[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T: Bandwidth-wise, the sky is falling!

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Bob Poortinga wrote:
> In regard to issues such as this, I think it is important for Net Neutrality
> proponents to focus the argument on Internet service and not be involved
> or concerned with other services that may be carried over the same
> backbones such as subscription video.  What we want to prevent is
> AT&T or other large bandwidth providers offering a "service" that allows
> content providers such as Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to pay (or be
> held ransom) for favored treatment.

I have very strong mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, it is 
standard that those who pay more get better service.  If this were not 
the case, I would be entitled to the same outgoing bandwidth from my 
home system as, say, YouTube.  (Not that I could make effective use of 
it with my two 2GHz desktops...)

That is obviously not the case.  I pay for a DOCSIS cable connection 
that peaks out at about 3Mbits/second downstream, 1 Mb/sec upstream and 
in practice often delivers significantly less  Never mind, it's good 
enough for what I use it for.  YouTube probably pays for many GBits/sec 
upstream, and expects guaranteed bandwidth -- at least as far as their 
ISP(s) connection to the backbone -- for their money.

So in principle, the idea of charging more for more bandwidth/better 
service comes from the very beginnings of commercial internet service. 
Even before AOL started offering the Internet to the general public, 
many private businesses (with no connection to the Defense contractors 
and Educational institutions that the Arpanet/Internet was originally 
created for) bought Internet connections via leased lines.  And the more 
you paid, the bigger the bandwidth you got.

This idea -- pay more, get more/better -- is pretty deeply embedded in 
capitalism.  Even if sometimes the "better" is just the brand name on 
the package (I doubt if there's any significant difference between Bayer 
aspirin and CVS's house brand, frex., but Bayer costs almost twice as much).

Except...

When you pay for a connection to the net, you have a direct relationship 
with your ISP.  It's only proper that you pay for what you use.  But if 
you pay for better treatment on the Backbone carriers -- or worse yet on 
ISPs that serve your end-users -- there is no such relationship.  This 
more closely resembles the days of the Barbary pirates, who would levy a 
charge on all ships passing by their coasts (if you didn't pay, they 
took your ship and cargo).  Needless to say, this was found intolerable, 
and the US sent the Navy to attack Tripoli and other North African areas.

At the moment, the vast majority of goods in the US are shipped by 
truck, often many thousands of miles.  Imagine the effect on commerce if 
 every truck had to pay a toll to every city they passed through, or be 
detoured onto surface streets.  (For that matter, imagine the effect on 
local traffic if all that truck traffic were detoured onto those streets).

I will note that there _are_ a few toll roads in the US and quite a few 
toll bridges.  However, the amount charged is generally small -- small 
enough that even daily commuters can afford it.  But if trucking had to 
stop at _every_ city and _every_ bridge to pay tolls, you can bet that 
COngress would exercise its authority under the Interstate Commerce 
clause of the Constitution and put an end to the practice.

For the same reason, I don't think that relegating non-privileged users 
of the Internet to "the bus lane" (to quote the CEO of Virgin Media) is 
going to fly, at least not in the US.  The public won't tolerate it, the 
numerous small businesses that rely on the Internet for much of their 
sales won't tolerate it, and ultimately neither Congress nor the FCC 
will tolerate it.