Lessig On Net Neutrality

nanojath writes "Lessig delivers the final word on net neutrality. Read it 5 times to absorb the densest, most content-rich pronouncement that Wired will deliver in 2007." From the article: "Those who oppose network-neutrality regulation should also oppose... regulation of [municipal broadband,] last-mile broadband's most important competitor. Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows. Yet it could change the business model of last-mile broadband, just as Linux has changed the business model of Microsoft. If there's going to be a Linux-like miracle to counteract innovation-threatening broadband business models, then, at a minimum, miracles must not be a crime."

Reluctant regulator here...

I'll give up on regulation banning network neutrality when the telcos and cablecos would give up on their regulations and contracts that ban other people from competing against their monopoly.

i'm worried

Read it 5 times to absorb the densest, most content-rich pronouncement that Wired will deliver

I'm pretty sure that if it's as dense as you say it is, it's going to clog the tubes on the way over here. Kind of like when I eat too much fiber, if you know what I mean.

The final word?

You must be new to slashdot.

Even dupes of dead horses are beaten around here.

isn't it the other way around?

Municipal and government networks do not have the advantage of competition, and therefore disparage innovation, not vice versa. Businesses compete and in order to gain an advantage, one business must innovate. I don't know why this article is claiming the opposite. Yes, I see the advantage of having standards, disparaging monopoly, and the like, but net-neutrality will only lead to a network that never gets better (think power lines). Yes, it is difficult for a business to get enough clout to own a network and there are problems with certain networks working together (problems between different cell networks). However if true innovation is encouraged, we will see a system that uses very few wires and increasingly uses wireless broadband. The integration of the cell phone and cell networks with broadband has already happened. Putting further restraints on the system will only cause unforeseeable problems in the future. Fairness and neutrality is not necessarily the best thing for the country.

Re:isn't it the other way around?

Municipal networks are free from competition only if they are the only game in town, which virtually no one is proposing. Municipal networks will have to compete with telcos and cable companies.

Also, there are a lot of places where there is an effective broadband monopoly already; in those cases would you prefer a for-profit monopoly or a non-profit one?

Re:isn't it the other way around?

The problem with any sort of state run industry is that it tends to murder off private competition. State run monopolies always have two advantages over any private corporation. State run monopolies can easier push through legislation to make it harder to compete with them, and state run monopolies can always make up for inefficiency, poor planning, and higher operational costs with tax money.

I agree, and I wouldn't want a municipal government acting as an ISP. On the other hand, in my opinion the best source for the "last-mile" communications infrastructure is the same entity responsible for providing the roads and other fixed infrastructure; in most cases that is the city government, although it could just as easily be a private organization. (In many regards city governments, unlike state and federal governments, tend to resembly co-ops or private companies with the citizens as shareholders. The major differences relate to the form of income (taxes instead of rents) and eminent domain.)

Ideally I would like to see something like the UTOPIA [utopianet.org] project in Utah, where the cities provide (and own) a fast fiber-based communications infrastructure and lease it out to individuals and companies on a non-discriminatory basis. (Important: this must be funded locally, preferably through the lease fees, and especially not with state or federal taxes.) The city itself does not provide Internet access; instead, individuals can subscribe to any ISP connected to the municipal network and access the Internet using that ISP as a gateway. The system eliminates the ISP's natural monopoly by separating the infrastructure from actual Internet connectivity, something that (IMHO) should have been done from the beginning. Besides reinstating competition among ISPs it also allows "non-Internet" data services, such as VoIP and IPTV, to be offered simultaneously over the same network; these can be offered over the Internet itself, of course, but are generally more efficient when routed over the faster municipal network. People can even offer their own services--community web sites, game servers, IPTV stations, etc.--over the local network at far better speeds than they would get through any ISP.

Re:isn't it the other way around?

I think it's interesting that you are using power lines as you example, but I'll stick with it. To extend your analogy, without network neutrality the power company can charge your appliance manufacturer a surcharge for use, and if they decide not to pay it then your refrigerator and washer/dryer gets a tiny trickle of electricity and is reduced to near-worthlessness.

You clearly don't understand the situation, like most people who come out against network neutrality. The companies who are pushing this did not create the internet, did not create it's standards, and do not own the land that they are using to bring the internet to you. The internet is a "common area", not a market. There is no "free market" here unless you want to make it truly free, in which case I will charge Verizon $400 for the FIOS line they just ran under my property, payable immediately and monthly. Also Charter, you owe me another $400, pay up. Then these two companies can then negotiate with every single other homeowner in the city as well. But wait, we don't allow that (and rightly so) because it would ensure that no one ever gets broadband and stifle innovation. Instead, we grant Verizon a local monopoly and allow them to use our easements; in return they are supposed to stay away from doing exactly what they are proposing, which is using their power to bone us out of features because we have no choice (hey it's them or the cable company, that's hardly a free market).

