Net Neutrality
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:20 pm
My latest letter to the editor:
Dear Editor,
You have probably heard the term "net neutrality," but do you know what it means? Technically, "net neutrality" means internet communication protocols which are neutral (do not discriminate) between packets. That is, all information packets are treated equally on a first come - first serve basis. This sounds reasonable, until one realizes that some packets may be more important than other packets, or need some special handling. Net neutrality prevents prioritization of packets. An analogy: Suppose that a trivial postcard was mailed before a heart sent to a hospital for transplant. Would it make sense to use a first come - first serve rule? What about the option of using airmail rather than overland mail for important messages? That would be forbidden if mail was "net-neutral."
For the internet, packets associated with different applications often have vastly different requirements. It may not matter if an email gets to your box a half a second later, but it does matter if you are talking on an internet phone or watching a video. These latter are called latency-intolerant - delays in reception make such applications aggravating or useless. Anyone who's watched an internet video stop and start and cut off knows what I mean. If you've experienced this, or being cut off when trying to talk with someone overseas on an IP phone, then you understand clearly that not all packets are created equal, and that it makes perfect sense that some get higher priority than others.
"Net neutrality" also has, besides its technical meaning, a political meaning: if someone says he favors net neutrality, then he favors government regulation of the internet to enforce it. Thus, "net neutrality" is generally a code-word for government regulation of the internet, and (more) government spying on internet communications. That is, for the government to enforce any kind of net neutrality, it must sniff out and supervise the treatment of information packets going through internet service providers and carriers.
Prior to 1996, telephone ISPs and cable ISPs were treated differently. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the phone companies were somewhat deregulated, putting them under the same rules as cable companies regarding the internet. No longer would they be forced by the State to rent their property against their will to wanna-be providers. Like the cable companies, their property rights to internet infrastructure would be respected.
Some of the political net neutrality advocates want to turn the clock back to the bad old days of telling communications firms what to do with their property. This group wants to make forced rental ("open access") regulation even broader than it was before, putting both phone and cable companies under the pre-1996 regime. The idea of this fascist approach is for the government to prevent all vertical integration, i.e. prohibit carriers from being service providers also. Supposedly this control, along with massive spying on internet packets, would effectively enforce net neutrality in the technical sense.
Another group favors, not forced rental, but simply the spying part limited to the external (non-local) parts of the internet. This is less intrusive than the fascist approach, but still involves unnecessary regulation and oversight, and outlaws the advantages of prioritizing packets.
In my opinion, freedom is a better alternative. Let companies do as they wish, and let consumers choose as they wish. This seems a much better way to determine what (if any) prioritization occurs. The question basically comes down to whether you trust government rulers or people in society to determine what works best and is more flexible in accomodating innovation. Do you want government bureaucrats to determine how well you can chat, or download movies, and talk to your friends overseas? Or would you rather choose which service on the market satisfies your needs, and vote with your money? Do you want a winner-take-all decision by State, favoring political cronies and stifling innovation, or would you prefer a nimble market adapting to your needs and future technology?
A word about scare tactics: Some net neutrality advocates have conjured up a scenerio where the internet is like cable television, with different tiers of service and blocking of competitors' channels. This is an absurd comparison, since it is virtually costless to offer all sites, whereas dumbing down service will almost certainly lose customers. If cable TV companies could offer every channel in the world for free they would do so, if only to keep up with the competition. This is the situation for the internet - companies that hobble their service will generally lose customers to competitors who do not. It's already happened. Old-timers may remember a company called Compuserve which tried to restict customers. They're gone now. Another company called America Online tried to restict, but quickly saw the light and opened their system up to all sites. History shows that we should worry more about governments restricting sites than private providers doing so.
Dear Editor,
You have probably heard the term "net neutrality," but do you know what it means? Technically, "net neutrality" means internet communication protocols which are neutral (do not discriminate) between packets. That is, all information packets are treated equally on a first come - first serve basis. This sounds reasonable, until one realizes that some packets may be more important than other packets, or need some special handling. Net neutrality prevents prioritization of packets. An analogy: Suppose that a trivial postcard was mailed before a heart sent to a hospital for transplant. Would it make sense to use a first come - first serve rule? What about the option of using airmail rather than overland mail for important messages? That would be forbidden if mail was "net-neutral."
For the internet, packets associated with different applications often have vastly different requirements. It may not matter if an email gets to your box a half a second later, but it does matter if you are talking on an internet phone or watching a video. These latter are called latency-intolerant - delays in reception make such applications aggravating or useless. Anyone who's watched an internet video stop and start and cut off knows what I mean. If you've experienced this, or being cut off when trying to talk with someone overseas on an IP phone, then you understand clearly that not all packets are created equal, and that it makes perfect sense that some get higher priority than others.
"Net neutrality" also has, besides its technical meaning, a political meaning: if someone says he favors net neutrality, then he favors government regulation of the internet to enforce it. Thus, "net neutrality" is generally a code-word for government regulation of the internet, and (more) government spying on internet communications. That is, for the government to enforce any kind of net neutrality, it must sniff out and supervise the treatment of information packets going through internet service providers and carriers.
Prior to 1996, telephone ISPs and cable ISPs were treated differently. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the phone companies were somewhat deregulated, putting them under the same rules as cable companies regarding the internet. No longer would they be forced by the State to rent their property against their will to wanna-be providers. Like the cable companies, their property rights to internet infrastructure would be respected.
Some of the political net neutrality advocates want to turn the clock back to the bad old days of telling communications firms what to do with their property. This group wants to make forced rental ("open access") regulation even broader than it was before, putting both phone and cable companies under the pre-1996 regime. The idea of this fascist approach is for the government to prevent all vertical integration, i.e. prohibit carriers from being service providers also. Supposedly this control, along with massive spying on internet packets, would effectively enforce net neutrality in the technical sense.
Another group favors, not forced rental, but simply the spying part limited to the external (non-local) parts of the internet. This is less intrusive than the fascist approach, but still involves unnecessary regulation and oversight, and outlaws the advantages of prioritizing packets.
In my opinion, freedom is a better alternative. Let companies do as they wish, and let consumers choose as they wish. This seems a much better way to determine what (if any) prioritization occurs. The question basically comes down to whether you trust government rulers or people in society to determine what works best and is more flexible in accomodating innovation. Do you want government bureaucrats to determine how well you can chat, or download movies, and talk to your friends overseas? Or would you rather choose which service on the market satisfies your needs, and vote with your money? Do you want a winner-take-all decision by State, favoring political cronies and stifling innovation, or would you prefer a nimble market adapting to your needs and future technology?
A word about scare tactics: Some net neutrality advocates have conjured up a scenerio where the internet is like cable television, with different tiers of service and blocking of competitors' channels. This is an absurd comparison, since it is virtually costless to offer all sites, whereas dumbing down service will almost certainly lose customers. If cable TV companies could offer every channel in the world for free they would do so, if only to keep up with the competition. This is the situation for the internet - companies that hobble their service will generally lose customers to competitors who do not. It's already happened. Old-timers may remember a company called Compuserve which tried to restict customers. They're gone now. Another company called America Online tried to restict, but quickly saw the light and opened their system up to all sites. History shows that we should worry more about governments restricting sites than private providers doing so.