Should the Government Regulate Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
We've Already Seen the Consequences
Not sure if you understand the argument....
The argument isn't that it will be necessary to violate Net Neutrality for a new player to come to market (although that may be the case too), but that those already entrenched players will use such laws in order to make new claims against such new players whether or not those claims are what was "intended" under Net Neutrality. Naturally, the already-entrenched player will have more resources and will often succeed in driving the newcomers out of business, thereby ensuring higher costs on everyone, even consumers whom Net Neutrality "protects". Basically I think this is your choice (b), although in the eyes of the law they won't be "frivolous".
I think Cato did a good job of backing that up too, bringing the precedent of the ICC, and how it was intended to protect consumers like Net Neutrality is intended, and yet was easily abused to stifle competition.
I am confused by the statement "Net Neutrality has been the standard...". If it has been the standard, why is it then necessary to propose this new Net Neutrality legislation? My only guess is that you may not realize that it is, in fact, the pro-Net-Neutrality crowd that's proposing new legislation, not its opposition. Net Neutrality is the "standard" only in the sense that Cato mentions in an earlier argument - that is enforced via technology. There is no current law.
Let's keep it that way. Net Neutrality as new regulation is a very bad idea.
- strawhatguy
August 31, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Do Understand the Argument
You need to go back and look at the history of this issue. The laws that enforced Net Neutrality have lapsed, and that's the only reason why we're even talking about this now.
Both you and Cato's poster have made a general argument about how a completely unrelated regulation went bad and used it as a reason why well-meaning regulations can be subverted by regulators as a theoretical exercise not that this regulation was bad, but that corrupt people can subvert the process. The fact is that corrupt people were already subverting the process, and that's why the ICC was created in the first place. The argument is, once again, that regulations and regulators are bad, not that Net Neutrality isn't something we need.
We already have cases where telecom companies have been caught blocking Voice Over IP technologies to their customers because they were selling a competing product. Bad people behave badly sometimes, whether they're business owners, consumers, or regulators.
Do you have an actual argument for why Net Neutrality is a bad idea?
- tojo2000
August 31, 2008 6:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Topic of the Debate
Okay, so certain provisions in FCC regulations have lapsed or rather the status of broadband has changed sections of the Communications Act or whatever.
Regardless, the fact is the Save the Internet group wants to make this (and new sets of regulations) more permanent in a bill by Congress under the rubric of "Net Neutrality". As regulations and regulators are bad as you say (and I agree), and "Net Neutrality" is a bill of regulations to be passed in Congress, how is this not the very essence of the argument against Net Neutrality? This is, after all, an OV Debate between Save the Internet and Cato Institute primarily after all.
The other possibility is the "idea" of Net Neutrality, which is that, irrespective of government interference in general, should broadband providers be anything other than mere forwarders of IP packets along their networks? If that's what you're debating, that the idea of Net Neutrality is good or not in the absence of government, I don't believe that is what this OV debate is about.
As for what I think on this, I would say that there would certainly be an argument for prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others. For instance, it would not be good for any real-time (or close approximation thereof) type of traffic (TV/movies over the Internet, or VOIP calls, etc.) to be delayed (or dropped altogether) because of some web traffic or file transfer packets got there first. As for outright blocking or slowing of competitors offerings, well, that may be a shame, but then again it *is* the providers' network. They may do it, and they will also run the risk of retaliation by their customers over it. Who knows? If more and more providers enter the fray, possibilities of completely free (to consumers anyway) broadband services might be possible, costs being paid solely by the content providers like Google (kinda like over the air TV - free, paid with ads), with pay models having a more "neutral" packet delivery. Would that happen? Maybe not, but at least it's possible without an imposed Net Neutrality, and there may be other possibilities unimaginable right now.
But, getting back to the OV debate topic as I read it, there is no reason to codify this into law, which effectively hands (more) power over the Internet to the FCC. It's plenty powerful enough already.
- strawhatguy
August 31, 2008 9:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Net Neutrality has been the standard...
--Quote--
"Net Neutrality has been the standard...". If it has been the standard, why is it then necessary to propose this new Net Neutrality legislation?
--endQuote--
Partly, the laws are responsible. In 2005, the Supreme Court and the FCC largely deregulated Cable-provided and Telco-provided broadband services calling the "Information Services" vs. "Common Carriers." The FCC made a policy, probably to replace some of the user protections that this switch caused, and it was that policy that the FCC recently enforced.
Partly, the very nature of the early Internet is responsible. Network hardware lacked the power to look deeply into the packets -- it only looked at the first 20 bytes (the IP header) and then acted upon what it found. Moore's Law has changed all that, and Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) can now react to traffic based on many factors within the whole packet, including patterns across several packets. In so much as service providers don't use this new power wrongly, then no big deal. But like most things, the rush to beat competitors surpasses careful consideration of whether certain things are actually appropriate on the Internet.
New, but limited legislation is necessary to keep Internet Standards bodies in charge of defining the base protocols and services on the Internet. ISPs have the choice of following these standards, or getting out of the Internet business, but they don't have the right to redefine the Internet in their own twisted image.
- Robb Topolski
September 1, 2008 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.