Neutrality of the Internet

[Socrates]

Just got the news that Slovenia has become the 3rd nation to include the neutrality of the Internet within its laws. And I was reminded that Chili and the Netherlands had already done so recently.

To our fellow Dutchmen here: Has this law changed anything for Internet surfing? Was it a big news in May 2012?
I have always seen the Netherlands as a great nation when it comes to social/economical laws (except recent banning of strangers from coffee shops ).

To all: What do you think of such a law? Is it something we need because it is good to have a neutral Internet? Or could it be seen as a state-enforcing law on an industry where every actor (ISP) should be free to do whatever they want?

[ProPain]

Iirc this was in the news mostly because some mobile phone providers tried to enforce a ban on Whatsapp and other data services that hampered their business model. Technically they could do this within their terms of services but they'd never acted upon it untill they saw their texting business collapse.

Protest ensued, law was passed, peace returned. Nothing changed on the net, all surfing is still the same. Only thing that changed is that flat fee unlimited data plans for mobile are over and prices for mobile data have risen apparently.

I think net neutrality is mostly a good thing. Although I'm not opposed to different price models for different applications/net uses what we saw happening in the Netherlands was big telco's realising far too late that some innovations were turning some of their cash cow services obsolete. They reacted defensively and tried to obstruct this innovation instead of changing their business model. Very much similar to what we've seen (and still see) the music and film industry do: fight digital piracy instead of coming up with the inevitable digital alternative.

I think netneutrality garantees access for everybody on equal terms and it provides a more innovation friendly environment. Otoh I also feel network operators should be able to make decent money from their services. That's in our interest as well (we need the network after all) and should be able to control traffic to a certain degree to ensure normal service levels for everybody. So if it's necessary to shrink capacity for some new bandwith hogging app to prevent a network meltdown that's fine with me. If it's done because you were sleeping when your market changed, I'm opposed to it.

[Socrates]

You guys had unlimited data mobile access for a fixed monthly fee?? We have always been capped in France, with extra consumption costling big bucks.

Your comment is interesting in that you are bringing the concept of innovation on the table. Something we NEVER hear from existing business and opposition to net neutrality. What pisses me off is when our representatives (State, deputies) do their best to protect their lobby friends, instead of acting for the people's interest. So it is always about protecting industries, and never the people, and France is very good in this regard in the field of Telco.

My personal opinion on ISP is that they should stick to just be the "cable men", and forget about adding content services all the time. Again, in France it is terrible. If you want an ISP that totally respects net neutrality, lets you use the Internet as you wish and can propose Internet with no telephone and no TV, forget about the 5 major companies here.

As for web sites (and mobile apps? dunno, don't have a smartphone) needing large bandwidth, I think the root problem lies is the way Internet is used today: like a big, fancy server-client consumer market. P2P in general would be the way to go, with every citizen and company acting as both a client and a server. Again in France, ISP only provide ADSL connections, used for download, not upload. And our graduated-response law on digital piracy, "Hadopi", currently targets P2P sharing. So it is not incenting people on using the Internet the way it should be used. Therefore we get problems with music online: it is just more simple and safer to go to Youtube than to use Bitorrent today. But Youtube is often choked (slowed down) by ISP because of said "huge bandwidth", ie. an attack on net neutrality.

[Shabbaman]

Bandwith throttling is frowned upon, and with the existing infrastructure there's no need for it anyway. Well, outside mobile networks that is, but that'll change now they finally started to roll out LTE. In two years time, bandwith will not be the problem. Having large bandwith while having small data plans is... pointless. The average data plan is currently 200 MB (for 10 euro's at the larger providers, 5 euro's at smaller providers but with limited download/upload speed), even if the bandwith would allow streaming video you can watch a single TV show each month. Pointless. The whole pricing issue is maddening.

What is a problem is that the current law allows access restrictions to sites that facilitate it's users to break the law: hence TPB blockade. This is not net neutrality, but it's closely linked to it. Personally I don't mind throttling if it's necessary for network performance, but I don't like censorship.

There's something to be said about how it's illegal to link to downloadable content, but it's a weak argument because the damage is done by those who upload the content (the release groups, I don't mean the seeders) and the downloaders (the end users). And even then: downloading video and audio is legal in the Netherlands.

By the way, I don't believe downloading is a victimless crime. Considering the wealth positions of me and the victim it makes me feel like Robin Hood though.

[ProPain]

I don't think we'll see a drop in mobile bandwith prices soon. Mobile infrastructure is expensive: both the hardware and auction price of the bandwidth needs to be recouped in a limited timeframe.