Also, power lines are a bad example because they work just fine for their intended purpose and are regulated.

Backbone

Lessig claims that municipal networks will be able to compete with the Telcos to prevent abuse of their control over the network. I'm no expert but don't these municipal networks still plug into backbones owned by the Telcos? What is there to stop the Telcos from exercising their control at that level rather than at the end user level? I understand his point about not being too hasty with regulation, but there seem to be some holes in his logic.

Re:Backbone

Its easy to bulldoze a consumer. But they might think twice when taking on a municipality who has its own staff of lawyers.

So the telcos will be competing against an opponent who isn't motivated by maximizing profit. This means the telcos will have to compete on features, and choking the internet chicken just isn't one of those features that will make consumers switch.

Many Linux-style volunteers are building free...

Many Linux-style volunteers are building free wireless networks that enable participants to share access and offer capacity to others. These volunteers are also building free protocols that enable legal access without shifting control to a last-mile access provider.

Who? Why? Or are you talking just about all the unsuspecting people who set up unsecured wireless networks in their homes?

Monopoly

I would rather see the government force the carriers towards network neutrality. They were awarded a monopoly by the government, and can't complain about regulation. I am usually a free market person, but in this case, I would like to see the government enforce the status quo. Once Wi-Max is mature enough to give people options, then maybe the carriers can have some freedom.

Does that mean I can't support both...

...Net Neutrality and Munuciple Networks?...Because I resoundingly do. If I honestly thought legislation could be created to protect them that really wouldn't just be a smoke screen for increasing the megacorps' stranglehold over everyone I would support that too. We now have copyrights for works that will outlive their author by 70 years, patents on how information is manipulated, and Telcos entering the television market with federal assistance to help them drive cable-based ISPs out of business all made possible by legislation cosponsored by members of both major polical parties. While I heartily support both ideas and would love to see them protected I can't see any legislation being passed that wouldn't pervert both beyond recognition.

A profoundly bad analogy

Linux was able to succeed as a collaborative effort because of cheap, commodity PCs (whose performance increased constantly), the Internet, a common desire for a freely available operating system, and remarkably good project management. None of this required capital beyond what was readily available to any one player.

With broadband, the network neutrality issue comes back to the idea of common carrier status. This is important, because the companies delivering this traffic have been granted a monopoly on service explicitly. What the large ISPs are trying to do is to eliminate common carrier status while retaining the monopoly. Allowing that would be a disastrous mistake for the public.

Is it just me or is Slashdot just too opinionated?

I'm not talking about the comments, they always were opinions (duh) but I'm talking about the articles. There's about 10 articles on net neutrality, and then another ten on some database that someone thinks is another sign of "big brother" which people attack like crazy, and of course let's not forget articles on politics which tend to attack anyone trying to regulate... well anything, toss in a few articles on people expecting people visiting america to be documented (heaven forbid we try to actually stop undocumented aliens, or even criminals from entering our country) and stir for 12 minutes and serve over the course of 2 monthes.

I don't know whether it's all the mods or just specific ones but it seems I'm seeing more and more agenda pieces and most of them are agendas I really don't give a fuck about. Net Neutrality I really can't care about, I've decided what I want to do with it, but that's it. Govermental Databases I'm actually for some of the times because the stories on here just reeks of people who read 1984 a few to many times and think goverment is bad. Anti-MPAA stuff I'm for most of the time (though there's some nut jobs out there) but at the same time acting like it's our right to pirate movies seems odd, personally I just boycott their asses and enjoy the free TV I get at home (the 50 inch tv really makes it easy). Even the stuff against the people against the violence in video games seems to be promoting them as it villifies them. If we ignored Jack Thompson we'd probably never have to deal with his jackassery now.

Even at the same time I don't remember too many storys about Mr. Nifong and how easy it was for him to ruin 3 student's lives, a college's reputation and a sports history. Is it just that I'm changing my opinion and interests or is it slashdot that is becoming so leftist/rightist/socialist/capitalist/centralist that it's become something I don't even recognize any more?

kinda like how vista will be secure?

most content-rich pronouncement that Wired will deliver in 2007.

seriously where do you people get these time machines?

