Net Neutrality, as conceived in the Snowe-Dorgan bill and similar measures, is a subsidy to large bandwidth consumers such as Google and Yahoo. This is not to say to that these companies don’t pay anything for Internet bandwidth today as much as it is to point out that whatever they pay (and it’s far below market rates that you and I pay) doesn’t cover Quality of Service. Let me back up a little and explain what this is about.
The Telcos – principally Verizon, but to a much lesser extent AT&T and Bell South – are in the process of transitioning from old-fashioned DSL to systems that will enable them to offer cable-rivaling triple-play service. This means TV, phone, and Internet over a common wire. This can be done as the cable companies have done it, by partitioning the cable into slices of frequency for the different services, it can be done using strict time-division multiplexing a la the old days, or even better, by running IP across the entire bandwidth of the cable and segregating services with packet priorities. The latter means is the best way because it means in principle that you can use your entire cable for Internet downloads when you aren’t using higher-priority services.
The natural assumption is that they would be entitled to charge fees based on the service level a customer chooses, just the cable company does today. I can buy phone, TV, and Internet from Comcast separately or together. If the technology that Comcast uses to segregate these services changes, the economics don’t, inherently, so they should be allowed to continue pricing these services separately even if they’re all delivered over some form of Internet Protocol.
Google doesn’t think so, because they want their video and phone service to perform just as well as Comcast’s or Verizon’s without their having to pay anything more than base level Internet connection service prices.
So net neutrality amounts to this: even though Comcast or Verizon may charge their customers more for TV and phone service than they do for basic Internet service, Google should never have to pay more than a basic Internet connection fee for accessing Comcast customers at the highest level of service. Google wants to pay for basic cable and get HBO for free.
That’s what “net neutrality” really means. Mike McCurry wrote an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun that expresses this idea in a less-than-clear fashion, implying that Google doesn’t even pay for a basic cable, and the boyz at Techdirt whacked him around for it:
[McCurry’s] written up an editorial for the Baltimore Sun that doesn’t bother to mention his lobbying duties, or who has funded them. McCurry tries to make it seem as though the whole net neutrality thing is simply a ploy by Google to get “free” bandwidth. He notes, derisively, that “a $117 billion company like Google wants legislation that would drive Internet prices higher.” Of course, he doesn’t happen to mention that his viewpoint is funded by AT&T, who at close of business on Monday appears to be worth (oh, look at that) $117 billion as well.
Leaving aside the “grass-roots purity” angle, which is silly in a fight where Google’s side is represented by paid bloggers at Save the Internet, Techdirt has at best a technical point, not a substantial one. Google is seeking a subsidy, make no mistake about it.
And if that subsidy becomes law, we can more or less forget about any significant upgrades in the last mile, because there will be nobody to pay for them.
UPDATE: For the record, here’s the relevant part of Snowe-Dorgan:
(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization;
Emphasis added.
This is really beside the point. Google does not want to use Comcast or Verizon’s consolidated services. It only wants to use a single service (Internet access) and to ignore the other two completely. This changes the economics of the ISP from having to pay for the expansion and upkeep of three networks to having to pay for the expansion and upkeep of one network (albeit at a higher load).
This analogy doesn’t map correctly, because HBO delivers content funded by the fees its subscribers pay. Google doesn’t want its ISPs to deliver any extra content to them (services above and beyond what everyone currently has), it only wants to use more of the same content (packet delivery). A better analogy is that they want to pay for basic cable and hook up five TVs, instead of one. Doesn’t everyone get to do this for free?
This claim is not correct: “Google only wants to use a single service (Internet access) and to ignore the other two completely.”
The legislation Google is funding doesn’t simply do this, it says they can use high-priority access for the same price as low-priority access. The last part of Google’s Snowe-Dorgan bill forbids ISPs from offering high-priority service for a fee. I’ve updated the post with the relevant sections of the bill.
There is a distinction between “service levels” and “multiple different services”. This is where your triple-play comment breaks down.
Also, the bill is defensive with regard to your comment, not offensive. So, it doesn’t say that ISPs have to offer premium services at the same price, it only says it can’t offer them at a higher price. It does not force them to offer premium services at all.
ISPs who offer triple-play over IP will prioritize packets to make the phone and video services operate correctly. Under Snowe-Dorgan, they will also have to do this for Skype and Google, for free. That’s un-American.
