TheOverAnalyzed

Forward ¶

The team at BackBlaze posted a short piece regarding the FCC’s recent re-defining of broadband internet access in America. In their article they quoted Gizmodo, saying that “The redefinition of broadband should increase competition between ISPs and cable companies as well as encourage the development of better infrastructure.” That would be a step in the right direction, that’s for sure.

Backstory ¶

When I have conversations with people regarding anything technology related, there is a small fear in my mind that my zeal and fervor might be a tad bit off-putting.^[1] Accordingly, I typically hold back, unless I can discern that the person with whom I am conversing is well versed in technology.^[2]

I approach many conversations—not just ones about technology—in this manner. I learned early on in life that when discussing a topic with someone, the worst thing I could do is disagree with them. Yes, it started early on for me, perhaps on the playground.^[3] I can see myself there, potentially discussing Power Rangers. I thought the Red Ranger was more important than the Green Ranger, which, at that time, was so counter-culture. I would have been very reluctant to share that with anyone, for fear that because my opinion was contrary to most everyone else’s, I might be ostracized for it.^[4]

Present-Day ¶

Eventually I grew up, and with that my willingness to offer sometimes contrary opinions increased as well. But, for the most part, I remain a maker of waves not.

Because of that, you can imagine how much I hate talking about politics. There is no other topic upon which people garner so much vehemence than politics.^[5] And based on my previously established life-practice of not making waves, rarely would a topic inspire so much for me to actually speak up.

Some of that stems from the fact that I dislike confrontation, and find it disturbing to know that somebody might be made upset with me, because of something I might say. Moreover, if I offer a contrary opinion and someone disagrees, I might be forced to endure the awkwardness of silence, or the stress trying to quickly decide upon a new topic^[6].

Some Things Inspire ¶

There are, however, notable exceptions for my humble Just Listen, Don’t Disagree™^[7] worldview:

1. Animal advocacy
2. Politics with respect to technology

If someone wants to have a conversation about either of the above two topics, I throw most all of my “don’t make waves” philosophy out the window. It is that second of the two topics that I would like to focus on for now.

Government Sucks ¶

For the majority of my post-secondary and graduate training, I considered myself pretty conservative/libertarian when it came to fiscal issues.^[8] I have softened considerably since then, but I still believe that less government intervention is generally a good thing, and that the free market can self-regulate, under the right circumstances.

There are numerous examples of government intervention making things worse for consumers. Consider this case, covered by The Oklahoman Editorial Board:

When recently asked to comment on the Oklahoma market, Costco’s chairman simply emailed a frowny face. The company, which has 600 locations around the globe, is reluctant to open a store in Oklahoma due in part to our Byzantine liquor laws, which prevent Costco from selling wine in its stores.

That is just one seemingly insignificant example.

But the gist of conservatives’ argument regarding regulation is well exemplified in the above Costco scenario.

A more general synopsis of their view of regulation:

The more red tape created by the government, the less able and willing business are to, well, do business.

This can hurt consumers because it actually decreases competition, which is, in case you forgot, one of the bedrock principles of Adam Smith’s wonderful 'ism for which we in the US currently subscribe.^[9] Costco as an entity carries with it a certain amount of controversy,^[10] but let us roll with the above scenario for the purposes of discussion. If Costco does not want to bear the literal cost of increased regulation in Oklahoma (and who wants to be taxed?), it doesn’t have to. I can skip altogether doing business in Oklahoma. Problem is, it is consumers who lose out. They can’t buy goods in bulk for cheaper unit prices without Costco being in town. And, concomitantly, without Costco, there is no incentive for the ‘smaller guys’ to adequately price their goods to compete with Costco on value. Again, consumers are the ones to lose out, paying theoretically higher prices than they would need to pay in a competitive market.

I’m no economist, but there are likely plenty of other, perhaps more significant stories about the pitfalls of increased government regulation that a DuckDuckGo search would outline.

That Being Said ¶

The elephant in the room here is actually the elephants themselves. Conservatives have unsurprisingly been preaching examples (some more nebulous than others) of “Big Government intervention stifling technology and competition.” One very recent topic of contention between conservatives and liberals is Net Neutrality.

“Net Neutrality” is a term loosely defining a set of principles that govern how people connect to and use the internet:

• Internet service providers (ISPs) act as dumb pipes, not discriminating for particular groups when it comes to bandwidth
• ISPs should not support fast lanes
• The internet should be open

The concept of net neutrality is simple. It’s the implementation of it that has everyone so fired up. Should the “government” (FCC) intercede by reclassifying broadband? Should the FCC do anything at all? While I will refrain from delving too deeply into all the arguments for and against net neutrality, I will provide a few debate-worthy concepts.

The Case For And/Or Against Net Neutrality ¶

Conservatives argue that if the FCC meddles with ISPs (big businesses), it disincentives ISPs to innovate, thereby harming consumers.^[11] The ISPs are saying, “Hey, if we can’t charge content companies like Netflix more to take advantage of our nifty new fiber optic network, what’s in it for us?” Exactly. Why would the ISPs want to invest in making things better for their customers, when their investments may not pay off?

On the contrary: The ISPs are not innovating right now anyway.

