[governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

Hi Milton
Totally agree.
Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>
>> As the issue you raise is really more related to network neutrality, i
>> hope you don't mind that I've changed the subject line...
>>     
>
>
> Actually, Robert, I respectfully disagree, so I changed the subject line
> again! 
>
> Whether or not ISPs change the way they charge for bandwidth is not a
> net neutrality (NN) issue by itself. NN only comes into play if ISPs
> allocate their bandwidth in ways that _discriminate_ against independent
> content and applications providers. 
>
> Note that bandwidth is already "metered" in many ways. You can buy a
> slow dial up line, pay more for a DSL service, or pay a lot more money
> and get a dedicated OC3 with orders of magnitude more bandwidth. More
> money, faster bandwidth. Nothing wrong with that. Bandwidth costs money.
>
> The current debate, however, is about shared bandwidth, when multiple
> users are relying on the same capacity. In these cases, usage-sensitive
> charging may be employed to make people who use more bandwidth pay more
> than people who use less. Think of your electricity meter. Would you
> squawk if someone came up with the radical idea that people who consume
> vast quantities of electricity should pay more than people who use less?
>
> Usage-sensitive charging policy is not by itself inimical to net
> neutrality. In fact, it can help poorer people by making cheaper classes
> of service available and it can be an enormous collective good by
> discouraging wasteful use -- improving the performance of the network
> for everyone. 
>
> Somewhere along the line the net neutrality movement got confused about
> the difference between discriminatory bandwidth tiering and rational,
> "metered" pricing for bandwidth. They have done themselves a huge
> disservice by diverting the focus from discrimination to the idea that
> charging more for more bandwidth is "unjust". Fighting against pricing
> mechanisms to make bandwidth hogs pay more than smaller users is not in
> the public interest. Duh.
>
> Indeed, the strategy is totally counterproductive: if ISPs can't ration
> bandwidth using pricing, guess what they will do? They will start
> interfering with applications. In fact, they have already done so (like
> Comcast and BitTorrent). They will start deciding for users what
> applications and content is acceptable and which are not. That's the
> Opposite of NN.
>
> ISPs are currently in a flat-rate pricing world for the most part. There
> are strong competitive pressures to give users as free a hand at using
> the internet as possible (isn't the market economy just awful?). 
>
> The ISPs who complain about the BBC are either too uncreative to come up
> with effective pricing policies suitable to the broadband age, or afraid
> that if they do so, they will lose customers to ISPs who promise flat
> rates and high speeds but deliver slow, crowded service in reality. 
>
> The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and realize
> that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
> to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit more
> and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance