DISQUS

ted · 3 years ago

Weren't a large portion of the pipes funded and maintained by public interests? I can drive my car on the same road where a FedEx truck drives, or the local furniture store. It's not a great analogy because the roads are 100% public, but it seems to me that there was substantial public investment in the pipes.

Furthermore, the more bandwidth you use, the more you pay, so your water and electricity analogies do not exactly hold up, and I'm not sure what "it is, and always has been, about paying for access" means exactly... if your website is doing enough traffic, you are paying massive amounts to ISPs already. The difference, as I understand it, is that they now want to make you pay even more to ensure that your visitors will be able to reach your website quickly, while other traffic is routed through slower bottlenecks etc.

Scott Karp · 3 years ago

Ted, who pays to widen the road when traffice exceeds the road's capacity? To your second point, when increasing usage (i.e. video) is pushing the network's capacity to the point where traffic starts to slow down, isn't paying to ensure visitors reach your website quickly essentially paying for additional usage? If there was enough bandwidth to go around, it wouldn't be an issue because the ISP's wouldn't be able to charge for special treatment -- the fact that they COULD get away with it barring legislation is evidence of fundamental problems with the infrastructure. So who's going to pay to fix it?

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

I think your point is a good one, Scott -- although I think the swimming pool metaphor leaves a little to be desired :-) I liked the electricity one better.

Still, your first commenter has a point too, I think. The telcos in the U.S. got all kinds of favourable deals from government, in part because they promised that everyone would soon have a super-fast connection they could use for phone calls and TV-style content and lots of other stuff -- and now they are asking to be able to charge more for something they were already supposed to be providing.

There are also reports that a substantial amount of the fiber-optic cable out there is still "dark," or unused, which would seem to refute the telecom argument that they need to charge more because the Internet is "full." I think you are right that we should be clear about what we're talking about, but that goes for opponents of "net neutrality" as well as its proponents.

Michal Migurski · 3 years ago

I think you're misunderstanding the arguments in the net neutrality debate. The sudden alarmism isn't due to a suggestion that bandwidth be metered, it's that companies such as AT&T are using the bandwidth argument as a red herring. They're not looking to charge the home user extra for using extra bandwidth, they're looking to charge services and publishers for an imaginary "fast lane".

The problem and solution don't add up: if AT&T is against the wall because all those 1.5mbps home users have suddenly started at *use* their 1.5mbps to watch videos and share wi-fi with neighbors, they need to figure out a way to appropriately charge for the unanticipated usage. Instead, they're suggesting that it's up to YouTube or Google Video to pay for the difference (which they already do!) and proposing double-dip schemes that prioritize traffic based on where it's from (Google, YouTube) instead of what it is (voice, bittorrent, video). It's a toll-road nightmare in the making.

Net Chick · 3 years ago

If this regulation passes, the cost for this will be passed on to consumers. Just another way for us to pay for more government "regulation" for a problem that is not even on the horizon.

internetfree · 3 years ago

I think these are valid comparisons. If the issue is whether to charge consumers or content providers, it seems as though that should be for providers to decide. Of course, content providers and consumers do not have to pay. They may decide that it is not in their best interests, and that it is wrong to have to pay extra. In either case, the power is in the hands of the consumers. If net neutrality regulation passes, then the power is in the hands of government. Do we really think this will not have drastic consequences down the road?

lakeville · 3 years ago

I think that asking members of Congress to regulate is akin to asking Pandora to open her box...no good can come of it.

Brewen · 3 years ago

This sounds like another way for Congress to get more tax dollars as well as earn a few campaign contributions and votes in the process. Do we really want the government going down the internet regulation path? You know once they do, it will just cost us more, and our service will go to crap. The internet has flurrished, because no one has messed with it. Do you really think a provider is going to limit internet access to certain groups? No, their focus is the dollar.