"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet

[donkiez]

All that utility monopolies do is go to the PUC and get rate increases. Has the nation's electricity grid infrastructure been massively improved like running fiber in 100 cities would be?

What other countries do doesn't matter much. They're riding on the coattails of our innovation. The statistics he cites would change radically if AT&T finished running fiber in 100 cities and after Time Warner upgrades everyone's internet service, etc.

The old "the US is the center of the universe argument." What good is paying for everyone's innovations if they get it for cheaper and better than we do?

The 100 city announcement is such an obvious political extortion technique. Hypothetically speaking here, if the utility regulation went through and they were offered huge tax breaks to upgrade their infrastructure, do you think it would get done?

 

[Denny Crane]

The old "the US is the center of the universe argument." What good is paying for everyone's innovations if they get it for cheaper and better than we do?

The 100 city announcement is such an obvious political extortion technique. Hypothetically speaking here, if the utility regulation went through and they were offered huge tax breaks to upgrade their infrastructure, do you think it would get done?

It is getting cheaper and faster here. You are comparing a very large nation with rural and urban populations against a tiny nation with people packed into a few cities (S. Korea, #1).

The 100 city announcement was made to the shareholders, in the news, etc. They were on the hook, and they were spending the money and building out. Like I said, the fiber is pulled to the curb near my house. No ploy at all.

I don't think the government should offer tax breaks because that stifles competition. It gives the big companies huge amounts of extra investment capital that someone trying to get a start won't have. And no, I think they won't do the infrastructure upgrades - look at the utilities that aren't doing infrastructure upgrades with tax breaks now.

Competition is the win. The head of the FCC says so, and he's right.

 

[andalusian]

Fast lanes is the biggest threat to competition and innovation there is for non telecommunication industries. If you want to innovate against products that require large bandwidth and you do not have the deep pockets of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and the like to buy your "fast lanes" - you are basically screwed. You basically move the regulation from one place (the government) to a bunch of well entrenched, super rich corporations (Comacast, ATT, Verizon and the like) with location monopoly.

The ISPs are already pretty much a monopoly based on location - in most places you are really limited to one provider that offer good speed and that's about it. It might be different in condensed urban environments, but most anywhere else, it is not the case. If it is a location based monopoly, regulate them the same way you regulate utilities (other location based monopolies).

 

[KeepOnRollin]

This is a legit overview from both sides imo:
http://www.komando.com/tips/249987/3-things-you-must-know-about-net-neutrality/all

 

[Denny Crane]

Fast lanes is the biggest threat to competition and innovation there is for non telecommunication industries. If you want to innovate against products that require large bandwidth and you do not have the deep pockets of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and the like to buy your "fast lanes" - you are basically screwed. You basically move the regulation from one place (the government) to a bunch of well entrenched, super rich corporations (Comacast, ATT, Verizon and the like) with location monopoly.

The ISPs are already pretty much a monopoly based on location - in most places you are really limited to one provider that offer good speed and that's about it. It might be different in condensed urban environments, but most anywhere else, it is not the case. If it is a location based monopoly, regulate them the same way you regulate utilities (other location based monopolies).

There have always been fast lanes. Akamai has been selling CDN services for years. Premium bandwidth that is faster because the CDN server is located near the user vs. everything coming from the origin servers. Yahoo! was focused on "reachability" (24/7 access from anywhere) for the past 15 years and has better and faster access than 99% of the sites out there.

There hasn't been any threat to competition at all.

Like I said, people need to understand how the internet is connected in the first place to argue the benefits of so-called net neutrality.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is a legit overview from both sides imo:
http://www.komando.com/tips/249987/3-things-you-must-know-about-net-neutrality/all

She got it totally right.

While predicting the future is never guaranteed - especially where technology is concerned - I would say that this whole affair won't affect your Internet much in the short term either for better or worse. It takes a long time for government and industry to do anything, after all.

If net neutrality in its current form doesn't pass, you'll probably see better service from high-profile video-streaming companies like Netflix, Amazon and Google. And, yes, prices will probably go up a bit - but Netflix and Amazon have already raised their prices for other reasons.

However, contrary to many doomsayer claims, it won't be the end of the Internet. You'll still be able to get to your favorite websites or even create your own websites for millions of Internet users to see.

If the current ideas for net neutrality do pass, it's unclear what will happen. Government regulation tends to bog down how fast businesses can react, and companies aren't going to maintain or upgrade networks that aren't profitable. So, you can probably expect little improvement in Internet speed and maybe more frequent outages.