Otoh, I dont mind that much. Wifi is available in a lot of places, cheaper and faster, I simply postpone my mobile YouTube needs untill I have a wifi connection. My mobile phone plan includes 2GB of data every month, I never even come close to that limit.

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

Personally I don't mind throttling if it's necessary for network performance, but I don't like censorship.

I totally agree and I think that summarises the majority standpoint in the Netherlands concerning net neutrality very well.

The whole 'war on downloads' annoys me. As I said before, companies who totally misjudged the impact of digital distribution are desperately trying to stop the inevitable. It was a lost fight when they started it, I wonder how long it will take before they realise that.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by ProPain

I wonder how long it will take before they realise that.

As long as they see it does not hamper their results. So, as long as they are supported by evil governments through stupid and dangerous laws (France for the win!).

The solution is within the people's hands. Stop buying digital files and you'll start getting some results. Stop giving money for something that costs zero euro to copy. Why continue to support an industry that creates artificial rarity?
The problem is that the people is many.

[ProPain]

I don't mind paying for a digital copy of a song/movie/game. Artists, game developers and actors also need to make a living.

What I do mind is overpaying and/or not getting the convenience I want. Movies are a prime example of this. Movies on DVD: As a paying customer you get all kind of crap that you can't skip before your movie starts: future releases and copying is a crime adds. On top of that you need to drive to a store to get a DVD or wait a day for it to arrive in the mail. Illegal digital download of same movie: Can download anytime I want, I get the movie without adds, it's free. And the industry wonders why downloading is huge.... And we can write down a similar piece about game CD ROMS.


I think Steam is a great example how digital distribution can be done. Buy whenever you want, stored for your convenience, pricing is more then reasonable when you buy during a sale. I'm happy to pay for that service.

[Shabbaman]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Stop giving money for something that costs zero euro to copy.

I don't mind the concept of intellectual property: people are investing money in something, with the prospect of getting a return. There's no such thing as a free lunch. But then again: Robin Hood.

[Socrates]

This is moving to the debate about piracy, but oh well.

I foresee a time when people will grind when they find out that you had to pay for digital copies of whatever in the early 21st century. Such things will be then considered as incentive stuff to buy physical goods or subscribe to services.

Artists are free to do their stuff as a living and get paid for their work. But immaterial goods are not the only stuff they can deliver. In music, they can play in concerts, which is their primary reason to exist as musicians. Before the 20th century, no music was stored to be sold and listened at home.

Also, I do not mind paying for a CD or a DVD in general. These are material goods, which cost something to copy (plastic, laser printing, packaging, etc.). For a personal reason however, I do boycott buying these nowadays. Just because I, as a end-user and consumer, do not accept majors' policies and prices.

Completely agree about the current convenience regarding legal, digital download services. They still have not understood.

About Steam, though I understand it can work great for many and they are currently making a real move towards Linux (which I am fine with), I am not interested. I accept the fact that you have to pay for this service, which is more than just downloading your copy of a game. I just do not like the concept of this service. I want to be able to play in the way I see fit, and Steam is a golden jail in this regard (just like Apple can be).

I am OK with intellectual property, just not the way it is implemented today (and it has got worse since the early 20th century).

To sum up: Immaterial goods should be free (as in beer but also as in speech) because they do not belong to the rarity market. Services around immaterial goods can be sold, just like material goods.

[ProPain]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Artists are free to do their stuff as a living and get paid for their work. But immaterial goods are not the only stuff they can deliver. In music, they can play in concerts, which is their primary reason to exist as musicians. Before the 20th century, no music was stored to be sold and listened at home.


To sum up: Immaterial goods should be free (as in beer but also as in speech) because they do not belong to the rarity market. Services around immaterial goods can be sold, just like material goods.

I totally disagree with this. Why shouldn't a musician be able to make money from his work alone. Why on earth should their business model be; make your money from performing, period. And what about writers then? Not allowed to make money from an ebook? They need to go and tell stories on the market square? Cause before the printing press books couldn't be duplicated en masse and read at home.

Musicians, game developers, writers, actors, they all provide a service that has value. I think it's perfectly reasonable they get paid for creating that value whatever method of distribution (digital, physical) is used to deliver it to you.

And that's not even considering the advantages of digital distribution from an environmental standpoint. A lot of material and energy is saved in digital distribution.

I don't think our grandchildren will laugh at the concept of paying for digital goods, I'm sure they'll consider that a normal fact of life. Chances are they'll be spending a considerable amount of their income on digital goods. Just like we are