Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?

(continued from previous page)

lane for certain traffic, it ought to be better for those who remain in the other four lanes."

Broadband companies say that if they can charge to deliver the services of content and application providers, they can guarantee better service to those providers, without requiring broadband customers to upgrade to a higher-speed broadband package.

For example, the broadband providers argue that if broadband customers are paying $12.99 per month for AT&T's 1.5mbps DSL service and they want to download a movie from Movielink, they shouldn't be forced to spend more than twice as much for a 3mbps service.

Instead, AT&T could propose that Movielink pay a fee to AT&T so that its movie download service gets preferential treatment. The providers say this lets people at home use their broadband connections more efficiently.

The downside, of course, is the risk that Movielink would pass costs on to consumers. Either way, then, consumers pay more.

Some experts agree that, in concept, a tiered approach could enable broadband providers to provide better services that could benefit consumers. And they caution lawmakers about enacting new legislation before a real problem has emerged.

"What I worry about is that if we have mandated network neutrality that consumers will miss out on some enhanced functionality being developed by the phone or cable companies," said Kyle Dixon, a senior fellow and director at the The Progress and Freedom Foundation. "Fears of market dominance aren't to be dismissed, but I think there is a risk in assuming that there will be a market power problem before there really is one."

But other experts disagree. Sohn, of Public Knowledge, believes that allowing carriers and cable operators to charge fees for prioritizing traffic will end in fewer choices for consumers, because broadband providers can use the relationships they have with preferred companies to squeeze out competitors.

For example, AT&T and Verizon each have marketing arrangements with Yahoo. If they instituted a tiered service, they could, theoretically, give priority to Yahoo's search engine, and make the access service of its competitors such as Google painfully slow.

"We're not saying that broadband providers shouldn't market with Internet companies," Sohn said. "But they shouldn't favor those providers more than others, because ultimately, the consumer suffers."

Companies such as Vonage, which lets consumers turn their broadband connections into IP phone lines, worry that the telecommunications companies and cable operators will squeeze the best-effort "lanes" of traffic so small that services from Vonage and the others will function poorly, costing them customers.

"The assumption that the best-effort Internet will always be there may not be true," said Chris Murray, director of government affairs for Vonage. "It's monopoly economics 101--charging premiums, creating artificial scarcity and then driving up prices for consumers."

[KsprayDad]

There is no debate

There should be NO debate on this....end users are being charged already...if the pipes have to raise their prices it will be passed on through ISPs to the end user and that's ok....individual websites should not be targeted.

The building a 'fifth' lane is BS...what you are doing is taking the same 4 lanes and making them 5..therefore the other lanes are smaller. If the pipe providers want more revenue from content build a new private lane that is seperate from the existing and charge isps or websites exclusive for exclusive use of it (after providing guarantee about minimum speed and bandwith availibility)...stay off the current highway (you are already charging for that)

[blanddragon]

Neutrality?

This is a crock. Just as the cable companies in the 80s did. Now the providers (the same companies for the most part) are trying to rig the game. If, for my $50 a month from Comcast, I could have the products they already say I am getting, that would be one thing. ISPs are the kings of vaporware! I say nationalize the Internet infrastructure and make it a public utility and take it out of the hands of the 'market' which has no interest buy god money.

[miketkrw]

I agree - Nationalize the internet

make it just like the interstate highway system. then give free access to all individuals.

[c|net Reader]

YAGRM!

<quote>I say nationalize the Internet infrastructure and make it a public utility....</quote>

That would create Yet Another Government Run Monopoly. The Government never makes such activities better except when it breaks up monopolies. Service drops (from current lows), prices rise, and innovation ceases when competition is removed. Things will only get worse, not better, should the Federal, State, or local Government take over any of the Internet. Besides, don't forget there's more to the Internet than what's within the borders of the US.

[mortis9]

fair competition?

