Summary of comments on "Net Neutrality"

[docstrange]

Summary of points regarding the politics around "Net Neutrality":

1. Against regulation -
   • Given that this mostly is about backbone transport and major carriers, it is a bit ridiculous to think that the money (from either the provider or consumer ends) would not be able to find paths of less resistance
   • End users and big data flow providers ARE paying for transit, the argument they aren't carrying their weight is ludicrous (this cuts both ways!)
   • There is little interest in actual content-based speed-limits/filtering, but a lot on source- and destination-based limits/filtering, which again, go to the "the money should readily solve that."
   • Content-based controls are probably already illegal under some acts, and in any case would provide such a massive popular backlash (as they ALREADY have) that the provider caught engaging in such will find themselves very damaged.
   • This is really a last-mile/mobile-user question, where again, the issue isn't really neutrality but one of government-sanctioned monopoly. If we want to regulate the beneficiaries of artificial monopolies, well ok, but the reality is that since they are net-connected they will soon be themselves screaming for (and throwing money at) open networks.
   • A lot of "net neutrality" issues are really provider/customer issues involved with companies providing products people want, but which come with severe limits (e.g., Apple's mobile devices) that risk the consumer paying per byte or the like. So it is really a consumer protection issue - the net neutrality argument is the wrong tool to solve that problem.
   • Traffic shaping is a REAL issue for providers - it really costs money to have a bursty network, so they need to do it; however, if every traffic-shaping decision is subject to regulation, it will be really complex. We can't even regulate banks. There must be a better way to encourage open network behavior.
   • The regulations for net neutrality may actually result in legislation that ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT CONTENT.  Remember how the CAN-SPAM act in effect legitimized spam.  Unintended consequences are the norm in complicated federal regulation.
2. For Regulation -
   • There is a quid pro quo here - government already creates artificial monopolies in telecomms.  There are places where it is almost impossible to find an alternative provider, possibly all the way to the backbone level. If they abuse the monopoly, that is a real issue of abusing the public trust since they have a gov-supported monopoly.  But again, that need for regulation may be a little different from the net neutrality issue.
   • Control of content and conduit creates a sort of conflict of interest, where if one purchases CONDUIT only, one should not be subject to hidden content-based or source-based preferences of the conduit-provider.  This also may be an issue outside the "net-neutrality" issue and more a consumer-contracting issue, ultimately. [ed: Given the consumer's likely acceptance of half-price net access in exchange for being subject to speed controls, I wonder if this is akin to complaining about noise after buying a house next to an airport...]
   • End users and big data flow providers ARE paying for transit, the argument they aren't carrying their weight is ludicrous (this cuts both ways!)
   • When end-user providers want to start charging content providers for bandwidth, it seems obvious content providers should charge end user providers for access!  I.e., the organizations complaining about things being unfair are already well compensated, or else they are secretly trying to give low prices to the consumer by charging the data provider instead.
   • It is already the market norm to charge big providers and consumers by bandwidth in tiers that have various contractual controls. [Ed: is this an argument FOR regulation or an argument that the market is just fine?]

SO, there are the various points.

After digesting them, I am starting to think the whole "net neutrality" issue is not one calling FOR regulation, but one campaigning AGAINST regulation that would empower some companies to write horrible anti-consumer contracts and regulate flows despite bargained-for numbers, all conducted under the umbrella of government-sanctioned monopoly. That or it is an attempt to get something for nothing by government fiat, which sadly our populace seems always ready to call for.