Net Neutrality — The Grand Plan
Allow me to paint a picture for you…
The internet, or the digital transport system, is fairly similar to the physical transport system.
There are backbone networks, which we can consider to be interstates + intercontinental super roads
There are also Content Delivery Networks, or CDNs, which are basically (local) warehouses.
Then, there are ‘last-mile’ broadband networks which are the local highways around your city and all the little roads that lead up to your house.
Your computer/device is your house.
Your internet usage (or data) is sent as ‘packets’ to and from your house. Its basically the vehicles used to travel on roads and highways and interstates.
Necessarily, this means your data travels on the same roadways and interstates as everyone else’s data.
Therefore, things get mixed up.
So if you go to (request) a website, what actually happens is a lil runner in a car or something has to leave your house, go up the street, onto the highway, then out into the interstate (a completely different network) to finally tell the people (host) at your local warehouse (CDN) that you want to visit facebook (only if you’re lucky and there is actually a local CDN).
Once they get your request, they start sending out a bunch of cars (text stuff), trucks (images), and maybe even semis (videos) to your house. But of course all these vehicles travel at different speeds, and even have to take different routes. So they get to your house at different times.
Usually, that doesn't matter with a regular ole website. But for something like Facebook… that means you might get some text, some stuff from the nav bar, the tab title, then the actual content… and then a few (milli)seconds later you get some images (they usually dont send videos unless you scroll over it). Recently, Facebook just makes sure the vehicles send some bikers to your door while the other vehicles park in front of your house until most of them get it together. Either way, your data comes at different rates because the vehicles they drive to get to you are mixed in with other people’s traffic.
Usually, mixed packets don’t matter… but when we start binging on Netflix or Youtube (or gaming)… then this becomes a real problem.
You see, a video, especially of good quality, *cant* come out of order… when the vehicles take forever to get it together outside your house, you end up with buffering, stuttering, or just 240p on Youtube… Simply because the vehicle that was carrying the audio, or the extra pixels to make it hd, or the one carrying even more pixels to make it super hd or 60fps all came minutes apart (or even got lost and stuck in traffic).
So. Net Neutrality! Right?…
No… not quite.
Net neutrality is what is supposed to ensure that the company in charge of the last-mile broadband network does not discriminate between traffic.
All vehicles must be allowed access to their last-mile roads and highways.
However, Title II of the Net Neutrality then goes further and says that all traffic on these highways and roads must also be treated the same.
Sounds good right?…
Its kinda not.
It's the same ‘Common Carrier’ regulations that cover utilities such as public roads, water, electricity, and telecom
Thus my earlier wariness…
If those services are indicative of what this means for the internet, than is this really what we want?
The traditional telecom industry, which still holds a chokehold on the quality of our voice calls, is stifled by this regulation.
The water and electricity infrastructure is ancient, insecure, and expensive thanks to this regulation as well.
In fact, the very companies we hate: Comcast and ATT, *became* so monopolistic because of these regulations. They agreed to originally be considered as ‘common carriers’ (ie treat telecom services as a utility provided to all customers fairly and openly) as long as they were basically allowed to be a government-sanctioned monopoly! This includes price-fixing and lax incentives; the very anti-capitalist ideals we all know leads to less competition and innovation.
Because of all the regulations set up in Common Carrier laws, the telecom startup that wanted to offer you better voice calls (not using internet)… or the disruptive water company that had an idea for cleaner water; even the entrepreneurs that wanted to create a more stable power grid… None of them got a chance to compete.
The government sanctioned monopolies could and would snitch on potential competition; claiming them to be breaking regulations. Regardless of whether or not these new services actually stumbled over any legal problems, they would have to take it to court, which could quickly drain them of any runway they had. In fact, ATT and Co used this same method to (contribute to) Google stopping their plan to create fiber optic infrastructure that could give us gigabit internet.
Thats right… Google. If such a tactic worked against Google… how would smaller companies truly compete? The only way most new or small ISPs can ‘compete’ now is by servicing the rural areas ATT/Comcast dont want to be troubled with.
The current debate is not even about Net Neutrality
(which does not actually fix the mono/duopolies we have now)
It is about whether or not they should repeal Title II, which classifies the internet as a ‘Telecom Service’ rather than an ‘Information Service’.
What's the difference?
Well, with a telecom service, there are regulations that basically are supposed to ensure telecom companies remain fairly open and treat everyone’s traffic/data the same.
Meanwhile, an ‘information service’ is relatively deregulated.
From 1996 to 2014 the internet was classified as an ‘information service.’ Which meant cable companies didn't have to treat everyone’s traffic the same.
Honestly… this makes sense.
Remember the analogy with the cars? Well, in the past 20 years, most of the web1.0 *was* text… so things could come out of order. Therefore, they could create fast lanes for data-heavy websites (like Myspace) instead of having all that data clog up those slow DSL lines.
But recently, the game changed. Now, the majority of bandwidth gets taken up by high-def videos and games and even audio. Then we have VR and IoT coming as well… all set to clog internet traffic worse than LA, Austin, and Atlanta combined.
Now.. in the real world. That means we would need to build more roads, or create more methods of transportation. The costs of which falls on the taxpayer.