And why should they?

Check the area where you live. If you live in America, you’re screwed, just like me. Thanks to actions made by telecom companies years ago (when the internet wasn’t even a thing), you have about one (1) cable ISP to choose from in your area. Companies like Comcast, Time Warner, or Charter^[12] rule the pipes. Very few smaller companies can break into that market. You probably have a terrible DSL provider to “choose from” as well, like AT&T. And then there’s always AOL, which is apparently still making a killing in some markets.^[13]

As long as those ISPs own all the pipe in an area, they have no reason to innovate, because they don’t need to. What are customers going to do? Leave for another cable company? Oh wait. There is no other cable company to leave to. It’s just DSL or dial-up, both of which suck beyond all belief.

Without strong regulations, the ISPs will continue to drag customers through the mud. Net neutrality advocates want the FCC to step in and make sure ISPs don’t make things worse. The lack of competition has allowed them to flourish under the current regime of well-funded lobbying efforts keeping Washington from making a fuss. The ISPs have a demonstrated track record of being the worst type of big business, and if conservatives have their way, things will only get worse.

A Completely Realistic Example ¶

Pretend that you really like watching The Bachelor. That crazy Chris. And as amazing as that show is to you, imagine that there were another show out there, maybe with a similar premise, but better. Except that this one is not produced by ABC, and is instead produced by a small company called CBA, which is a small internet startup out of Austin, like all startups. Their show is called “The Dogelor,” starring Doggy, who is a dog. Doggy has to try and choose a mate out of a bunch of eligible female dogs.

CBA did some grassroots marketing and got The Dogelor noticed by influential people on Twitter. CBA also created a website called located at www.thedogelor.com^[14] to reach even more people.

Funny thing is, none of the people they talked to in person were able to visit the site with any sense of urgency in their browsers. CBA thought this was weird. They didn’t use Flash, because they weren’t idiots stuck in 2010. And their entire site was written with very few lines of HTML, so it should be super quick to load. “That’s weird,” they thought. CBA, being diligent internet users themselves, checked to see if other sites were slow. They checked the ABC site, where The Bachelor is hosted. Poof. That site loaded super quickly. CBA was puzzled.

So, CBA called up their ISP, Comsuck Warner &T. Comsuck Warner &T is the conglomerate composed of the companies previously known as Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T.^[15] CBA asked Comsuck why no one was able to visit their site without super long loading times, also noting that the ABC website loaded very quickly comparatively speaking. Comsuck explained that ABC had paid Comsuck for a fast lane. This fast lane made it so that ABC was privy to all of Comsuck’s network infrastructure endeavors. CBA asked how they can make it so that people can actually visit their site in a timely manner, like what ABC enjoys. Comsuck explained that CBA could simply purchase fast lane access like ABC. Daunted, CBA explained that they were just a startup from Austin, with a great TV show concept they were hoping to bring to market. They couldn’t afford to pay for a fast lane. Comsuck was unsympathetic, telling CBA to come back when they have money to pay for a fast lane. That was before Comsuck re-named CBA in their internal system to “CBA**hole.”^[16]

You see where I’m going with this crazy story, don’t you? CBA is just a startup. Without net neutrality, how could they ever compete with big companies for their fair share of the internet? Sadly, they couldn’t.

Without strong Net Neutrality regulation, there might never be another Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Startups have to start from somewhere. And if anti-network neutrality folks had their way, only the biggest companies would continue to stay on top, because they would have a greater share of the ‘faster’ portion of the internet. The smaller, lesser-known companies would have an even harder time than they have now in making it big.

It Always Comes Back To Apple ¶

Apple makes amazing consumer products. Don’t think for a second that if Apple were the only company making such products, those products would be the best they could be forever. The products would probably be awesome-enough forever, but they might not improve year-to-year at the pace we have come to expect. Apple inadvertently relies on its competitors to spur its own innovation. This is not to sell Apple short. No other company has amassed such a large following, and broken so many trends as Apple. All the while, they are amassing something else: a huge stockpile of cash. Still, without competition, Apple might never have made a big screen iPhone, or adopted a notification center or multitasking or copy/pasting in iOS if Android didn’t offer such things first. iOS is made better when Android is made better, and vice versa.^[17]

Suffice it to say that it seems, despite the recent changes in the legislature, that proponents of net neutrality have been heard, and have gained support from the people who matter most.

This is shaping up to be a momentous time week for net neutrality advocates.

T.C. Sottek with The Verge:

After years of dithering, manipulative scheming from mega telcos, bad proposals begetting bad proposals, months of F-bombs and death threats, and partisan warfare in Congress, it appears this will be the week we’ve all been waiting for: the week we find out exactly how the FCC will propose to regulate the internet like a utility.

The Next Battle ¶

What’s the next battle?

Advocating for the FCC to dumb wireless spectrum into the same classification as wired broadband.

Sottek, on the prospects of the FCC reclassifying wireless as well (same article as above):

It’s a move that’s sure to make companies like Verizon and AT&T foam at the mouth while they shove truckloads of money at lawyers and receptive lawmakers in Congress who either historically have hated the FCC or have simply found a novel way to compare something to Obamacare.

Good luck getting that to happen with this Congress.