Comments on: The key to understanding net neutrality: Anonymity=good, egalitarianism=bad http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/ Musings of a computer scientist on predictions, odds, and markets Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:47:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Pennock http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-10878 David Pennock Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:38:06 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-10878 The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/technology/01fcc.html" rel="nofollow">FCC's Dec 2010 plan to regulate broadband</a> seems eminently reasonable and somewhat along the lines I argued. The broad rules are: ISPs can charge for quality of service but cannot block legal content. The FCC’s Dec 2010 plan to regulate broadband seems eminently reasonable and somewhat along the lines I argued. The broad rules are: ISPs can charge for quality of service but cannot block legal content.

]]> By: jankovit http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-2323 jankovit Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:18:33 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-2323 Re:AppleT&T should not block Google Voice just because it’s a threat. I am from Europe and here Nokia was a pretty widely used brand before the iPhone arricved. I remember that back in 2006 I was already making Skype calls over 3G with my Nokia N95 phone. Today I have an iPhone and because it is not unlocked, I am unable to do the same... Re:AppleT&T should not block Google Voice just because it’s a threat.

I am from Europe and here Nokia was a pretty widely used brand before the iPhone arricved. I remember that back in 2006 I was already making Skype calls over 3G with my Nokia N95 phone. Today I have an iPhone and because it is not unlocked, I am unable to do the same…

]]> By: claviers http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-2118 claviers Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:19:18 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-2118 Key to Understanding Network Neutrality — David Pennock neatly identifies the crucial issue, that service quality and price levels be uniformly applied and not arbitrary based on how much the service provider thinks they can gouge from the customer. The key to understanding this debate is recognizing the difference between anonymity and egalitarianism. A mechanism is anonymous if the outcome does not depend on the identity of the players: two players who bid the same are treated equally. It doesn’t matter what their name, age, or wealth is, what company they represent, or how they plan to use the item — all that matters is what they bid. This is a good property for almost any public marketplace that ensures fair treatment, and one worth fighting for on the Internet Key to Understanding Network Neutrality — David Pennock neatly identifies the crucial issue, that service quality and price levels be uniformly applied and not arbitrary based on how much the service provider thinks they can gouge from the customer. The key to understanding this debate is recognizing the difference between anonymity and egalitarianism. A mechanism is anonymous if the outcome does not depend on the identity of the players: two players who bid the same are treated equally. It doesn’t matter what their name, age, or wealth is, what company they represent, or how they plan to use the item — all that matters is what they bid. This is a good property for almost any public marketplace that ensures fair treatment, and one worth fighting for on the Internet

]]> By: HARISH http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-1462 HARISH Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:02:23 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-1462 At times being neutral is a good solution At times being neutral is a good solution

]]> By: Sylvainp http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-1198 Sylvainp Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:52:37 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-1198 I guess that being for or against net neutrality is also a matter of where you live. For example in France we have only a few ISPs and basically one of them owns most of the (phone - e.g. DSL) pipes while another one got all the cable related technology. Other players (maybe it is different for the late arriving FREE - that's the name of the company - which is currently running a strategy of constructing its own infrastructure of communication) are here mainly for the purpose of maintaining a "competition". Without net neutrality my opinion is that we will soon converge to a situation with one real player that will dictates the offers for users, thus leading to less competition and less quality of service. BTW, another point in favour of net neutrality is more political, not everyone see the web as a playground for big companies, for some people it is just a space of liberty (I know it seems naive, and I don't necessarily agree with that, but hey, some people have this opinion). I guess that being for or against net neutrality is also a matter of where you live. For example in France we have only a few ISPs and basically one of them owns most of the (phone – e.g. DSL) pipes while another one got all the cable related technology. Other players (maybe it is different for the late arriving FREE – that’s the name of the company – which is currently running a strategy of constructing its own infrastructure of communication) are here mainly for the purpose of maintaining a “competition”. Without net neutrality my opinion is that we will soon converge to a situation with one real player that will dictates the offers for users, thus leading to less competition and less quality of service.
BTW, another point in favour of net neutrality is more political, not everyone see the web as a playground for big companies, for some people it is just a space of liberty (I know it seems naive, and I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey, some people have this opinion).

]]> By: Bayesian Investor Blog » Blog Archive » Assorted Links http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-883 Bayesian Investor Blog » Blog Archive » Assorted Links Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:18:07 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-883 [...] The key to understanding net neutrality: Anonymity=good, egalitarianism=bad [...] [...] The key to understanding net neutrality: Anonymity=good, egalitarianism=bad [...]

