Colin's Last Stand, Episode 56: Why Net Neutrality is Essential (and Worth Protecting)

Basically accurate. Regulated monopolies versus market economy.

Ryan Berry

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that the Internet is a resource. It's obviously not an industry like retail; it seems to be pretty identical to an industry like telephone service. It's not currency; it's what allows us to chase currency.

Colin Moriarty

From my research, that seems to be a component of it in the pre-2015 Internet environment, yes. That said, it seems the FCC and courts have acted to tacitly support Net Neutrality.

Colin Moriarty

I don't know enough to have an authoritative answer, but classifying the Internet as a needed factor of life -- like electricity, water, et cetera -- seems to make some sense to me.

Colin Moriarty

Interestingly, both the situation you're describing and the possible solution to the situation encourage even more government. I think this could be kept really simple: The federal government, via the FCC, simply needs to ensure that the horror stories described in the video aren't possible. That's it. Nothing else needs to be done. Then, the market should be able to correct based on a level playing field.

Colin Moriarty

I'm completely of the mind that if there was true telecom competition on the wired Internet market like there is in the cellular market, net neutrality wouldn't matter, because competition would keep everyone honest, and offer products to undercut others. It's like how Sprint has unlimited data. That's kinda huge. But with the way things are now, it's likely going to lead in a far more sinister direction.

Colin Moriarty

So if you truly believe that the internet is like money, than shouldn't the government hold a monopoly on providing it? Also, I'd argue perhaps you make the best argument for elimination of NN. Is our money system being managed well? Our currency, and banking system is a disaster, and it is directly correlated to government involvement and regulation. I fall somewhere in between in that I believe that government is appropriate in some areas, and inappropriate in others. Where they should be involved, I believe they should be all in (Use of force, protection of rights etc.) However, when they aren't all in, I don't think they should be in at all. Whenever they dabble into an industry, it is always to advantage one citizen over another. You may hate Comcast, and love Netflix, but Uncle Sam shouldn't get a say either way. Those two can duke it out in a free market, and if Comcast is going to "Bundle" and throttle internet, there are other options. Literally everyone can get satellite internet (It sucks, but its there, and it will innovate if consumers demand it). ISPs that have a monopoly on service, only have it because the government granted it. We need to step back and ask if government needs to be involved in any of this. And if they do, then we need to hand over the reigns. Half in, is always a bad solution. (Think healthcare, I don't support government taking over, but them tinkering has been a disaster)

Chris Holtzer

Wasn't the original version of Net Neutrality a result of the ISP's making everything equal in order to not be sued for whatever was passing on the Internet?

David Ouillette

Hi Colin, I have come to notice a lot of audience reactions both here and in your YouTube comments that are hinged on a misunderstanding of a 'free market' and its relationship with the internet. Maybe your video was a little short on framing the depth of implications that either ruling could provide, but I believe it still goes without saying that some people's comments on having Net Neutrality / government regulation is an impeachment on the free market is absurdly wrong, albeit an easily misguided notion. Many appear forgetful that the internet itself isn't an industry like retail, it's a worldwide resouce much like money. It only takes a brief glimpse back to remember the dangerous state of banking/financial sectors in Northern America and the UK merely 10 years ago - big players were left to run loose with their own ideas of testing big ideas without strict supervision and we still see the effects of what happened: the trusting and/or helpless consumers of our shared economies lost out to the profits of corporate execs who realised they could bail themselves an early retirement without care for the stability and sanity of the wider population(s). I remain short of a definitive stance on the matter, but I am glad that you are one of the influencers in this delicate IoT to draw attention and discussion after years of NN first being rumoured of. What I do think is right to state though is that a world without regulation isn't a free market; it's the Wild West on a grander scale. To what extent do you think key industry players should be limited from dominating/monopolising geography? What level of regulations do you think are critical to a healthy economy? Thanks for all that you do, it's a pleasure to support you even without an income of my own. John

JSR John

Thank you. It looks set to pass, at least from my perspective.