I suppose I am confused, take France or Korea, or Japan. They offer service of 25mbps or greater to their customers with triple play, and don’t seem to be having this debate. Are they some how in a better regulatory situation? Does the fat pipe to my house not negate this whole problem?
I believe that you fundamentaly are leaning one way and the savetheinternet side is fundamentally leaning the other, but either way you both are looking to gain leverage. The real underlying question that remains for those of us not funded by either side is which side is less likely to hurt me in the long run by selfishly pursuing their vested interests.
I don’t get you point.
You say 25mbps and higher is “offered.” True, but you have to live in the right areas. Similarly, 25mbps and higher is “offered” in the US as well, but again, you have to live in the right areas.
In France: “A residential fibre service has been deployed in the 15th Arrondissement (borough) of Paris by Cité Fibre. Bandwidth allocated to each user is 100 Mbit/s with 30 Mbit/s reserved for internet traffic.” (Did you catch that second point?)
In Korea: “The South Korean government, with the backing of major South Korean ISPs like Dacom, Korean Telecom and Hanaro has pushed for the ban because of the flat-rate calling plans offered by their American competitors. Korean companies still charge per minute for VoIP calls, while American VoIP companies have flat-rate plans for as little as $14.99 a month (Vonage Basic 500).” (Boy, I bet AT&T is envious.)
Care to join the “reality-based community”?
I suppose my point was that for the dial-up years Telecos delayed deploying highspeed infastructure to carry dsl services because of the killing they where making on their “second line for dial up business.”
Congestion largely occurs on my end “last mile” where my puny 1.5dMbit/s down / 385kbit/s up connection cannot support video/voice/internet simultaniously. The thrust of the legeslation is for the companies to be able to deliver “triple play” service, does a Fat pipe at my end not fix the problem?
MnZ .. what with the flame? it was a question you jerk. Clearly Korea is having this debate, I had not heard of it. Thanks for sharing, next time try it to be helpfully chiding instead of being a richard about it. Also I did cach that last bit, partitioned for internet…. Was that a service offering or legislated. If it is a service offering, could AT&T offer a service at X speed with y% partitioned for their “tripleplay” If so, what the hell is everyone so pissy about.
As I read it Whitacare wants to get some for of compensation from google for the volume of traffic they move across their network via googles’ service providers peering agreement with them(at&t). What he should be concerned about is google heating up that dark fibre and having to sign peering agreements with Google.
I’ve never really understood what Whiteacre meant, and this interpretation seems strange, too.
First, if this were correct, the network owners would have to check and record the origin of each data packet entering their network so they could later bill each content provider for the amount of traffic that passed through their network. The alternative is to measure the amount of traffic coming from another network and bill accordingly (which is what happens now under the peering arrangements). This alternative is probably less expensive to administer because the network collects for all the traffic but bills only one entity.
Second, Google has servers in many places and very well might be a customer of every last-mile network owner. I would imagine that most of the Google traffic in a last-mile network originates there, which means trying to collect for pass-through traffic might not be lucrative enough to be worth the extra administrative costs.
I think the issue is as Richard outlined above: Google wants its broadcast video service to receive the same priority as network owners without having to pay additional QoS fees. The reason (which I do not attribute to Richard): with QoS fees, the network owners could squeeze Google out of the market. As best as I can tell, Whiteacre’s notion of Google using his pipes for free seems to be misleading propaganda for a legislative campaign.
Anyone else have an interpretation of Whiteacre’s statements? Or an explanation of why Josh’s interpretation might be right?
Josh,
The “flame” had more to do with your examples. The net neutrality camp has disseminated a great deal of disinformation that has become generally accepted (even by their opponents).
Regarding “splitting” broadband connections, one could easily interpret the Snowe-Dorgan amendment as banning that as well. If the Snowe-Dorgan amendment passed, I would bet that companies like Google would sue to stop “splitting.”
And so the proposed legislation would prevent implementing QoS? Or would it prevent charging for QoS?
I read that as a consumer protection, not a hand out or “subsidy.” I will admit with the empasis that was added before mislead me, but reading the bill the overall language seemed much more angled towards consumer protection.
Think more like preventing my service provider for offering a differentiated product line based solely on “Now with QOS” type of vector. Make no mistake they would if they could. What I am not reading is that they cannot charge for traffic between the peered providers. The reason that I see this is the part about the broadband service providers shall only prioritize content available on the internet within their network without charging for it.
Further down in the bill it also explicitly prevents companies from only offering Broadband service on the requirement that the user also acquires only their voip and cable(iptv) service(preventing lockout).
In fact the more I think of it, this bill would prevent Verizon from locking out AT&T’s IPTV offering simply because they wanted to offer their own.
Josh,
The S/D amendment does not distinguish between consumers and content providers in the QoS clause. The network owners probably could not charge either consumers or content providers a fee for enhanced QoS. I am not sure that this a consumer-only protection. I think its purpose is to protect competition in the Internet content and application markets, particularly those that are time-sensitive like VoIP and broadcast video.
Ironically, it might be okay for consumers if they had a choice to purchase QoS (and pay for it), so long as the network owners don’t provide QoS for their own services without the consumer paying for it. What we (consumers) want to prevent is the network owners from ousting competition in video and voice services via QoS fees.
Sadly, the network owners might be able to do it anyway by bundling–as distinguished from tying, which, as Josh correctly points out, S/D prohibits–access with other services at a discount over the rates at which the services are offered separately. (This cross-subsidization threat was the reason for the Computer Inquiry restrictions.)
ChadB,
So I think I see where you are getting that the bill does not distinguish between operators and customers.. the #1 section about degrade or diminish against anyone part. So would the tweak in the wording to be “against other service providers” be protectionism or the hand out Whitacar is talking about? Also would a tweak in the wording to say “against any customer” be exactly what the save-the-internet folks need to feel protected?
Thanks for your reply I am really just trying to sort this out, so thanks for the dialogue.
Josh,
I am not sure where you want to tweak the language or its purpose. If you want Section 12(a)(1) to read “not block … the ability of any other broadband service provider to use a broadband service …,” it wouldn’t make sense. Other broadband service providers don’t “use a broadband service” as that phrase is being used here. You would probably have to write a new section entirely.
I still am not sure what Whiteacre is talking about, but let’s assume your interpretation is correct, and he wants to charge content providers for moving their data through AT&T’s network.
First, I am not sure if anyone wants legislation to prohibit fees from being charged by ISPs for data that comes from other network owners. The NN amendments probably would not prevent AT&T from doing so. The reason is that it might not be necessary because of expense and effectiveness of the practice. (See my post above.)
Second, the market might prevent AT&T from charging Google. Google pays its ISP to deliver its traffic, which pays a backbone provider, which pays another backbone provider, which pays another, and so on until the traffic arrives at another ISP (say, AT&T). If AT&T blocked Google’s incoming data from the last backbone provider, AT&T might be violating its peering agreement with that backbone provider.
I cannot speak for the the save-the-internet folks. (FYI I have not taken sides.) However, if you mean “customer” to exclude content providers, you would have to define “customer” as such. And further, I am not sure that would appease the pro-NN regulation folks. There seems to be a concern with protecting competition, that is, preventing the last-mile wireline owners from squeezing out competitors, especially in broadcast video and voice services. That means protecting these competitors.
McCurry really hit some new lows on this op-ed. It’s worth mentioning the firestorm it ignited over at TechDirt, where McCurry’s fabrication resulted in a challenge he’ll be certain to avoid.
Most NN-advocates want QoS. But most don’t want it without competition at the last-mile. And without any existing business models that account for mutually agreed-upon inter-carrier handoffs.
Without the latter, NetFlix will have a real fun time trying to wire their data-center into every cable- and telephone-company to ensure QoS to the consumer.
Most NN advocates want free QoS, director. And free don’t wash.
Dear My ISP,
I have a contract with you in which I pay you money every month in exchange for access to the whole internet, at a certain rate with a certain bandwidth cap. Your job is to deliver the packets I’ve paid for to me when I ask for them irrespective of where they come from.
I as your customer have paid you to deliver Google Video to me. I have paid you to deliver VoIP services. Until you update your advertising for new customer to explain that video, VoIP and other services are excluded from your internet offering please refrain from disabling them from your existing customers who are already paying you for those services, and any other internet service that may or may not be invented.
Dear Pete,
No prob, little buddy, we would never block your access to Google Video or prevent you from using your Skype. That would be dumb business.
But if you don’t trust us (and why should you, really?) you have a champion in the US Senate. Call your own Senators and tell them to support the video franchising bill sponsored by your namesake, Ted. It has language making the practices you fear illegal.
Right now it’s being held up by Google ‘n Frenz seeking a subsidy for the big guys in something called “free QoS”. If that bill doesn’t pass, well, you’ll just have to trust us some more.
Thanks for the note,
Pete’s ISP