On the other hand, Elon Musk is planning a massive satellite-based universal Internet and other companies are working on Wi-Fi based Internet, so the Internet of cables might be obsolete in a decade anyway. (my note: COMPETITION!)

All of netflix and other bandwidth heavy data would come to an ISP's network through peering points. There is no incentive for the ISP to keep upgrading the speed of those peering points to allow ever increasing data being dumped into their infrastructure through these points for nothing in return. That's how it works, how it always works.

So Netflix rightfully pays for a connection or hosting (as anyone has already done for decades, even this site) directly with the ISP. The data no longer comes through the peering points but instead through a dedicated connection. The traffic gone from the peering point makes every one of the ISP's customers have better experience to all the sites on the internet. The traffic coming from netflix is dumped onto the ISP's network, just not through the peering point. Netflix users get better service.

Everyone wins, except for government sycophants who want to control everything.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There's a fun book called "The Myth of the Robber Barons" that talks a lot about government regulation (and who pushes for it) vs. what's good for the consumers/public.

 

[MarAzul]

http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

Gee, If Sen. Al Franken and Obama are both in favor of something, I am opposed right there.

The track record says that would be correct. Correct until further study indicates you need to change your mind.

 

[MarAzul]

She got it totally right.



All of netflix and other bandwidth heavy data would come to an ISP's network through peering points. There is no incentive for the ISP to keep upgrading the speed of those peering points to allow ever increasing data being dumped into their infrastructure through these points for nothing in return. That's how it works, how it always works.

So Netflix rightfully pays for a connection or hosting (as anyone has already done for decades, even this site) directly with the ISP. The data no longer comes through the peering points but instead through a dedicated connection. The traffic gone from the peering point makes every one of the ISP's customers have better experience to all the sites on the internet. The traffic coming from netflix is dumped onto the ISP's network, just not through the peering point. Netflix users get better service.

Everyone wins, except for government sycophants who want to control everything.

I had the feeling this would be right. No need for the Government. Just a gut feeling, err and seeing Al Franken wanted to regulate.

 

[Denny Crane]

In addition to CDN premium bandwidth, QoS has been a requirement of Internet routing since we've had telephony and video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

They've been using QoS technology for almost 20 years now, and rightly so. If I am downloading a 600MB CDROM image and you are watching a video, your video packets SHOULD get better treatment than my download. If your packets don't get to you in a timely manner, your video stream will stutter and the audio break up. Same for audio. What's the downside? My download takes 10 minutes instead of 9. Like I care.

I do care that my video works, though.

Fast lane.

 

[maxiep]

I love crony capitalism.

 

[MarAzul]

So wait... you're in favor of allowing companies like Comcast to extort money out of companies like Netflix?

I believe you misused the word. Extort has nothing to do with paying for services rendered.

 

[Natebishop3]

I believe you misused the word. Extort has nothing to do with paying for services rendered.

What services? I don't think you understand what extortion is.

They lowered people's streaming to almost nothing to force Netflix to pay them millions. If that's not extortion....

 

[Denny Crane]

What services? I don't think you understand what extortion is.

They lowered people's streaming to almost nothing to force Netflix to pay them millions. If that's not extortion....

No they didn't.

 

[Natebishop3]

No they didn't.

..... yes they did. There's plenty of proof on the web of people getting throttled when they streamed Netflix.

Talk about not getting your money for services rendered.

 

[MarAzul]

What services? I don't think you understand what extortion is.

They lowered people's streaming to almost nothing to force Netflix to pay them millions. If that's not extortion....

Well I suppose they could have beefed up their bandwidth capacity to give the required service to everyone. If they had done that all for free, providing the road with no toll for Netficks, you would be pleased. But I can see why the choose to ask for payment, then force payment and I see Netflicks paid. All is good.

 

[Denny Crane]

..... yes they did. There's plenty of proof on the web of people getting throttled when they streamed Netflix.

Talk about not getting your money for services rendered.

There is no such proof.

http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs.

Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of.

 

[Denny Crane]

So Slate.com posts an article accusing Verizon of throttling Netflix.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ix_on_fios_keeps_verizon_from_throttling.html

See? People don't have a clue.

 

[andalusian]

Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of.

Why is it a courtesy? They are paid by their customers for bandwidth already, they just want to double dip - charge the consumers for "fast internet". but deny the service by blocking what the customers obviously want, charging the content providers (which in turn, really go ahead and charge the customers more money, otherwise they will not make money). If a consumer pays for a service level of internet communication, why does the ISP have the right to regulate what content they consume as long as it is within the service they purchased?

