[SGVLUG] "congress out to gut the internet" -- migth actually be real (?)

[Terry Hancock]

Emerson, Tom wrote:

>I got one of those wild-outrageous-claim chain-e-mails today that
>actually has a "TRUE" rating from Snopes (will wonders never cease?)
>
>The gist of it is that congress may pass legislation related to "net
>neutrality" that some (many?) fear might make it difficult or impossible
>to get a fair and balanced view of the world via the internet.  (like
>that already happens?)
>
>In any case, this hit slashdot this morning just before noon:
>
>     http://slashdot.org/articles/06/05/03/1525240.shtml
>
>I'm still in "jury is out" mode on this -- I can't see how the ISP's can
>actually do this, but it appears they are confident that they can.  I
>agree with some slashdot posts that even if they could, it really isn't
>a bright idea to go ahead and do it...
>  
>
Can, are motivated to, and could make a lot of money at it,
destroying the Internet as we know it. The problem is that
consumers wouldn't really be able to choose which networks
their data is sent through (that's not how internet routing
works!) and, as a result, there'd be no way to apply ordinary
consumer choice to the market. This leads to market failure,
and massive gouging, devastating free trade.

It's very similar to the problem with health insurance. Since
patients don't actually choose services based on a cost-benefit
analysis (doctors, HMOs, or insurance agencies make the
choices for them -- none of whom actually has to live with the
consequences of their choices), there is no effective market
force constraining the economy. Insurance and HMOs are
exclusively interested in reducing cost; doctors are (essentially)
only interested in increasing the cost; and patients are the
only ones who receive the direct impact of the quality of the
service. Hence, there's a complete disconnect between cost
and quality; the prices skyrocket; and the quality tanks.

The only thing that is preventing this from getting any worse
is the ethics of the doctors, HMOs, and insurance companies.
Since their ethics are in a direct conflict with their pocketbooks,
however, you shouldn't be surprised that things are pretty
bad.

Something very much like this would happen with internet
carriers, because they don't make direct connections -- instead
there are many hops in between. The consumer doesn't choose
that path -- every machine in between does. If each of them has
an opportunity to mess with you, by applying a selective
policy to what they carry, then the result will be enormously
complex and unmanageable.

That can't be good.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com