6 Comments

I think ISPs should be allowed to ask third parties, e.g., Google, Netflix, etc., for money to guarantee better service to the end-user. That’s a no brainer.

The problem is the throttling of the rest of the web. That’s what people do not like. The protecting of the rich status quo by creating a system where the little guys never stand a chance to compete or to be heard.

Here’s my solution. Any ISP that has paid partners should advertise a two tier service. For example, Comcast could advertise its 1 mbps service with a 2 mbps connection for “trusted partners.” And of course, Comcast would not be allowed to throttle any site lower than 1 mbps. (Of course some sites will be slower than 1 mbps, but as long as Comcast isn’t throttling, Comcast is in the clear.)

By advertising an ISP’s minimum throttling rate, the consumer is informed to exactly what he is getting for the rest of the web. And because the ISP is bound by that minimum rate, it cannot use throttling to eliminate competition.

I’m not convinced that neutrality laws are appropriate, but the ISPs’ proposals smack of extortion. Google, et al. already pay for their bandwidth by giving money to their ISPs. Those ISPs peer with others (usually at no cost to either) so that traffic can get between networks. Those ISPs to whom Google pays nothing simply want a cut of the money that it already pays to its current providers for nothing in return. If these ISPs aren’t making enough money from their customers, they should raise their rates (or try to become and ISP to a big site like Google). If they were smart, Google’s ISPs would threaten to de-peer with any ISP that tries to extort money from their customers–a little nuclear brinksmanship for the digital age. 🙂

(An excellent article, BTW. Thanks for the link.)

Billb might be interested in the editorial by David Farber and Michael Katz. They address the bandwidth issue succinctly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html

I do some consulting for the Hands Off the Internet Coalition and we recommend a “hands off” approach that will ensure a robust and accessible internet ready to handle all of the new technologies coming down the pipeline (i.e. venice project, downloadable netflix movies, ipTV, medical robots)

I feel split on the issue. As a consumer, I want to have the cheapest, fastest Net access possible, and if having Google, Yahoo!, et al subsidize the Net with fees paid to ISPs, that sounds okay. However, I also want variety; I know that this opens the door to smaller companies, who I still want to see populate my favourites list, being charged for their own access to my browser.

Also, as a manager of one of these businesses, I certainly don’t want the cost of access to my customers to be a barrier to entering the market. It’s hard enough to set up services and other overhead to start a business in the first place. Maybe that’s the cost of doing business, but it sucks, and it favours the existing players. That is what anti-trust is intended to prevent.

As a Canadian resident, I see an easy solution. Why don’t we simply follow the existing model for telecommunication in Canada? Each POTS provider is regulated; they must provide a minimum quality of service to customers when there is no competition (e.g. last-mile service), and they must make their networks available to other companies in a fair manner when there is. Thus, if you are a long-distance provider, you can get the same access to the customer that the local phone company can. At that point it becomes a competition between rates and, therefore, back-end costs.

Of course, I am simplifying. But whatever is happening here, it seems to be working. We have a variety of Internet services, cellular services, long distance plans, and now local phone service (with our cable company now offering digital phone service) available to us. Soon, when TV-over-IP gets rolled out by our local telecom ISP, we will have a variety of “cable TV” services. We may not have the fastest Net access in the world (I still envy those Asian and European customers who get insane connection speeds), but that will come eventually as well.

If it doesn’t, I will be very upset.

HOTI45: I haven’t read the pending legislation, but the editorial you link to cites a desire by its proponents to restrict pricing based on content and application. I’m all for different pricing levels based on different content, as long as the price is source and destination independent. Also, this sort of variable premium pricing should apply to both ends of the connection. If I download lots of video and my ISP wants to charge me more. Fine. If Google’s ISP wants to charge it more for sending out video. Great. Most of the pro-neutrality folks I’ve read online are not rallying against such pricing models. What we want to avoid is Verizon (for example) demanding money from Google to provide a certain level of service from Verizon’s customers to Google, independent of application or content. I’m also opposed to Verizon demanding money from Google unless some of Google’s routers are connected directly to some of Verizon’s routers. Those sorts of demands are extortionate. They are especially extortionate considering that Google is not a customer of Verizon (in this example).

Good point billb. The anti-neutrality crowd are always claiming that sites like Google are getting a “free ride.” Which obviously is complete BS. I could easily live a year on what Google pays for a day’s worth of its bandwidth.

And I’m always suspicious when one side of a debate has to resort to lying to make a point. I think there are a lot of positives on the anti-neutrality side so spreading such obvious BS is not needed.