The ISPs, being a location monopoly, double charge their direct consumers, they just use a sneaky way to seem as if the extra charge is collect by the content providers.

I also find it amusing that the ISPs are so against being labeled a utility where they are often claiming to be one when it serves their purposes.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers

 

[Denny Crane]

Why is it a courtesy? They are paid by their customers for bandwidth already, they just want to double dip - charge the consumers for "fast internet". but deny the service by blocking what the customers obviously want, charging the content providers (which in turn, really go ahead and charge the customers more money, otherwise they will not make money). If a consumer pays for a service level of internet communication, why does the ISP have the right to regulate what content they consume as long as it is within the service they purchased?

The ISPs, being a location monopoly, double charge their direct consumers, they just use a sneaky way to seem as if the extra charge is collect by the content providers.

I also find it amusing that the ISPs are so against being labeled a utility where they are often claiming to be one when it serves their purposes.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers

They're not blocking anything. They never did.

As far as common carrier claims, at issue is criminal law only. Is Verizon a criminal party to drug deals arranged via emails that traverse their network or the accounts hosted on their servers. Common carrier means no they aren't.

EDIT: I want to clarify something. Verizon is a phone company and an ISP. The voice/phone side of the company is already subject to the FCC Act of 1934. The data side is what I was referring to above.

They're still not blocking anything and never did. The only case of an ISP selectively blocking specific traffic is Comcast at one point blocked torrent traffic because it was burying their network (and most of that was for illegal things like piracy).

 

[3RA1N1AC]

What is Obamas game here? Any ideas?

I'd say just typical politics playing both sides of the fence but he kind of set himself up to fail here...just window dressing maybe?

 

[Denny Crane]

What is Obamas game here? Any ideas?

I'd say just typical politics playing both sides of the fence but he kind of set himself up to fail here...just window dressing maybe?

Trying to be relevant since he's not relevant about much else.

That's actually meant to be a reasonable answer. He seems to be intent on doing things he can without congressional action.

 

[Stevenson]

Well, when Congress won't work with the executive branch one iota, nor compromise at all, then it deserves to be ignored.

Bravo to Obama for supporting Net neutrality. I'm surprised you are not in favor of it Denny - it helps smaller websites like yours and mine.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

So obama is supporting net neutrality, after hand picking a cable lobbyist to run the department tasked with deciding on it.

wtf

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, when Congress won't work with the executive branch one iota, nor compromise at all, then it deserves to be ignored.

Bravo to Obama for supporting Net neutrality. I'm surprised you are not in favor of it Denny - it helps smaller websites like yours and mine.

Stevenson,

I've negotiated numerous peering and transit deals. I get how the connections work. Net Neutrality is just utter bullshit feel good nonsense. I say that from a position of direct knowledge.

No ISP in their right mind is going to filter traffic to extort money from 99.99999999999% of sites out there. Their only real issues are with managing their own networks' usage.

This whole brouhaha has to be one of the silliest and dangerous things anyone can get behind, if you like the Internet. The Internet has become what it is, under lax regulation. They didn't tax transactions on the WWW for years and we got Amazon and countless other ecommerce sites that grew and thrived because of it. My internet speed in 1994 was 14.4K baud modem for $30. Today for $30 on comcast you get 6mbits/sec, or a 240x increase. Broadband is available to 93% of homes in the nation, without any "electrification" type government effort.

What helps sites like mine and yours is Netflix stopping their one-way dumping of massive amounts of data across peering points (by buying connections or hosting). Those peering points on comcast and wherever else Netflix buys its one way peering are now hugely open for fast access to sites like yours and mine.

No "bravo" to Obama for sticking is nose where he hasn't a clue and where his influence can do far more harm than good.

 

[donkiez]

Here is a fun site to play with.

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

The US is 27th in average internet download speed, numbers that have been helped considerably by Kansas City and google. NY one of our best non google cities is less than half of even the worst South Korea city.

In cities where google pops up, comcast suddenly discovers new bandwidth that they offer their customers. The technology that is already out there is being suppressed for profits.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/isps-are-not-common-carriers

 

[Stevenson]

Thanks Denny, I didn't know that.

 

[MarAzul]

Well, when Congress won't work with the executive branch one iota, nor compromise at all, then it deserves to be ignored.

Bravo to Obama for supporting Net neutrality. I'm surprised you are not in favor of it Denny - it helps smaller websites like yours and mine.

Actually, Congress is working appropriately with the Executive branch.

 

[MarAzul]

Geez! Denny even got a thank you for bring out the facts.

Bump!