A Simple Guide To Net Neutrality 154
superapecommando writes in with a neutral introduction to net neutrality from ComputerWorld UK. While it doesn't go into a lot of technical depth, it's rare to see anything written on the subject that isn't rabid on one side or the other. "Google's recently announced plan to set up trial fiber-optic networks in the US with ultra-high-speed Internet connections puts the long running national debate over Net Neutrality back into high gear. A hot topic of discussion and debate in government and telecom circles since at least 2003, Net Neutrality, actually involves a broad array of topics, technologies and players. Here's a primer for those looking to get up to speed fast."
Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.
The difference is power distribution companies are not allowed to charge exorbitant fees to green power generation companies to transport that power to the end user. They have to charge the same price they charge their own coal fired power generation subsidiaries. Having a monopoly on power distribution, they are restricted from using that to gain an unfair advantage in another market, such as power generation. Claiming green power and coal power are different product even though they go over the same pipes in the same way is the same as claiming television service is different from any other data going over the cable network. You can't artificially raise the price of your competitors from a monopoly position.
Reasonably neutral... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a comcast customer and their network is reasonably neutral, as based on actual measurements I've performed as well as looking at their network management policies. So yes, its reasonably neutral for me:
They do do DNS wildcarding (ick ick ICK), but actually have a workable opt-out (rare, most who wildcard don't).
They do block the windows ports outbound, and do dynamic blocking of spam-bots. (Not strictly neutral but arguably VERY good things)
They bias the network to allow the first X MB within a given timewindow to exceed the advertised speed, which again, is not strictly neutral but greatly improves interactive activity.
They impose a two-tier network-based QOS under congestion, measured on 15 minute timewindows, which means that light users are not generally impacted by congestion.
I haven't seen anything weird on routing: performance is usually limited by either my connection or the remote site, not the peering, so BGP issues are not coming up.
So its not strictly neutral, but the deviations are generally to my benefit as a customer (except for F@#)@#*( DNS wildcarding, but at least that has an opt-out I exercised immediately)
Re:Common argument (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's the biggest issue with the regulation argument. It created the mess of duopolies you describe above.
Re: Baskets (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is, the other baskets are Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
They all rotate into the limelight with something awful.
Google is a really tricky company. I think they do a decent job of scaring everyone into line.
Re:Public Utility Option (Score:2, Interesting)
The federal government is no less prone to creating abuse than privately owned entities. When the government is the sole provider in town and they screw you over, it's a bit harder to get a new provider. There won't even be a duopoly to switch to since nobody can compete with a tax subsidized option.
Split the system into an independently owned, neutral company (or companies) that are regulated to maintain the network(s) and allow completely unfettered access to any ISP, cable provider, telephony provider, etc wishing to use that network. Let the ISPs compete on services while we're guaranteed a completely neutral pipe to all of them. The ISP can pay a per-customer fee for access to the network (based on max speed, guaranteed throughput, latency, etc) to keep the regulated network company doing their thing. Real competition and real options.
Direct versus indirect costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from (usually) consumable resources. Bandwidth doesn't fall in the the same category.
Really? Bandwidth is finite and it requires the exact same power from those exact same consumable resources, plus the equipment to deliver the data. I agree it's not quite an apples to apples comparison but it's closer than you are making it out to be. The difference is that one is a direct cost and the other is an indirect cost [wikipedia.org]. They're both real costs but one can be directly assigned to a cost center and the other cannot. This has enormous implications that I think you should study a little deeper. Charging per bit is a way to turn an indirect cost into something resembling a direct cost. Not perfect to be sure but there are good reasons to do it.
For fibre, if you have something that's sitting around idle, you're "wasting" (say) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it's not lit up. It could be used to transfer information for someone, but if you've capped people and so they're not using it because they're over their caps, you have all this telco equipment doing absolutely nothing.
Whether that is a valid argument depends entirely upon whether there is excess capacity to be had and how the costs are allocated. The "wasted" bandwidth is only wasted if someone wants it and can't get it. If there is no demand for it then you have a case of excess capacity and the costs for the equipment will be higher for everyone who pays to use it. If the bit can be delivered but at the cost of slowing down other customers there is an opportunity cost in play. ISPs do need to make sure that all their customers have access to bits, not just the customers who use the most bits. There also might be upstream costs since your ISP probably pays some rate per bit for data delivered outside their own network. If bandwidth is artificially limited when it could otherwise be delivered without interfering with other customers, then your argument may carry weight.
With electricity, I'm being charged for the consumption of coal/gas/uranium (plus some overhead for transport). What exactly am I being charged for consuming when I download a bit?
The cost of the equipment to deliver that bit, the electricity needed to power that equipment, the staff needed to manage that equipment, depreciation, insurance, upstream bandwidth costs from other suppliers and a number of other costs. Welcome to the wonderful world of direct versus indirect costs [wikipedia.org]. This is what makes cost accounting such an important and difficult endeavor.
Disclosure: I'm a certified accountant.