Imagine I create the next great internet innovation (the next YouTube, perhaps). In a world where network operators are allowed to tier their services, it’s not hard to imagine that the network operators might fatally cripple access to my innovation on all the tiers except those that are prohibitively expensive. Then imagine that the same network offers its copycat service, uncrippled, across all their tiers. Even worse, what if the network operators decide to cripple my innovation on every tier, and don’t even bother to offer a copycat. Either way, I’m essentially muscled out of the market.

What you forget is that ISPs get paid on the bandwidth that they sell. If they were to, for example, throttle back all potential new youtubes in favor of their own then they would be limiting the amount of bandwidth they would be selling.

Keep in mind that the wholesale and hosting businesses of the telcos generate vast amounts of money and those same telcos have been horrible at rolling out their own television services.

You are placing bullying as an economic motivator ahead of making money. This is obviously not how the telcos act. They act to make money. Could they throttle back everyone one or even just everyone except one? Sure. Would that maximize their revenues? No.

So, if you believe that the telcos would acts in their own self interests – and you believe that it is to make money – then why would they limit their opportunities to sell as much bandwidth as possible?

Just to be a bully? Just cause they can? Just cause it’s easier to believe that the big and powerful telcos are gonna put everyone else at a disadvantage because they are big and powerful?

Those are hardly realistic reasons…

well, if you’re asking the wrong question, David Weinberg, it’s not surprising that you arrive at the wrong answer.

in our flat in stockholm there is no shortage of last mile competition. a plurality of DSL, cable and wireless carriers compete fiercely with each other and the result is that we have the choice of not one, or two, but ten different “last mile” providers.

it’s very hard to understand why, as william kennard wrote in his NY Times editorial “Since 2000, the United States has slipped from second to 19th in the world in broadband penetration, with Slovenia threatening to push us into 20th.”

it is also very hard to understand why America’s cellular network is similarly so far behind the rest of the world.

problems which are difficult to understand generally don’t lend themselves to simplistic solutions like “net neutrality.”

moreover, dumbing this discussion down to a debate over “net neutrality” does nothing to shed light on the real problems.

So, the argument isn’t over whether all packets must always be treated precisely the same in every circumstance. The question is whether we’re going to trust the incumbents – especially since there’s not enough competition to empower the market’s hand – to make those decisions. And, for the reasons Prof. Lessig and Andrew the Commenter give, I think the answer has to be a resounding No.

Imagine I create the next great internet innovation (the next YouTube, perhaps). In a world where network operators are allowed to tier their services, it’s not hard to imagine that the network operators might fatally cripple access to my innovation on all the tiers except those that are prohibitively expensive. Then imagine that the same network offers its copycat service, uncrippled, across all their tiers. Even worse, what if the network operators decide to cripple my innovation on every tier, and don’t even bother to offer a copycat. Either way, I’m essentially muscled out of the market.

In a world where such bullying is possible, innovation would be chilled. The majority of innovation would come from within a small handful of network operators and very little would come from the fabled “guy in a garage somewhere”.

Also, there aren’t all that many network operators to begin with. It’s close to a monopoly power in portions of the country. Why should we give additional control to someone who has little competition, and thus little reason to exercise that control responsibly? Would the benefits of giving the network operators that kind of discriminatory power outweigh the possible abuses of that power? Would we all be better off, or would just a few companies who already control the bulk of the market be better off?

When is the last time you were able to watch a DVD-quality streaming video at 8 PM without it slowing down due to network congestion? Content providers have an incentive to pay for premium quality because the best effort Internet does not provide them with the quality of service that they are seeking for their content.

If ISP X wishes to charge a premium rate for specific type of content to achieve a specific QoS (quality of service), with a non-discriminatory price schedule, that should be fine. Unfortunately, it’s effectively impossible given the nature of the beast.

While technically it could be done, it requires total suspension of disbelief in terms of the expected behavior of telco executives. I don’t believe for a second that telcos won’t start:

• Intentionally degrading service for that same content when transmitted by non-payers. If the QoS of the Internet is normally a 2, it’s one thing to charge a premium for a provider to get to 3, but it’s a whole ‘nuther thing to degrade non-payers to a 1. But they’ll do that, both to help convince more to pay, and to steer their users to view more of payers’ content, thereby further increasing the pressure to pay up. In this direction lies protection rackets.
• Discriminating in the pricing, by offering sweetheart deals to firms who, for example, support the same political candidates that they do.

So, when you say:

The network owners would not pick which content would flow quickly. The ability of the content provider to pay the premium charge would dictate whose content flowed quickly and whose did not.

I don’t believe it for an instant.

For example, first-class costs more than coach and overnight costs more than regular delivery.

And the pricing schedules for these services are reasonable, non-discriminatory, and public…at least for the US Postal Service. Are other delivery services and airlines discriminating? Probably. The value of the Internet to society dwarfs all of them combined, which is why the network neutrality issue gets much more attention than the airline neutrality issue.

1.

“Network owners now want to change this by charging companies different rates to get access to a “premium” internet. YouTube, or blip.tv, would have to pay a special fee for their content to flow efficiently to customers. If they do not pay this special fee, their content would be relegated to the “public” internet – a slower and less reliable network. The network owners would begin to pick which content (and, in principle, applications) would flow quickly and which would not.”

The network owners would not pick which content would flow quickly. The ability of the content provider to pay the premium charge would dictate whose content flowed quickly and whose did not.

This self-selection for premium service is no different a model than that of many other industries. For example, first-class costs more than coach and overnight costs more than regular delivery.

Would you say that airlines and the U.S. mail discriminates in the same manner as you portray the ISPs as doing?

2.

“Network owners say this is worth it as their tax will help fund the development of a faster network for everyone. But will it? When you can charge content providers a premium for access to a premium internet, what incentive is there to improve the rest of the internet? If the regular internet is fast and reliable, why would a Google or YouTube pay for the premium?”

But the regular (i.e., best effort) Internet is not fast and reliable. When is the last time you were able to watch a DVD-quality streaming video at 8 PM without it slowing down due to network congestion?

Content providers have an incentive to pay for premium quality because the best effort Internet does not provide them with the quality of service that they are seeking for their content.

Also, content companies currently pay for higher-quality service with CDNs (content delivery network) providers such as Akamai and Limelight. Why is it OK for content companies to pay a premium to those CDN providers but not pay ISPs for the same improved service?