]]> By: David Pennock http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-760 David Pennock Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:08:21 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-760 Comment imported from Facebook splog: Tom Murphy says: August 6 at 4:37pm Mark Cuban has some good blog items over the last few months concerning net neutrality as well: http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/03/why-tv-networks-should-support-net-neutrality/ Comment imported from Facebook splog:

Tom Murphy says:
August 6 at 4:37pm
Mark Cuban has some good blog items over the last few months concerning net neutrality as well:
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/03/why-tv-networks-should-support-net-neutrality/

]]> By: Four short links: 12 August 2009 | Design Website http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-668 Four short links: 12 August 2009 | Design Website Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:20:50 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-668 [...] Key to Understanding Network Neutrality — David Pennock neatly identifies the crucial issue, that service quality and price levels be uniformly applied and not arbitrary based on how much the service provider thinks they can gouge from the customer. The key to understanding this debate is recognizing the difference between anonymity and egalitarianism. A mechanism is anonymous if the outcome does not depend on the identity of the players: two players who bid the same are treated equally. It doesn’t matter what their name, age, or wealth is, what company they represent, or how they plan to use the item — all that matters is what they bid. This is a good property for almost any public marketplace that ensures fair treatment, and one worth fighting for on the Internet. [...] [...] Key to Understanding Network Neutrality — David Pennock neatly identifies the crucial issue, that service quality and price levels be uniformly applied and not arbitrary based on how much the service provider thinks they can gouge from the customer. The key to understanding this debate is recognizing the difference between anonymity and egalitarianism. A mechanism is anonymous if the outcome does not depend on the identity of the players: two players who bid the same are treated equally. It doesn’t matter what their name, age, or wealth is, what company they represent, or how they plan to use the item — all that matters is what they bid. This is a good property for almost any public marketplace that ensures fair treatment, and one worth fighting for on the Internet. [...]

]]> By: David Pennock http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-664 David Pennock Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:36:28 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-664 Peter and John: thanks for the thoughtful comments. I see your point(s). Basically, I am envisioning a marketplace optimized for social efficiency, and you are pointing out that a monopoly or duopoly owner of the marketplace will optimize for revenue, hurting efficiency, something a small player or a highly competitive player would not be able to do. So the situation is indeed more complex. Still, I'm not sure that enforcing neutrality is the right solution. Peter and John: thanks for the thoughtful comments. I see your point(s). Basically, I am envisioning a marketplace optimized for social efficiency, and you are pointing out that a monopoly or duopoly owner of the marketplace will optimize for revenue, hurting efficiency, something a small player or a highly competitive player would not be able to do. So the situation is indeed more complex. Still, I’m not sure that enforcing neutrality is the right solution.

]]> By: John Langford http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/08/06/key-to-net-neutrality-anonymity-versus-egalitarianism/#comment-653 John Langford Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:00:32 +0000 http://blog.oddhead.com/?p=884#comment-653 I think many people reason for net neutrality based on a different criteria. The reasoning starts with the observation that many-or-most locations in the US have at most 2 choices for reasonable internet service, with this often enforced by crony-laws. One famous example is when Philadelphia started it's own internet service plans, with the standard ISPs reacting by getting legislation passed to make that sort of thing illegal within Pennsylvania. Further evidence is provided by comparing the price and quality of internet service in the US with that in many other countries where a factor of 10 more bandwidth might be available for $20/month. In this monopoly or duopoly situation, it's reasonable to expect any price discrimination power given to ISPs will simply result in the ISPs extracting greater profits while perhaps even intentionally worsening the average service level. For the uninitiated, intentionally damaging a service to extract greater profits seems counterintuitive, but consider the use of dynamically changing IPs, which is often a form of intentional damage designed to force businesses (or anyone else who wants to run a server) to pay more. In some ways, this is echoing what Peter Boothe says, but from a different angle. I think many people reason for net neutrality based on a different criteria. The reasoning starts with the observation that many-or-most locations in the US have at most 2 choices for reasonable internet service, with this often enforced by crony-laws. One famous example is when Philadelphia started it’s own internet service plans, with the standard ISPs reacting by getting legislation passed to make that sort of thing illegal within Pennsylvania.

Further evidence is provided by comparing the price and quality of internet service in the US with that in many other countries where a factor of 10 more bandwidth might be available for $20/month.

In this monopoly or duopoly situation, it’s reasonable to expect any price discrimination power given to ISPs will simply result in the ISPs extracting greater profits while perhaps even intentionally worsening the average service level. For the uninitiated, intentionally damaging a service to extract greater profits seems counterintuitive, but consider the use of dynamically changing IPs, which is often a form of intentional damage designed to force businesses (or anyone else who wants to run a server) to pay more.

In some ways, this is echoing what Peter Boothe says, but from a different angle.

]]>