Most economists would agree that monopolies can give better service in some situations, but worse in others. This is one area where such a move is not only technologically unfeasible, but simply not in the interest of the consumer. Many markets have competition between Telcos and Cable operators. If nationalization were to occur the government, to keep costs down, would choose one infrastructure and close the other. Next they would set a "fair" amount of bandwith, say 256K. That might be great for some, horrible for others. Lets not even get into the implications of how this would affect content providers wanting more bandwith. The government simply isn't structured to manage something like this. I know, you'll probably cite cities that have attempted to build fiber networks then market them to the public - they've been rule illegal, so we haven't seen how efficient they can be.

[CharlesRovira]

That's "PUSH-side Economic" thinking

Where artificial scarsecity costs the 'consumer' more and more up until it actually becomes cheaper for them to set up their own infrastructure.

While the monopolist/oligopolists extract the maximum revenue, the rest of the economy goes begging.

How much do you think all of this would cost, if it were even available, if AT&T & the world-wide monopolies hadn't been broken up?

When a dependable 300 baud modem was unavailable for less than $1,000 a month, and only to my office. When my monthly bill for telecom to a text only service exceeded $900.00CDN.

And the internet revolution happened OVER THE VERY SAME WIRES, so its not because of massive changes to the infrastructure that we have paid for, time and time again.

It is in fact very short-sighted, single quarter thinking, the kind that results in most governments and business going in for rhynoplasty to spite their faces, and which would stop the NYSE and the NASDAC by preventing their customers from dealing with those institutions unless BOTH were willing a pay a premium.

The only places left to look for the results of such thinking are in the extreme 'push-side' economies left on the planet: North Korea, Haiti, Afghanistan 'under the Taliban' various African tribal regimes.

Basically any economic unit where economies of scale are stopped regardless of whether the reason is economic, political or religious ideology, because there is more money to be made or power to be brokered by a few individual entities, if only they could 'slown it all down.'

[MrNougat]

Free what?

"But some experts fear that if broadband providers are given free rein, ..."

Reign.

[eccesignum]

The spelling is right

Per dictionary.com:

free rein (n):
Unlimited freedom to act or make decisions

It's a term referring to riding a horse. When you give a horse free rein, it can do whatever it wants.

[ahickey]

How can this be done?

If as a user I am using one ISP and the content I want is on another ISPs service then both ISPs would have to sign up to provide the end-to-end quality of service.

Unless I am mistaken the current situation would be like paying for a moterway from your home, but then suddenly at some point you may have to go onto a dirt track to finish your journey. Kind of ruins the experience.

Unless they can offer end-to-end quality it's a non-starter.

[kdbaumann]

Exactly right

You are correct. But of course the monopoly carriers are trying to pull the wool over our poor politicians eyes. You are right on the nose. The question is, will those who make the rules understand this? :)

[ORinSF]

Think future

Look, this is an argument about the future, where the serious high-bandwidth apps live. If the bandwidth providers can't be compensated for building, um, bandwidth, then why would they invest?

Mark Cuban has it right: http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488/

If you prefer that the Internet never evolves from its current state, net neutrality is for you.

(Interesting definition of monopoly, btw. How many players are there?)

The existence of a Whole Foods does not crowd out Safeway, which does not crowd out Costco. Premium products make for better options and more choices.

By the same argument, we should be regulating speed of PCs in the interest of "neutrality"... maybe we shouldn't let Google be "too good"...

[nonstopdoc1]

Arent we already paying the internet providers ?

I pay $45/month bucks to browse internet. If time warner wants to charge websites than they should give me internet for free.

Its like US postal service charging both the sender and the receiver, the shipping fee.

I think they are trying to cross the line here.

[nonstopdoc1]

sorry the above comment was in answer to the story and not your post.

:)

[jdbwar07]

Future?

The rest of the developed world (Korea, Canada, Europe, etc) already have much better internet service for less. 100 mps broadband? It's not in the future, it's already in Korea. The only reason we don't have very fast broadband in America is, to be blunt, the ISPs are greedy monopolides. Where I live for example, there's only two choices, SBC or Time Warner.

Think about it, if the ISPs really wanted to improve service for the customers, they'd increase the general connection speed and improve prices, instead of scamming web sites like this.

Also, this will do the opposite of allowing the net to evolve. Entrepreneurs will be discouraged from creating new web sites, since to be used they'd need to pay extra for service.

