the case against net neutrality appears

[Kuciwalker]

Believe it or not, a group of civil rights activists is lobbying the FCC to investigate MetroPCS for violating “net neutrality” because they offer cell phone service with and without things like streaming video. According to these groups such plans are a “gross inequity” that is “un-American.”

(the rest at http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/cell-phone-paternalism.html)

Ultimately, the key point is that even though residential internet capacity is quickly growing beyond any plausible saturation point*, wireless spectrum is limited by the laws of physics and we're not actually that far away from saturating it.

*unless we discover some new high-data thing we want to stream - but no, that's impossible, no one will ever come up with new things to do on a computer.

[Asher]

This isn't a case against net neutrality, it's an example of stupidity.

Net Neutrality can be nuanced. There can be obvious exceptions for technical limitations (such as wireless bandwidth limits). Problem solved.

I'm not even convinced that's the case, though.

If you have limited capacity, then you limit the capacity the user can use. They will self-regulate their own usage accordingly.

I don't stream HD video on my cell phone because it'll quickly put me over my quota. Not because the company decided to ban it.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem is that you are only measuring half of the cost of bits, bandwidth, when latency is just as important. And latency demand is characterized by the type of data.

[Asher]

Hogwash. You are measuring bandwidth, yes. Bandwidth is the act of using the pipes. More bandwidth. more pipe usage. Latency is a result of it.

[Asher]

BTW, why are you even talking about latency here?

Are you worried about voice calls? Those don't even go over the data network.

[Kuciwalker]

Hogwash. You are measuring bandwidth, yes. Bandwidth is the act of using the pipes. More bandwidth. more pipe usage. Latency is a result of it.

Lower-latency bits cost more bandwidth because they can't be rescheduled as easily to moments of lower congestion. This is elementary.

BTW, why are you even talking about latency here?

Are you worried about voice calls? Those don't even go over the data network.

Latency obviously matters for streaming video (though the application can reduce the dependence somewhat).

That said, voice calls are an excellent example of network non-neutrality that's absolutely critical the network is so non-neutral with respect to them that you have to use an entirely separate network infrastructure!

[Asher]

Lower-latency bits cost more bandwidth because they can't be rescheduled as easily to moments of lower congestion. This is elementary.

Elementary as well as irrelevant.

Latency obviously matters for streaming video (though the application can reduce the dependence somewhat).

Patently false. Most streaming video can deal with extremely high latency. This is why there is the concept of buffering.

That said, voice calls are an excellent example of network non-neutrality that's absolutely critical the network is so non-neutral with respect to them that you have to use an entire separate network infrastructure for them!

You surely must know this is not the reason the networks are separate?

Use your smartphone to chat on the phone for 2 hours, then use the 3G radio to transmit data for 2 hours. Compare battery usage.

[Asher]

Streaming video simply needs a stream of bytes. Latency just exposes itself by taking a bit longer for the stream of bytes to start.

They also aren't implemented in TCP so there's no delays waiting for ACKs, etc.

How good do you think the latency is for satellite TV, Kuci? Hint: It's probably > 1000ms.

[Kuciwalker]

Elementary as well as irrelevant.

Not at all. Not all bits are created equal. Net neutrality does not let telecoms charge higher prices for better bits. In the wireless space this can lead to a market failure.

You surely must know this is not the reason the networks are separate?

It may not be historically why the networks are separate, but until recently (maybe; it may still be true) it was a sufficient argument for keeping them separate.

The case for net neutrality is based on the idea that network capacity has increased so much more than demand that it is no longer scarce, and we won't see the market failure above. But that's a recent phenomenon - technical advances / infrastructure improvements have outpaced, or are projected to outpace, utilization. But there's no reason to believe those trends can't change, and those trends aren't even true with respect to wireless networks.

[Asher]

Not at all. Not all bits are created equal. Net neutrality does not let telecoms charge higher prices for better bits. In the wireless space this can lead to a market failure.

Of course if you work off of the faulty assumption that "not all bits are created equal" you can conclude the net neutrality is a bad thing.

However, all bits are created equal. Precisely, each bit takes up one bit of storage and requires one bit of transmission capabilities.

Higher latency is a consequence of bandwidth (the aggregate transmission of many bits). If you wish to control latency from user actions, you control bandwidth. It remains fully legal for ISPs and wireless telecoms to control bandwidth, which will impact the latency in aggregate.

It may not be historically why the networks are separate, but until recently (maybe; it may still be true) it was a sufficient argument for keeping them separate.

No, Kuci. The reason they're separate is because EDGE/3G/EVDO data is far more complicated than GSM/CDMA voice, which means it requires far more power to do which is why data life is a small fraction of talk life on smartphones.

I don't think you're aware of how this sector works enough to start screaming "market failure". It's histrionic and ignorant.

[Asher]

(Disclaimer: LTE was designed to be a "single network" to support data and voice, but no one has implemented this feature or knows how well it will work. Further, telecoms can keep the networks separate even though they are using the same radios. This should be obvious because not everyone will buy a data plan, but they could still use the LTE network for voice calls)

Also:

The case for net neutrality is based on the idea that network capacity has increased so much more than demand that it is no longer scarce, and we won't see the market failure above. But that's a recent phenomenon - technical advances / infrastructure improvements have outpaced, or are projected to outpace, utilization. But there's no reason to believe those trends can't change, and those trends aren't even true with respect to wireless networks.

We've had network neutrality by default throughout the entire development of the internet until this point. If we listened to your hysteria, we'd have believed the internet would implode. And I'm not sure if you recall, but in the late 90s/early 2000s there were a lot of people (and ISPs) proclaiming vast bandwidth shortages as reasons to overhaul how the internet worked. That never happened, and obviously we're more than fine.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh hai guiz! What is going on in this thread?

Asher and Kuciwalker debate looks like to me.

[Asher]

When things are over your head, it's best to just shut up, Alby. But then you'd never post, I guess.

[Al B. Sure!]

When things are over your head, it's best to just shut up, Alby. But then you'd never post, I guess.

It's like the threads are rooms where stuff are going on.... or like tables at a convention or something. I just wanted to pop in

[Asher]

Look, this isn't a net neutrality issue...even though the ISPs would love to make it one.

If they put voice + data on the same network and the data use swamps the network such that voice is inoperable, obviously they have not set up their plans properly.

They have many ways to cope with this aside from blanket banning video streaming sites (conveniently that belong to many of their competitors, I'm sure).

Here are some options:
1) Bandwidth caps (you can't stream lots of videos if you only get X GB per month, which can be reduced as the network capacity is needed)
2) Data transfer speed caps (don't let people have (AND DON'T ADVERTISE) 21.4Mbps download speeds if your network can't handle it)
3) Time-of-day billing: It is more expensive to use the data network during hours of peak voice use

It is rather surprising to me that somebody who supposedly buys into this whole free market thing wholesale can't see how it can apply to the internet. It's supply and demand. And by backing network neutrality, you're effectively permitting market intervention. ISPs already have the tools they need to ensure their network is operable. Non-net neutrality just lets them take the easy way out by banning whatever some bigwig doesn't like.