Diminishing Marginal Returns

Lessig wrote: "Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?" Diminishing marginal returns apply to expenditures for R&D as well. Nobody would disagree that societies are becoming more advanced as time goes on, however, the rate at which companies are able to realize returns on that increase in "innovation" is not able to keep up -- learning curves apply as well, especially ESPECIALLY when companies must pay competent people to answer questions asked by incompetent people. This is why people whining about outsourcing irk me to no end. I've worked at a company where I had to take technical support calls, and the utter idiocy of so many people is mind-boggling. If you can't figure something out, look it up in a book or online or in the manual that came with the product you purchased that you can't figure out how to get to work. People do have hobby interests on which they spend massive amounts of time or and/or money. Last time I checked, time wasn't powered by money. Automation of tasks -- like Lessing wrote about automated Tax Returns! -- gives people more time to spend doing things they enjoy doing, more "free time" as an economic reward. A longer piece written a big ago defending net neutrality: here [zentu.net].

what about the history of telcos?

I might be misguided but frankly I don't trust the telcos. Verizon's CEO has said many times that the pipes belong to him and has indicated he's pissed off because everyone's making money off the Internet except him. I can see his point. Afer all, he's the one that owns the pipes.

I wouldn't be so opposed to a non-net-neut world if I could be convinced the telcos weren't running a gnarly scheme to make my ISP bill look like my cell phone bill.

The net has been so succesful perhaps because it was designed and developed in large part, not by private companies, but by scientists and engineers in an academic environment who were mostly employed by the government. Profit was not their goal.

But if my cell phone company had developed the net, my ISP bill would probably list every site I went to that month and I'd be charged extra for things like email, SMS, MMS, streaming audio, etc., These would all be separately billable services. Voice would be charged per minute, data would be per megabyte, and I'd be nickel and dimmed for everything.

DARPA was not a business. They were not out to make money. The designed a system for maximum efficiency and easy growth.

Look at how the telcos have handled communications. For example, phone systems don't even have, nor have they ever had any intention of having, something as simple as DNS. If the telcos had had control over how the Internet evolved you'd be typing in Internet IP addresses simply so they could sell you access to a white pages directory.

Maybe I have it all wrong but when I look at their history I really don't have much faith in telcos. What worries me the most is that we're giving these companies a large hand in determining, not how the Internet will look in a few years, but ultimately we're going to be giving them a lot of power in influencing how it's developed later on down the road. I say we tread carefully.

Re:what about the history of telcos?

The modern telephone company grew from a government granted monopoly. It is not a product of the free market, it's a product of the worst kind of government interference, the kind that gives advantages to some corporations at the cost of other corporations and the public.

The modern Telco isn't an example of the failing of the free market, it's an example of what happens when you unduly restrain the free market for the benefit of corporations.

When will we ever learn?

Corporations exist to make a profit; making an ever increasing profit is required of them by their shareholders and some ill-conceived laws. Expecting Verizon or any other corporation to behave in a different way is nothing more than wishful thinking.

When corporations provide essential services, the possiblity for great evil exists. If government doesn't step in to protect the public interest, those corporations will take every opportunity to collect an ever increasing fee from their captive customers.

This is why things like the Sherman Act exist - to provide a counter-balance against unrestrained corporate greed. Unfortunately, our government seems to be unable or unwilling to exercise these tools to promote the public interest.

In the meantime, if you simply assume that every corporation is out to make every possible dollar in any way they can - you'll be right.

Net neutrality is SMART

This is the canonical link to the issue: http://isen.com/stupid.html [isen.com]

In short, your communication line is no more than infrastructure -- and no less. The argument that competition can somehow spring forth out of the last mile is based upon the fallacy that someone will string a whole new set of lines to homes. Verizon would argue that they alone own the telephone poles (they do not) and tie up the whole mess in the court system. Or that someone could blanket the nation with fixed wireless (Project Angel of AT&T); of course, the only entity that could it effectively is a local gov't and Verizon blocked that as well.

Someone mentioned corporations act in their best interests, and that is true. As citizens -- because after all corporations are considered entities somewhat like people -- corporations would be psychotic sociopaths who in all honesty would be sentenced to life in a mental institution.

Expecting these entities to act fairly is itself stupid. The only way to deal with them is harshly and unfairly, on the side of people and not the corporate interest. We know how that goes, too.

Net neutrality is something we absolutely must have, not just as Americans but as free people. No corporate interest should take precedence, ever, for any reason. If they cry poverty, so be it. Let them find another way to make money. Really, if we pushed them hard enough, what could they really do?

-BA

Lex Luthor said it best

Freedom of speech is great as long as nobody's listening.
--Luthor ruling the USA via holographic president in The Dark Knight Strikes Again.--

The point being made is people hear what is said but noone really does anything about it. The machine just rolls along while we here on slashdot and digg and various blogs talk about all this and do nothing about it. The awareness factor is limited only to the tech savvy crowd (many on here) who on allot of levels control information. I have seen very few instances where people are actually posting petitions or doing anything to show the dissatisfaction. Blogs go up but there really is no one united effort to focus the voice of the people toward the Govt to address our grievances. Just a bunch of divided voices and individuals voicing opinions who will often get outed as crazy. Larger numbers make a larger difference.

