The February DACS General Meeting took a different tack from our normal format. The scheduled speaker, Brian Jackson, was unable to attend due to illness and therefore did not deliver his planned presentation on Net Neutrality. Bert Goff, DACS’s Treasurer, stepped forward at the last minute to host a free-wheeling audience discussion of the topic.
Bert kicked off the session with a definition: “Net Neutrality is the concept that all internet traffic should flow in an equivalent fashion, without any party’s traffic being favored over another’s.”
To augment that definition, an audience member offered an analogy written by a 9-year old:
“Stores give away free milkshakes. But you have to buy a straw to drink them. That’s okay, because you still get free milkshakes. One day you’re drinking a free milkshake and you look down and the guy that sold you the straw is pinching it almost shut. You can still get your milkshake, but it’s really hard and takes a lot longer. So you say, ‘Hey! Stop that!’ And the straw guy says, ‘NO! Not until the ice cream store pays me money.’ And you say, ‘But I already paid you money for the straw.’ And the straw guy says, ‘I don’t care. I just want more money.’ ” [This is a slightly longer version than was quoted in the meeting.]
Other comments and questions by the moderator and members of the audience are shown below. Some statements have been paraphrased for clarity.
“There was no federal action on Net Neutrality until about 2 years ago, when the Obama administration pushed through some things at the FCC. That has been reversed. The Wall Street Journal has been opposed to Net Neutrality, presumably because government regulation can get in the way of innovation. I have at least four possible channels of access to the internet: Frontier, Comcast, cell phone connection, and satellite dish service.”
“Technology has evolved since the 90’s. Telephone service used to be a regulated monopoly to provide universal access. And so long as people were using dial-up modems, the choices for access to the internet were more than four. But as the technology has shifted to higher speeds, the choices have narrowed down to the phone companies and the cable companies.”
“The Wall Street Journal talks about government interference but government is there to interfere. Not maliciously…but that’s why we have a government.”
“Electric power supply is another example of a regulated monopoly.”
Examples abound of corporations restricting or blocking each others’ access to the internet:
- “Years ago, Comcast and Blockbuster cooperated to provide an online movie service. In 2014, Comcast forced Netflix, a competitor, to pay an “interconnect” fee to connect to Comcast’s network. Was that fair?”
- “AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocked Google Wallet from 2011 to 2013.”
- “MetroPCS blocked streaming video.”
- “AT&T forced Apple to block Skype via iPhone, from 2007 to 2009.”
- “Comcast blocked Peer-to-Peer Technologies in 2005, secretly, until they were caught.”
[Other examples may be seen in the Wikipedia article about Net Neutrality, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality]
“Maybe it’s not a problem that Netflix should have to pay Comcast to interconnect, because Netflix’s data volume is so large?”
“In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling access to Netflix and Youtube videos after users of these services noticed that they were slower than usual. Verizon claimed that it was just a test they were conducting on a temporary basis.”
“Political speech could be throttled. Who’s to prevent companies from throttling access to content providers whose political views they disagree with? If they do, how are ordinary citizens going to get the information they need in order to make informed opinions and choices?”
(Users of AOL sometimes have difficulty receiving DACS e-mail – this is a known Bluehost issue, nothing to do with Net Neutrality.)
“The infrastructure of the internet was built with government, i.e. taxpayers’, money, although the ISPs behave as if it all belongs to them.”
Burger King created a joke commercial to illustrate by analogy the concept of restricting access to a product for customers unless they pay extra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q
Question: “In other countries, e.g. Korea, Canada, everybody gets the same (super-fast) internet. Is the U.S. the only country where the speed is manipulated?”
“When you compare small countries, e.g. Hong Kong, against the U.S., you have to take into account the costs of providing service over a huge area like the United States.”
“Comcast has gigabit internet in Brewster, and it’s coming to Danbury next.”
“SpaceX has a project to work on low-orbit satellites to provide universal cell phone service.”
“Competition is better than government regulation.”
“The (Sherman) anti-trust law(s) become an issue when someone does something anti-competitive… when a company has exhibited monopolistic powers.”
“Although the FCC decision overturning Net Neutrality prevents states from overriding it, some states are fighting back by putting provisions into state contracts that require contractors to adhere to Net Neutrality.”
Question: “There was tremendous growth of the market for internet-based services before Net Neutrality was enacted (two or three years ago). Nothing much has changed since Net Neutrality came along, so what has been its benefit?”
“Analogy of the ‘information super-highway’ with the real highway. On a real highway, trucks pay more in tolls than cars because they impose more wear and tear on the road. By analogy with Net Neutrality, should all vehicles pay the same tolls?”
“It may be dangerous to draw the analogy too far.”