Will Net Neutrality Save the Glorious System of Tubes? Or Just Make it a Little (Lot?) Crappier?

Do you really need the FCC to be "the cop on the beat," to use the favored term of Federal Communications Commission head Julius Genachowski, when the beat is the freakin' Internet?

With yesterday's Net Neutrality rules, the FCC is striving to be the Officer Krupke of cyberspace. There's a good chance that the rules will never go into effect, but they certainly don't bode well for future attempts to limit free expression.

Watch the video above for a quick primer on why Net Neutrality isn't needed. And watch the vids below for more info and background on one of the most pernicious, and misunderstood, power grabs in recent memory.

Net Neutrality for Dummies

3 Reasons the FCC Shouldn't "Touch" the Internets

Nick Gillespie On Net Neutrality, Teen Mags, & More

Comments

[Wind Rider]

Why couldn't Julius just stick to his Mom's advice of "just stick to sheep, dear"? Why?

[Pip]

Are you suggesting that Federal Communications Commission head Julius Genachowski fucks sheep?

[Jason]

I think Wind Rider means Julius Genachowski would have done better regulating sheep, including the fucking thereof.

[Wind Rider]

Let's be clear here - I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove or disprove if Federal Communications Commission head Julius Genachowski fucks sheep, or any audio, video, or transcripted material to prove or disprove that it was really his mother that recommended he do so or not. Or that he even had a mother.

[Old Mexican]

Net Neutrality, Steampunk Version:

"We don't need no stinkin' telegraph wire neutrality!"

[FCC]

All your packets are belong to us.

[dbcooper]

Epic Win(ner):

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wor.....austwinner

[The Gobbler]

I'd say that the fact that he managed to survive it qualifies Elie Wiesel as being a "Holocaust Winner".

[MNG]

After the discussion yesterday I will modify my position and say that ideally Congress should just have drafted a narrowly worded law enforcing net neutrality rather than the FCC taking a discretionary oversight of the intertubes to enforce the same.

Most people like the way the internet works now. I have very confidence that the major players in the market will work to f*ck it up if they are not stopped.

People say "oh they would never do that they will lose customers!" I heard the same thing when movie theaters kept increasing the number of previews and commercials they show prior to the film. Now most run about thirty minutes worth. See, as long as they make more money from the deals they broker for the ads/previews than they lose from people boycotting they will continue to favor the ad/preview guys over the movie customer. Something similarly f*cked up would happen with the intertubes, especially considering the major players are quick and seemingly better than movie theaters in acting to get government restrictions which favor them.

[juris imprudent]

Who slipped the LSD into MNG's eggnog?

[Paul]

Most people like the way the internet works now. I have very confidence that the major players in the market will work to f*ck it up if they are not stopped.

Sort of like how most people liked how the web worked when they were dialup to AOL and the market players fucked it up and gave us what we have now? You're right, this runaway train must be stopped.

[Jordan]

I heard the same thing when movie theaters kept increasing the number of previews and commercials they show prior to the film.

Some of us like previews. And you have the option of showing up late. An outcome you don't like is not the same as the market being "fucked up."

[Contrarian P]

"People say "oh they would never do that they will lose customers!" I heard the same thing when movie theaters kept increasing the number of previews and commercials they show prior to the film"

Perhaps you've heard of DVD and Blu-ray, not to mention direct to consumer downloading? Movie theaters have indeed lost a lot of market share to new media. Thank you for choosing an example that proves the point.

[cynical]

Thing is, FCC is basically setting a precedent where they can simply seize power for themselves. They need to be smacked down and possibly even impeached.

That said, I'm fine with legislation that forces separation between the companies that own physical internet infrastructure and basic IP routing services, and the service providers who utilize those services.

Transmission-type industries tend toward natural mono/oligopolies (and regulations tend to help them along), and they can use those monopolies as leverage to gain monopoly power or extract large rents in markets farther up the chain (just like a company that owned private roads and a trucking business could prevent competing trucking businesses from entering a city, or like a power transmission owner could lock out independent power producers or levy huge tolls on them). Preventing that is one case where government intervention in markets can actually help to promote competition in the big picture, but it's important that government pro-competitive regulation is restricted to the low-level transport system, without touching the competitive market of services built on top of that system.

[The Gobbler]

"People say "oh they would never do that they will lose customers!" I heard the same thing when movie theaters kept increasing the number of previews and commercials they show prior to the film. Now most run about thirty minutes worth"

Psssst... Hey dumbass, they've been losing customers.

http://org.elon.edu/ipe/pautz2.pdf

[Jason]

You still go to a theater that shows 30 minutes of commercials?

[kinnath]

UMB; LTE; WiMax; HughesNet; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc . . . . . . . .

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

After the discussion yesterday I will modify my position and say that ideally Congress should just have drafted a narrowly worded law enforcing net neutrality rather than the FCC taking a discretionary oversight of the intertubes to enforce the same.

And this would be despite the Constitutional mandate to protect all contracts? Or despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't grant such power to Congress, never mind the FCC?

People say "oh they would never do that they will lose customers!" I heard the same thing when movie theaters kept increasing the number of previews and commercials they show prior to the film.

And instead of thinking that people still value the theather experience more than they despised the previews comes as a never mind for you, instead you think that people must be dumb and theather owners callous and greedy, requiring the loving hand of the State to make things right...?

Do I sense an air of pretentiousness in your logic, MNG?

[R C Dean]

but they certainly don't bode well for future attempts to limit free expression.

??

I have very confidence that the major players in the market will work to f*ck it up if they are not stopped.

Which organization is more likely to fuck up the internets? The government stepping in to prevent a problem that has not actually ever materialized, or the private sector, under which the problem has not actually ever materialized?