If we take our voice into one central place and focus it at the Government they WILL listen. We out number them. They want our vote. As long as the 2 of the 3 branches of Govt are reminded that they have the axe of constituency voters hanging over their head they will listen. At this point they are paying lip service and doing under the table deals. We just need show that they have more to fear from us in terms of our voice and the resulting action that just posting on social sites. I am working on a number of petitions that deal with Government issues and laws important to constituencies all over the nation. Once they are finalized and written I will post links up. But I am hoping we can all rally behind that and show the Government we are serious about changes in the things we are seeing now. Corporate influence on Govt in general is no different than what religion was in the dark ages to the Govts of the time. The only difference is the lack of brutality.

To offer tiered service is just an excuse for the corporations to limit what we can see on the premise that the content provider must pay for bandwidth. We just need to fight that tooth and nail with our voice. Make sure the public in general (non techies) are very aware of what that is and HOW it affects them. If they are aware of how bad it will be for them then more people will start to react. Preaching to the choir never gets it done. Preaching to the people who have no clue or don't see the danger has a much better chance of getting the message across and will spread. This is one method of creating a united front. /Steps off soap box.

Network Neutrality?

Sounds like more government [capmag.com] regulation [capmag.com].

Two Words WI-MAX

It will not be municipalities that push out the telco's, it will be new wireless technology that will allow people all the ease of 802.11b, but with a 30 mile radius.

I prefer Rollins on net neutrality...

Only briefly looked at what Lessig write, for sure Henry Rollins is more "direct"... (= http://throwawayyourtv.com/2007/01/rollins-opinion -on-net-neutrality.html [throwawayyourtv.com]

Is it just me...

Did this guy just claim that he now thinks it was a bad idea to try to reduce Microsoft's monopoly power? He thinks because Linux is kicking ass in the server space, it's ok that consumers have suffered through all the sh*t Microsoft has foisted on them through the power of their monopoly? All of the virii, the worms, the trojans, the spam, adware, etc.? Has this guy ever used Windows?

I don't see that this guy deserves an audience. Reluctant regulator? More like reluctant cogitator. I hate to call anyone a moron, but come on.

Lessig is an ideologue

"Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows."

That's a poor analogy. Linux may well kill windows, it just hasn't happended yet because Linux has deficiencies that have slowed its adoption. But broadband is broadband: unless the municiplities offer a severely substandard service, and even if they do, the motivation to pay will be severely underminded.

Lessig's assertion, which really should be couched with "in my opinion", is a typical non-fact that those with ideologies employ. He believes something, and he's willing to use sleight of hand to prove it.

Re:Microsoft?

They owned the network, the equipment, all services, support, even the phone books.

And after the stupid breakup, they still did, except they were called baby bells and they only ruled particular states. Didn't like the service in Florida? Well, I hear New Mexico is a great place to retire.

Didn't help customers one bit. Hey, that sounds just like the MS antitrust trial. Oh wait, did I just bash MS?

Re:Read it 5 times...

It definitely hasn't been on Slashdot before ... Do you happen to read Wired?

Standard Oil

Standard Oil was the reason for the introduction of Antitrust laws in the USA, not AT&T (Bell, whatever). Yes they got hammered by them, but they were not the first, nor the ones that prompted their creation in the first place. What, you thought "Esso" was just a funny-sounding name? Ess-O. SO. Standard Oil.

Re:Standard Oil

Actually, it was the railroad industry that spurred the Sherman Act, not the oil companies. They just got hit with that hammer. The federal suit didn't start until 16 years after the Sherman Act was passed (1890).

Re:Microsoft?

You're the one who's grasping at straws here (for an example of needless MS bashing), not him. Did you miss the fact that Lawrence Lessig was part of the group of regulators that decided what to do about Microsoft's monopoly abuse? This wasn't needless MS bashing, it was a comparison between that regulation situation and the current regulation issue with broadband telecoms.

Re:Microsoft?

Lessig sounds like the typical poster here. When looking for an example, bash MS.

Reading comprehension, dammit. He said:

1) he was someone who was only "reluctantly" on the side of the regulators;
2) Apple and IBM would have done the same thing if they could;
3) OS's inherently drive toward monopolization for standardization; and
4) it's natural for any company in their spot to protect their monopoly.

He then uses this example to suggest that competition from atypical sources (ie, Linux or Muni broadband in his examples) works better than regulation.

If anything, he's a MS *apologist* and monopolist coddler.