In the virtual world. Most of that responsibility lies on the ISPs, who have a monopoly on the highways and local roads leading to your house.
Furthermore, these ISPs are also starting to create their own video services and CDNs (warehouses) to directly compete with the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc…
So of course people are worried that they would cheat and prioritize their own systems, or sabotage the competition.
Therefore, Obama reclassified the internet as a Telecom Service in 2014 under Title II, and the ISPs have been lobbying to change it back ever since (or even to change other Net Neutrality rules, as they new it was coming because Title II was actually going to be applied in 96, but they were given a 10 year deadline … and billions of dollars, to deliver on the innovation they claimed a deregulated internet would allow for… but of course the innovation didnt come from them…).
Now… we might think that this ends all conversation… the ISPs are the bad guys… Silicon Valley is the champion of the People.
But the questions dont stop there.
Because we all know that many of these SV tech giants are planning to be their own ISP.
Their plan therefore MIGHT be to use Title II as a means of imposing heavy regulations onto these ancient monopolies.
If Comcast and Verizon are too busy fighting the government, than they will have less ability to flag Google for ‘not following regulations’. This would give Google a chance to bring forth their fiber networks (to collect more of your data than ever before).
OR
They could be all colluding together. Not conspiratorially. But simply playing a billionaire game of chess.
Afterall, the thing that started all of this (in terms of media attention) is Netflix’s suit against Comcast… claiming they broke Net Neutrality rules when their service was blocked from reaching customers in certain regions.
In reality, they were just using a popular tactic amongst CDN/ISP giants to get an edge on their Interconnection deals.
Wait. Interconnection?
Back to the analogy.
When traffic switches from the Interstates to the Highways/Local streets, they have to ‘pay’ to get on in one of two ways:
Peering: which just allows free pass through fair exchange of traffic. This way the oncoming network doesnt get clogged with too much traffic by offloading an equal amount of outgoing data.
Interconnection: in the case that there is far more incoming traffic than outgoing (or vice versa) they pay some amount, undisclosed to the public.
Netflix usually has to pay Interconnection deals anyways. Since it almost always has to send fleets of semi trucks and maybe even 18-wheelers worth of data in exchange for a mere car or two going out.
But remember… these roads are built differently. The Interstate network is a giant thing that’s probably more like the German Autobahn. Meanwhile, the highway is a much smaller pipe. Then from there the traffic still has to pass unto little local roads. Just like in real life, there are a lot of local roads that are simply too small and fragile for 18-wheelers.
And HERE is where it all comes together.
Netflix claims that Net Neutrality (and title II) can be interpreted to mean that ISPs have to upgrade their roads, or build more, to accommodate them, at no additional cost to them (thats on top of whatever deals Netflix got away with behind close doors after sicking the public on to Comcast).
Idk about you… but that kinda seems a bit grimy.
At the same time… I hate Comcast and co too much to care how much it costs them to upgrade their network. Its because of them that the US is so far behind places like Europe when it comes to internet speeds (amongst other things). Note: They have far more regulations on their ISPs and yet far more competition and quality. Could it be because of direct government funding, or simply because their regulatory committees are far more efficient than ours?
Nonetheless, this supports the possibility that the tech giants, most of who want to create their own CDNs, just want to force tons of data onto the highways and local roads of the last-mile ISPs… If Title II is kept, that means the ISPs would have to foot the bill for a rediculous amount of upgrades and expansions.
Of course, Comcast and co would try to pass that cost us on to we the people.
AHA! So this is about us!
No… still not quite.
Because they would never do that… or at least they wont get far if/when they tried.
Think about it. We all hate the ISPs for raising costs inexplicably and dropping service unabashedly and all sorts of blatantly anti-net neutral activities they’ve been doing for years (without recrimination from the government).
This has created a mass exodus from TV to the internet. Cord-cutters is not just some passe thing millennials are doing. Nor is it solely driven by all the great stuff on the internet.
Its a potential economic disaster for the traditional ISPs. They can just bundle cable in with internet anyways to recoup costs. So not using their service is really hard (ie the monopoly problem we non-billionaires actually care about).
But their B2B services will likely struggle severely.
The cable companies know full well that if they try to past the cost to us and hike bills up anymore… people will leave… in droves.
Directly into the waiting arms of those very tech giants that are trying to uproot them in the first place.
Because while their is a terrible monopoly on the ground… the sky, and even space are becoming the battlegrounds for the new ISPs.
The Master Plan, therefore, is not to free the people from monopolies abusing the internet. But to simply transfer the ownership of said monopolies from one generation of tech tyrants to another.
Net Neutrality is a great idea, but in practice it's very much a powerful tool to sanction and maintain monopolies. The very rules and regulations meant to protect and give opportunity to the people, are merely ignored or even (mis)used as weapons by the corporations in power.
I think this quote from a paper warning against Net Neutrality, by using Common Carrier examples from the last 150 years of US history, says it best:
Consumers arguably are better served by unregulated (and hopefully shorter-lived) monopoly than regulated, semi-permanent monopoly. -Bruce Owen
And let's not even get into how regulations create the perfect excuse for government officials to legally plant NSA-like anti-privacy tech all throughout the highways and streets of the ‘open’ internet….
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m looking at this with too much skepticism.
What do you think?