[The user with no name]

well....

I think that your reasoning is all wrong:

By the same argument, we should be regulating speed of PCs in the interest of "neutrality"... maybe we shouldn't let Google be "too good"...


The idea of Net Neutrality is not to regulate businesses from providing better service but to insure that the 'individuality' of the various parts of the web (be they companies or personal web sites) are treated equal.

Also, if I am paying $52.99 a month for 9 MBPS down and 1 MBPS up unlimited transfer then that is bandwidth that has been SOLD TO ME. If I decide to use that bandwidth for Video or for email and chat then that is MY decision. If I want to 'split' my bandwidth by multitasking then that is my choice as well.

Further, the ISP's have all the incentive in the world to upgrade their systems. It's called competeting for customers. If Broadband_A offers 'more better' than Broadband_B then the choices are pretty clear... for customers and ISPs.

As for content providers it works the same for them. If SciFi.com started streaming their movies but didn't have enough bandwidth of their own then their product would suffer. So they too ALREADY have incentive to improve also.


The real question is:

When you pay for a certain broadband speed and want to visit a website that DOES NOT 'bribe' your isp for bandwidth, even though the site has the broadband capabilities to deliver their content to you, are YOU going to be upset:

1. At the website for not paying this payola for their content to be provided enough of YOUR (paid for!) bandwidth?
2. The isp for stopping you from receiving the data you requested (on bandwidth that they already sold you) because this site wouldn't pay them to give YOU what YOU requested?
--or--
3. Yourself for agreeing that these isp's should have a right to limit what you receive on lines you are paying for?

[gparshal]

These are the monopolists who want the entire Internet free from taxation

The GAO recently opined that the "internet backbone," which these carriers lobbied intensely to keep free from state taxation in 2003 and 2004, should be available for the states to tax. When the Baby Bell cartel asks again to keep their provision of Internet access free in 2007, when the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act expires, one hopes that their hypocrisy will be thrown back in their collective faces. Either way, it looks like pricing is going up for users. Has Comcast or any other cable provider demanded this tariff from content providers? If not, consider the switch to cable high speed. Verizon's DSL is abysmally slow at times and very hit-or-miss in terms of availability, in my experience.

[jdbwar07]

Already ripped off

In the US, broadband and telecom companies are already ripping us off big time. Compared to the rest of the developed world, our broadband really is terrible. It's poor quality, it's extremely slow, and it costs WAY too much.

In many places in Europe and Asia, they have relatively cheap 25-100 mbps DSL. The reason Canada, Europe, and Asia have such better service is because they view high-speed internet as a public good and don't allow ISPs to engage in monopolistic behavior (like this).

Charging sites for this service won't help consumers in any way. These greedy monopolies should absolutely not be allowed to do this, regardless of what BS they use to justify it.

If they really did care about improving service, they'd increase our connection speed dramatically, the actual mbps rate. This would be for all of the internet, not just web sites that agree to be scammed like this.

You can use google and read more about how internet quality in the US is so bad. Here's a good article I found:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/10/18/broadband/

[ordaj]

BETTER YET

Broadband scandal:

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htmh

[rockerrb]

monopoly

You obviosly don't have the intelligence to understand what a monopoly is. This means that you as a consumer do not have a choice but to use 1 single service from 1 single company. i.e. the government controled "public good" internet you reffer to in your post. In the US we have many choices to get broadband. I live in Littleton, CO and I have at least 3 that I know of. This is called capitalism and it's what the US was founded on. If u don't like what choices are available to you and being the type of person who wants a premium service for free you should leave the US and take your socialist, crybaby attitude elseware.
The consumer should pay. If u want 3 Mbps vs. 1.5 Mbps YOU should pay. The maket should decide what the consumer will and won't pay. In denver Qwest has dramatically increased their DSL speeds to compete more heavily with Comcast and others and the price for either is certainly more than reasonable.

Check your facts!

Comcast is the cable monopoly and Qwest is the telecommunications monopoly! In a free market you would have as many choices as you had a few years ago with all of the CLECs. Notice how few are left? That's because of the MONOPOLIES that blocked them, then under cut them!

