interesting issue. I'm not telling anyone how to think, just my take on it. All I encourage is that we all do some more research on the subject, because it seems to be a pretty important issue for everyone here. I'm sure you all feel enlightened now, good night.
User Reviews
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-29 15:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Rawrgy McRawrgerson!
Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-08-29 08:05:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I want my -2 dollars back.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:37:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well my point was that really the only things to discuss on this issue are small details that effect corporate growth rather than anything profound that could change the way the internet works.
I have nothing more intelligent to add. Insert rape joke here.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:36:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:27:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
I suppose it just doesn't sit right with me charging the high bandwidth sites for being popular.
-----------
I'm probably wrong, but I thought it was the other way around. The ISPs pay the high bandwidth sites for being popular because they are using a lot of bandwidth and advertising doesn't cover it (like streaming video), then the ISP passes those costs onto the subscriber.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:36:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Seems like a pretty damn good thing for "the people" to fight for.
I don't much believe in petitions - but getting a million or so folks on board for something a nerdy sounding as 'Net Neutrality' certainly suggests some pretty massive buy-in.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:30:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's true, the bill is still up in the air, but the Pubs have the majority and almost everything is party line these days. Also, I have a feeling Verizon, AT&T and the other big ISPs contribute to the more business friendly Republicans. Not that the Democrats don't have their own interest groups in their pockets.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:27:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jorge_Burrito (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:12:35 (#)
Ranking: -1
This would be interesting if it was posted a couple months ago when the rest of the country was talking about it
---
Really?
That seems like a fairly questionable gauge of 'interesting'.
Now, it might not still be socially relevant in this highly distracted and largely retarded society we participate in but that doesn't make it any less interesting, well written, or fucking important to follow.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:27:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I suppose it just doesn't sit right with me charging the high bandwidth sites for being popular. On the other hand, they make that much more from their advertising. You could charge the customers for bandwidth usage, only that would be remarkably unpopular. It seems that things are less controversial for everyone at the point we've already reached.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Still it would be a good recruitment incentive wouldn't it?
Become A CEO and rape the homeless tommorow!
<picture of teenage child in red Matalan hoody being dragged into a Jaguar>
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:24:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well duh.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I could see that, or basing rates on the amount of data transferred, like a water or electric meter for utilites. I still believe with companies as large as the monopolies, some regulation is beneficial.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:19:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well bascially you'd have a series of tarrifs and dfferent contracts that you'd offer customers with different packages offered to businesses (sp?) and independant web sites.
Basically as long as you had a wide variety of packages to offer and also preserved existing business practices then you'll be fine.
It's really just the equivilant of some creature with a giant head letting lots of little creatures live on his noggin and make useful things for him like spatulas, screws and ciggarette lighters.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:17:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That was...
um...wow.
>claps<
Submitted by Jorge_Burrito (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:12:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
This would be interesting if it was posted a couple months ago when the rest of the country was talking about it
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:12:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not really sure what tarriffs would have to do with data transfer. I am sure I want another cigarrette right now though.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:11:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the only thing I give a shit about is torrent bandwidth, as long as they don't interfere with that I don't give a fuck if the entire server based internet goes to shit, except for maybe the torrent tracker hosts
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:10:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I kind of lost interest a third of the way through, can you summarise the rest of it quickly? Did you mention tarriffs at all?
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:05:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First to review! Oh yeah.