Seriously, MNG? We'll have a better internet once the government takes charge? Really?

[R C Dean]

People say "oh they would never do that they will lose customers!"

As indeed they have. Movie ticket sales peaked in 2002.

[kinnath]

Last movie I attended was Avatar in 3D, and only because the reviews said the technology was amazing (not that the movie itself was particularly good).

I have high-def Dish with a big DVR, a blu-ray player, and a 50 inch TV. I don't anticipate going to another theater anytime soon.

[Wind Rider]

Good Grief, MNG. Turning the statists loose to 'fix' any problem is probably the worst of all possible options for about any situation. Particularly faux, manufactured crisis, which is basically the entire substance of the chicken little justification behind the pro-NN argument.

Ya know what the real solution to the specter of 'throttling bandwidth' really is? MORE FUCKING BANDWIDTH! What your lack of imagination sees as a problem, someone out there sees as an opportunity - and an indication of a growing market share pie.

Besides, what are we talking about here, with regards to the 'unregulated big bugaboo consequences'? That an e-mail may take 47 milliseconds to be delivered as opposed to 32? That only four people in a five people household will be (for the time being) be able to simultaneously watch streaming HD video at fully optimal framerate?

Oh, the fucking horror. Yes, something MUST be done! Because if little Timmy can't watch Polar Express while Mommy is playing Farmville, the whole fucking structure of society is certainly going to goddamned collapse, isn't it?

And while we're at it, we should just cry a fucking river because you had to sit through more previews and Pepsi ads than your bladder could stand because some federal regulator ALLOWED those BASTARDS running the theater to irresponsibly sell you the super-sized 72 ounce tub-o-cola.

[Facebook User]

But privacy!!!!

[Regulators]

ALLOWED those BASTARDS running the theater to irresponsibly sell you the super-sized 72 ounce tub-o-cola.

We're working on that one, too.

[Ballchinian]

EXTERNALITIES!

SOMALIA!

[Paul]

I'm excited to know that the internet status quo will be preserved-- that my daughter is assured that in the year 2035 she'll still be surfing the web with Internet Explorer 10 on an 8 mips connection watching a 3x3" video of Lady Gaga. Hooray for preservation!

[scape]

considering the major players are quick and seemingly better than movie theaters in acting to get government restrictions which favor them.

Isn't that an argument against putting the FCC in charge?

[Brandybuck]

If Net Neutrality had been implemented twenty years ago, we would all be surfing over ISDN. What's the internet going to look like in twenty years? We don't know, but I guarantee you it will not look like it is today.

[The Internet]

...?

I...

What's the??

I feel like...

Is that a??

...

There's pressure on my anus.

[Joe M]

Just take a dump on it, like always.

[cynical]

The internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

[Entrenched ISPs]

Thank you, Julius! You and the rest of the FCC Commissioners are guaranteed a sinecure position when you retire.

[Barack Obama and the FCC]

We give you...WebCare!

[Dan]

*sigh*

[MattXIV]

A neutral net is obligately an inefficient net.

Processes that use network resources can be roughly grouped into 3 categories:

Real-time processes - These processes require data that is generated real-time at the source once per a time period. If the bandwith available is insufficient to provide the data in that timeframe, performance is degraded, but since the data is generated in real time, there is no benefit to providing bandwith beyond the requirements. A real world example of this type of process is a real-time online game like CounterStrike; a real world example of degredation is the dreaded LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG.

Bufferable processes: These processes use a given unit of data per a time frame on the client like the real time processes, but the data does not need to be generated in real time, so if additional bandwith is available, more data can be sent and be stored in a buffer on the client. A real-world example of this process type is streaming video or audio, such as a video on YouTube or a song on Pandora; a real would example of degredation is having your streaming media have to stop playing to buffer data.

Atomic processes: For these processes, the data cannot be not used until all of it has been transfered to the client. Since the process can't do anything with the data until it is completely downloaded, it will not experience functional degredation the same way the other two categories do, but since it requires a finite amount of data, the time until the process can complete and provide it's functional value will be the size of the download divided by the average bandwidth allocated to it. A real-world example is downloading a software update.

The consequence of the differences in these requirements is that for any supply of bandwidth for a given set of processes that varies over time, there will always be a set of rules where every process's requirements will be met as well or better than if bandwidth is allocated without regard to process type (ie neutrally).

The same issues occur when dealing with the allocation of processor resources on a single computer, which is most commonly addressed by allowing processes to set their own priority to optimize performance, but when there are many client-server pairs with divergent interests such as customers of an ISP, the ISP cannot rely on them to accurately report on their own process type. In many cases a prisoner's dilema is created where the dominant strategy is to report the characteristics that result in the largest bandwidth allocation in a given time period - if everybody requests the maximum, then the bandwidth ends up getting shared equally, replicating the process type neutral results which can be demonstrated to be inefficient. Thus, the ISP must make the determination of which process is of which type based on the characteristics of the data travelling through their network. Hence, a neutral net is obligately an inefficient net.

[Wind Rider]

And ^^^this^^^ is why equality of outcome, banyard animal fellating Federal beauracrats should be allowed NO closer to the internet than the work computers they surf tranny porn on. NTTAWWT. The porn, that is.

[stretruner]

like some of you i dont have my head up biznizs but.amerikaonline refused to connect to other isps ms apple refused to connect to like subscribers google restricted acces and turned over chinese dissidents to many of your commie buddies. .I ordered 2mbs got 1 .upgraded to 7 mbs got 1.5 mbs upgraded to 15 and alomost get 5..I tried a gov speed test it told me i get 20mbs .i tried a college test they told me i get 2mbs i tried 4 others they said i get between 5 n 6. .i pay for 15mbs .check yourself search for speed test get it free do not down load app or buy 1