[commsoft]

Goodbye VoIP

The bells want their monopoly back on data access to the home. If they get it, goodbye Skype & Vonage - how much do you think they'll charge for services that compete with their core offerings? Just enough to make them financially non-viable, I'll bet...

[kdbaumann]

BS in full from Telco's

""What I worry about is that if we have mandated network neutrality that consumers will miss out on some enhanced functionality being developed by the phone or cable companies," said Kyle Dixon, a senior fellow and director at the The Progress and Freedom Foundation. "Fears of market dominance aren't to be dismissed, but I think there is a risk in assuming that there will be a market power problem before there really is one."'

Mandated network neutrality will allow all of us to continue to enjoy the net as it is today. Missing out on functionality is in the hands of the network providers who don't seem to be able to offer what consumers in other countries already get, HIGHER SPEEDS. They some how can't seem to squeeze 3-5mbs out of the same network that, for example, the Canucks can. Why is that? It's because they want to SUCK every penny the can out of the consumers, and this is just one more attempt at it.

Too bad that independant providers like Digex and PSINet are either no longer around or out of business. Then this wouldn't be happening.

The whole basis of the internet is that of neutrality.

If the network providers want to offer higher speeds to consumers then do so, and charge what consumers in other countries are being charged for that higher speed than we are getting. Which, oh by the way, is the same as they are charging for the crappy slow service they are currently giving us.

Enjoy the net while you can, these guys are out to bring it down.

[kdbaumann]

umm not quite true

"uhm, the Internet started out a government project, with free access to entities the government wanted on the network. Since Al Gore wanted it to evolve, they turned it over to commercial interests. Thanks Al!"

He and MANY others played a part. If you want to pin godhood on one person then do so to Bill Schrader, he is the guy who went to the Hill and pushed hard for a open internet, and sued MCI when they tried to grab it all for themselves. Al Gore is a good guy, but he isn't responsible for it anymore than any of the other folks who worked to free it up. Don't believe his own PR on this one.

[kdbaumann]

Exactly right

You are correct. But of course the monopoly carriers are trying to pull the wool over our poor politicians eyes. You are right on the nose. The question is, will those who make the rules understand this? :-)

[jdbwar07]

Scandalous

I just discovered this. Please look at the web site www.teletruth.org

It tells about how the major telecom companies have been scamming the american consumer for the past decade or more. They promised to roll out major fiber optic connections for America in the early '90s, each 45 mbps both ways. In return the gov't let them have 200 billion dollars that we, Americans, paid for. These companies kept the money and did not keep their promise.

Now they continue to scam us with this type of BS. Violating net neutrality will not allow for better service. On the contrary, its just an excuse for them to increase profits while at the same time look like they actually are doing something without actually improving the connections they provide.

The web site explains more about this. Now I feel Verizon and other such companies (or at least the people in charge) have about the same ethics as Enron. Hopefully we can realize they do not have your best interests in mind (or what's best for the internet as a whole), and will lie and deceive to increase profits.

The whole idea of Google needing to pay extra because it's been having a "free ride" is of course completely garbage. Connecting to the whole internet is the point of their service, and they are being well paid and compensated for it. We really need this law and more investigation into their activities.

[phobet]

*Nobody* rides for free...

The statement (not made by you) that Google is getting a free ride is so much BS. Any ISP has to incorporate the costs of providing bandwidth to their customers into the cost the customers pay. Otherwise, they could not afford to have those customers. After all, the ISPs have to pay for *their* connection to the Internet, also. And even if their payment is carrying traffic from/to other providers through peering arangements, they still have to pay for the equipment carrying that traffic, as well as the cost of actually running the equipment. The Telcos see Internet companies such as Google as cash cows, and as such, they should pay a "tax" (or be given a cut, same thing) for the priveledge (sp?) of serving traffic to their (already paying) customers. This is equivelant (sp?) to purchasing diesel fuel for you truck, and getting charged an extra 10 cents if you plan on using that fuel to transport goods for hire.

