I haven't read any defenses of net neutrality that really tickle my telecom policy geek sensibilities (although plenty tickle my engineer sensibilities). Cable companies have the argument that its their private network, mostly built with private money, and Netflix, Google, etc, leverage it to reach customers. They should be able to do what they want with it. That's an almost slam-dunk argument for anyone who believes in deregulation and privatization. Their best play is to double down on the liberals. That means expanding the message. Yeah, without net neutrality cable companies could shut down startups, but that's really esoteric for your average liberal.[1] They want to hear about things like consumer protection, universal access, the digital divide, and assuring access of diverse viewpoints to media. These are people who will fight tooth and nail to keep public access stations nobody watches on the air, so figure out how to leverage those sentiments. A winning argument, if they could make it, would be: "Not having net neutrality would raise the price of everyone's Google and Facebook" or "lack of net neutrality would adversely impact rural populations" or something along those lines.
[1] I think this is where tech companies pay a price for having to awkwardly straddle the ideological divide. You come in calling for more regulation to increase competition and entrepreneurship, and people have no idea what to make of you.
Network providers are asking to be paid twice for the same service though; it's like the Post Office charging you to send your mail, then charging your recipients again to receive it. It's like car makers charging the buyers once for the car, then charging the mall owner to let that brand of car park there.
Additionally, it's got an incredibly harmful effect on free speech. As the Internet becomes the main means of all communication and discourse, if ISPs are allowed to regulate how content reaches their subscribers, what's to stop them from restricting access to particular news sources? Or even filtering political campaign website that haven't paid up?
Without net neutrality, the Internet will become just a network of toll roads patrolled by highwaymen trying to shake down travelers for what they can get. For us to get the full potential of the Internet, the tools and the highwaymen need to go.
My thoughts exactly. This is one part favouritism and the other part double-dipping (a.k.a greed). Another metaphor adding onto your example is the local or state Government charging individual car manufacturers to use certain public roads like highways.
"We've determined more Fords drive on this particular than any other brand of car, pay up or Ford vehicles will be intentionally limited or cut off from using this road" — Users (or in this example motorists) have already paid the appropriate entities; car registration, licence fees and insurance, now the road authority wants a cut from every car manufacturer because they're responsible for the roads being used.
When you put it all into perspective with those metaphors, it really highlights how damaging and ridiculous anti-net neutrality laws could be for the Internet.
The other thing Comcast don't seen to have realised is that they're making a long term bet they'll be bigger than Netflix with this strategy. If they're not, what's to stop Netflix saying a major reason the subscribers are buying Comcast's service is to access them, so why should Comcast keep all the subscription? It's no less logical.
Not a bet I'd want to make. Would you like being the ISP who only had limited access to all Google's websites because you wouldn't pay?
But what use is that if they don't have the content to drive traction? Netflix and Youtube aren't unique but each have strong leads in their respective niches. Being 'the only ISP who can't do online video' is hardly going to be a winning business model for them.
"Cable companies have the argument that its their private network, mostly built with private money"
No. They are using public right-of-way, which is worth a lot (far more than the typical monopoly franchise fees paid to local governments). This isn't hard to calculate. Figure out how much right of way is found in a building lot, then multiply by the number of dwellings and the mean cost of leasing bare land in that city.
If they want a free market with "privatization" and "deregulation", let them actually compete in one.
You would see very, very different pricing and service models if (e.g.) cities put in underground conduits and let anyone with the money to pay a lease fee pull their cable.
And the cost of renting space on utility polls or underground doesn't come near the cost of the surface property rights. And cable companies pay billions a year in franchise fees. Though I'd be interested to see a calculation...
Well, the alternative to using the city's eminent domain based right-of-way would be to negotiate with each property owner on an individual basis.
Cable franchise fees appear to be ~5% max (federal law), but ~3% seems to be more common (don't take that as solid -- it's based on a couple of minutes of Googling).
Figure a cable bill of ~$100/month. The city will get $3.00 of that.
It seems unlikely that property owners in general would let you run cables across their land for a measly $3.00/month. I wouldn't. And remember, that $3.00 only comes from the ones that are cable subscribers. The actual amount paid to the city is going to be somewhat less (it will vary depending on how many subscribers there are).
So, yeah, it looks like the cities are undervaluing the right-of-way access considerably.
Do you have a source for those numbers? I am actually starting an ISP myself, and the right of way fees I have to pay are notably higher than that.
I'm required by law to pay about 80 cents per foot, per year, for underground conduit in a right-of-way within the city's eminent domain. That's roughly $4,200 per mile, per year, per fraction of conduit. (That price doesn't even get you a whole conduit, just a fraction of an inch within one).
If each house is on a 80 foot wide lot down a residential road, it costs me a minimum $5.50 a month per house. And that assumes that every single house pays for that service. If I only have 10% saturation in an area (a 'best case' scenario) it's closer $55/month per house.
That also totally ignores state taxes (they take a few cents too, for every mile used, every single year, even though they have nothing to do with the process).
- - -
I'd also love to know where this "5% max" you mention comes from. The rates I pay are fixed, regardless of the cost of service. (I could give internet connections away for free, I still owe at a minimum $4,200 per mile for right of way).
- -
Comcast may have some special deal that I don't get, but even if they have a guaranteed 100% monopoly, I have to imagine that they pay more than $3/month per home for right of way.
Well, presumably most houses are accessible by public road, which is city-owned land, right?
Wouldn't cable companies just run trunk cables down all the city streets, and only run cables on your property (from your house to the trunk on the street) if you sign up for service?
Agree with your "slam dunk" argument. Though net neutrality seems utopian in principle, from another perspective the providers with the infrastructure seem to be simply asking for the market to decide the use of their private infrastructure than some abstract principle.
Then again, we can make the same argument about utility providers. If a private electricity provider asks for a share of the payment of the video being served using the electricity that they supply, where should this stop?
I'm beginning to think that we'll eventually end ip with a middle ground where some usages of communication infrastructure are regulated (such as emergency response) and some others are in the market.
While folks are arguing about whether such a breakage of net neutrality will be bad for consumers, are there at least any reasonable market simulations that point out good/bad out omes for each party involved, includin consumers?
[1] I think this is where tech companies pay a price for having to awkwardly straddle the ideological divide. You come in calling for more regulation to increase competition and entrepreneurship, and people have no idea what to make of you.