Colin Moriarty

Obviously I agree with this. And it’s strange that there is even a political discussion here, since both sides of the aisle surprisingly agree...not sure what the discussion should even be about. I’d like to get your thoughts on changing the definition of the internet from a SERVICE to a Commodity (or effectively treat it as a utility). The idea being that we accept that internet is no longer an option, but a necessity. Kind of like how we can technically get BY without natural gas or electricity, but we instead call them commodities and have governmental regulatory agencies that oversee operations of a monopoly. This would be in favor of net neutrality, but open the door for other potential issues...curious on the audience thoughts.

Ryan Berry

That is the scariest part of it all. They've let the two competing technologies DSL and Cable decide which services are provided in order to maximize their profits. Still what we need is similar to whats on the supply side of this issue, where a server in a datacenter has multiple carrier options. A similar option would be to accept that we have two choices DSL and Cable, and have the second choice lie in who delivers that data to our connection. In many ways we already have this, but last mile providers don't respect the customer who chooses to go this route, and the vast majority are just not aware of it.

Erhan Atesoglu

I feel like lot of people are making this a binary argument with this issue but there are actually two major things at play here. One side feels that without Net Neutrality ISPs will charge you to hell for everything because the overwhelming majority of Americans only have one real broadband provider in their area (15Mbps minimum, satellite doesn't count, it’s unreliable trash) and they're right. The other side doesn't want government meddling in the internet because like everything government gets their hands on they keep asserting more and more control over time and will eventually start blocking things they deem unacceptable and they're right. The huge piece that both sides are overlooking is that the real issue is that it's nearly impossible for a new company to enter the ISP market. When anyone tries they need 10's of millions of dollars of infrastructure investment up front and a team of lawyers to fend off the incumbent ISP from filing countless frivolous lawsuits against them to try and drive them into the ground. This is the issue that needs to be solved first. This is why most Americans only have a single broadband provider in their area. Cable companies are like mafias that stay out of each others territory. The only exception is of course phone companies that have laid fiber optic networks such as Verizon Fios, but very few markets exist with Fios or Google Fiber taking on a cable company for their territory. What we need is to create a market place with a very low barrier for entry so that we can have at least 3 but preferably more ISPs competing in each market for your business. This is what will keep prices low with speeds and customer satisfaction high. With that healthy market in place we do not need Net Neutrality. Government meddling and incumbent ISP backscratching is the reason we have nearly no ISP competition today in the USA.

Awesome video! I can understand where people are coming from when they say they want competition but that's not going to happen any time soon or at all if the big companies can help it. I also get that it doesn't solve the problem of why we have so few choices but why can't we keep net neutrality while passing other legislation to break up these territories the big internet companies have? Or at least make it so others compete. I still don't know how smaller companies could even try to compete with or without net neutrality when the infrastructure to even try would be enough daunting.

NuFlash

Terrific video. I'm hoping it doesn't pass (but have my doubts) so the mess doesn't spread to the rest of us outside America.

Peter Campbell

Eric beat me to it. Your assumption is predicated on ubiquitous competition, which exists with mobile carriers, but not with fiber. There are places all over the country where you have a single option. There isn't competition as it is.

Colin Moriarty

Competition already exists ON the Internet. The telecoms have conveniently manipulated markets to where they don't compete with one another, so where's the competition there? I'm telling you, you won't like what the Internet is in 10 years.

Colin Moriarty

Bingo. This is just a new revenue stream on an already wildly-profitable Internet. And while I'd never begrudge the pursuit of profit, it need to stop at the public interest. The Internet is far too important to let a group of five people vote to trifle with it, and we will never, ever shove that genie back in the bottle once it's out. Take it to the bank.

Colin Moriarty

Sorry you were disappointed! I'll never be able to please everyone, so I do my best.