[samkass]

Charge per feature, but not per company

I don't really have a problem with the network providers
charging more for some new feature, such as isosynchronous
transfers or low-latency services. I *do* have a problem with
network companies setting a price for a particular customer
based on some deal, their opinion on the content, religion,
political affiliation or whatever. If they try to pull the latter, they
should lose all common-carrier protections and be liable for the
legality of everything they transmit.

Basically, the bottom line is that if Google's ISP gets charged one
price for vide-on-demand transmission, Ma and Pa's Movie
Delivery should get charged the same for the same feature.

What's more, Verizon, Comcast, and the other broadband
providers should be forbidden from colluding on the price. Let
them compete over it.

[jdbwar07]

It wouldn't be good

The absolute best thing for the internet would be to enforce net neutrality. I see what you're saying, however once this starts there's no doubt that eventually network providers and executives definitely would charge different customers less or more for those reasons and others.

Also, it would adversely affect the principles the internet was founded on. A byte is a byte, it shouldn't matter how much the web site you're on paid for it. If the telcos are seriously interested in improving my service (apparently they aren't) they should increase the connection speed and quality. This would apply for all web sites, not rich ones.

Also, I recommend you look a the site www.newnetworks.com . These companies have perpetrated a little-known scandal, which shows how greedy they are and how they'll lie over and over just to increase their profits.

[Blito]

If you want $$$ 'vendor lock in' the customer and then break it

Any company, if they lock you in to a cost structure where you have no alternative but to depend on their repair cycle, will grow into a monopoly. this is where monopolies come from because they don't depend on other companies in a proper community.
For some philosophy: ?the most successful businesses listen to the most criticism.? But in the New World Order I guess the most successful businesses subscribes to the mighty $$$. I can't eat nor drive a green piece of paper. And money is digital today if you even know what it?s worth anymore with so many transaction methods.

So, what will happen is that only 50 percent of the Internet will be accessible intermittently. because why? Well we have to make MONEY and build large structures and subdivisions. Our kids eat money, I drive money, money makes me healthy. Not medicine or food or science. What creates money??? Medicine, food and science.

[Blito]

This is NOT the future

C'MON. The web is fast and should be very simpe to have 3G everywhere. What the heck! PLEAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESEAAASE

[jonytk]

this isn't going to work

people wil hack it and bt/p2p is going to be faster than web.
L0L!!!

[directorblue]

Three questions the carriers should be forced to answer

1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor, delay, and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any type of service used by customers?

The hardware that Cisco and others are pitching the carriers implies that, indeed, they are exploring new, intrusive, and anti-innovation methods of controlling what content providers can do:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

[DaClyde]

Carriers should stop whining.

Until we have the speeds, reliability and prices they have in Japan and Korea, the carriers should stop whining and give us decent service, both connectivity-wise and customer service-wise. Light up some of that dark fiber they got for so cheap and actually respond to helpdesk calls.

[208mbrandon]

That is a bad, bad idea...

Telcos get a protected monopoly because telecommunications is a vital service, necessary in the event of disaster or war. They do NOT get a free pass on freezing out competition or governmental assistance in assuring that they can get a decent return on infrastructure investment.

This is one step towards holding all net services hostage until someone pays up.

Not that it is ALL bad. When it comes to spam, they can and should make it feasible to only have permissioned email delivered upon payment of a fee. In other words, if you want to send me email without permission, fine... just pay me 25 cents to read it. You could set a bid price, depending on how much email you wanted to read. Legitimate marketers should have no objection to this. Most of them already spend multiples of this for direct mail. If the email is unread, the marketer doesn't pay.


The telcos or ISP's could pocket a percentage of that, and everybody is happy... except the email marketers who send massive volumes of unwanted email. If spammers had to pay pennies per email delivered, they would be out of business in no time. The user would have the ability to grant free email to friends and family (just as most major providers allow now).

Mark Brandon
Sustainable Log - News and Views for Socially Responsible Investors
http://sustainablelog.blogspot.com
http://www.firstsustainable.com
When you subscribe to Sustainable Log, we give $1 to Alternative Gifts International in support of a cause of your choice.

[texascj7]

Looks like they do get government assistance

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/02/the_united_stat.html