Colin Moriarty

Depends on the situation. I'd say either extreme probably isn't true.

Colin Moriarty

That's a nice theory but that also assumes that these companies compete in the way that you believe they do, which in a lot of areas they do not. Where I live the big providers have territories where they operate and stay out of each other's way for the most part, essentially like a crime syndicate dividing up territory for different gang activities. Anti-trust laws are supposed to help prevent this from happening but it helps to not have lobbyists and bought-off politicians muddying the waters.

Wouldn’t the market dictate who wins as far as services offers? If AT&T gives me packages at a price lower than spectrum Ill go with att but it google fiber gives me unlimited access to everything I’ll go with them. No one ones what exactly will happen, I’m hearing both sides of the story, and to be honest I don’t really know. Maybe make it a utility and have the government control it like you water bill, pay for what you upload and download

Hose A Contra Razz

Anything short of opening up competition in the ISP space is a losing cause. Title II didn't bring you the Internet, competition in ISPs brought you the internet. Remember AOL they weren't exactly a big Telecom were they? Sure big money destroyed the competition, but a lot of it was done with a gun to their heads from Title II Telecoms dictating what can be used on their telephone lines. Just like they told the Internet to take a hike in 1969 when the DOD offered it to AT&T and they refused it flat out, even saying it was a fantasy and such a network could never possibly work. Stop trying to fix the Internet with archaic laws from the first part of the last century dressed up with a fancy "Net Neutrality" name. Competition is the only guarantee.

Erhan Atesoglu

Here is a simple run down. since the internet was born no one was allowed to do anything to it. ISPs provided a gateway and It grew on its own and no one touched the content of the internet. Now ISP want to capitalize on the internet because they aren't making any money with Cable. Teiring access is a thing that will happen with the end of NN. NN became a thing to keep the internet as intended, Free and open for everyone. The internet and the users will not benefit from the end of NN. The only ones who will benefit is ISPs and share holders. There is no good reason to end NN outside of making more money for ISPs.

Joey Finelli

I would have liked a video more on what the internet was before net neutrality sense it hasn't been around long. What it is now, and a great amount of information on what changed when it became active. And what the fcc is proposing. Information like in the fcc proposal, if the isp is throttling a site they have to be transparent and say so publicly(this is true btw). I'm not against net neutrality, but I'm not for it either. I remember just a few years ago we didn't have it, and the internet was no different for me. But my friend in the Midwest to this day (without signs of changing) has a data cap of 30GB to share with his family because it's more remote and all they have is satellite for an isp. (Try downloading the patch for a large game on the ps4. It's crazy, he has to micromanage months in ahead what to update, or download, or stream/etc. That's not ok in my book in 2017) So I'm neutral on the subject. But I did want to learn far more. And that's what I was expecting. Also what would be interesting is how each isp communicates with another if they want to throttle. For instance your on your computer and you want to go to patreon. Well they are connected to a different isp. When you travel the internet you actually go through many many isps. Fun fact, it's free for your isp to connect you to a place in another isps area(think like mini states everywhere covering the world) if they are adjacent to them. However your isp has to pay the isp that isn't right next to yours. This is to show the internet infrastructure is complex, and not as simple workings in the background as many believe. It's like a miniature economy in itself. I wouldn't have known any of this if I didn't take a internet infrastructure course. So I'm not concerned with net neutrality, but again I would have liked to know more about the state it was in before, how it changed, and what the details of the proposal from the fcc is now. I don't feel I learned anything new, but rather just another video or article on -it's necessary, here's a few points, here's a few bad what ifs.- I know it's the holiday season, and it's probably harder to find all the time to do so much research. But that's what I was hoping for in this video. Something deeper. Still love CLS, just disappointed as I expected more.

Dav9834

Doesn't it feel like our Government hates our freedom?!? Am I wrong to say we allow corporations rule over the people?

Joey Finelli