Wired: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

[santeesioux]

Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.

But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, but I don't see what all the noise is over this issue.

We've had premium bandwidth for years and end users don't give it a thought. Yes, Google has amazing bandwidth, reachability, and proximity to the end user. Can you remember a time when Google was actually down or you couldn't reach it? I mean when you had an actual internet connection so it would be their "fault."

I've had both Cox and Time Warner cable and both block port 80 so I can't run a WWW server off my consumer line.

In fact, consumer bandwidth is almost universally asymmetric. That is, you get much faster speeds downloading than you do uploading (uploading is roughly equivalent to serving WWW pages). On top of that, if the neighbors are all playing video games, my bandwidth could be squeezed to something lower than I pay for.

They have had QoS (quality of service) routing for a long time, too. Audio and Video streams get higher priority so they're not interrupted by everyone downloading the latest Ubuntu release or OSX release or apps on their phones or whatever.

S2's servers are hosted at a carrier grade facility. The bandwidth and everything about the hosting is premium. It costs money.

I'm sure GoDaddy pays for premium bandwidth, too. If you host your WWW site with them for pennies, you can serve WWW pages using that bandwidth, too.

What am I missing?

 

[santeesioux]

But dem evil ISPs Denny!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It's the possibility of only getting NBC content if you're on Comcast... The ability for cable companies to use access as leverage in negotiations. Just because that's how it is now doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Denny Crane]

If your ISP denies you quality of service, find another ISP.

If there aren't other ISPs, there will be.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

If your ISP denies you quality of service, find another ISP.

If there aren't other ISPs, there will be.

How long does it take to spin up an ISP?

 

[Denny Crane]

How long does it take to spin up an ISP?

Seriously? 30 days - I did it once.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Seriously? 30 days - I did it once.

We should all just use BBSes.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Seriously? 30 days - I did it once.

Who's infrastructure did you use? How was your speed?

 

[Nikolokolus]

If your ISP denies you quality of service, find another ISP.

If there aren't other ISPs, there will be.

There isn't that much choice in the marketplace, in my experience.

 

[barfo]

I don't know, Denny. I've studied this topic for a good 5 minutes now, so I might be completely off base.

But suppose I get my internet service from Comcast (I do). Suppose Comcast is evil (it is). There are other internet service providers available, but they'd all be slower.

Now suppose Comcast decides it wants to make money from S2, so it tells you that you can either pay them, or they'll make your site run so damn slow I can't post.

Is that not a problem?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Who's infrastructure did you use? How was your speed?

I bought from multiple carriers for redundancy. It's called being multi-homed.

How was the speed? Terrific.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know, Denny. I've studied this topic for a good 5 minutes now, so I might be completely off base.

But suppose I get my internet service from Comcast (I do). Suppose Comcast is evil (it is). There are other internet service providers available, but they'd all be slower.

Now suppose Comcast decides it wants to make money from S2, so it tells you that you can either pay them, or they'll make your site run so damn slow I can't post.

Is that not a problem?

barfo

While it's technically possible, they already don't do blocking or filtering by single IP en masse. It's a huge burden on the carrier infrastructure. Rather, they deal with whole blocks of IP addresses, so they'd be blocking S2 and hundreds of other WWW sites. Or not.

Google CIDR if you want to read about it.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

So if spinning up a terrific ISP is so easy, why are there so few options in Portland?

 

[Denny Crane]

So if spinning up a terrific ISP is so easy, why are there so few options in Portland?

Are there few options?

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=18656&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=31288&mapcode=

http://west.frontier.com/fios/or/portland?kbid=60416&gclid=CK_xmNixzroCFRFxQgodwkwAKw

And a whole list:
http://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=isps&find_loc=Portland,+OR

 

[barfo]

While it's technically possible, they already don't do blocking or filtering by single IP en masse. It's a huge burden on the carrier infrastructure. Rather, they deal with whole blocks of IP addresses, so they'd be blocking S2 and hundreds of other WWW sites. Or not.

Google CIDR if you want to read about it.

Yeah, if there were billions of dollars to be made, I doubt anyone would invest in infrastructure... certainly not a big phone/cable company.

barfo

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Five of the top 10 are the same provider: Verizon.

 

[Denny Crane]

Five of the top 10 are the same provider: Verizon.

There are 94 of them.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, if there were billions of dollars to be made, I doubt anyone would invest in infrastructure... certainly not a big phone/cable company.

barfo

Netflix hosts on Amazon AWS cloud services. The two companies compete with streaming video services. Imagine that.

Netflix is paying Amazon to build the infrastructure required for its service.

Netflix is not paying Time Warner or Cox or anyone else to build the infrastructure to deliver their content.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, another list:

http://businessfinder.oregonlive.com/OR-Portland/Internet-Access-Providers

This is the one with 94 on it.

 

[barfo]

Netflix hosts on Amazon AWS cloud services. The two companies compete with streaming video services. Imagine that.

Netflix is paying Amazon to build the infrastructure required for its service.

Netflix is not paying Time Warner or Cox or anyone else to build the infrastructure to deliver their content.

Well, I guess if Netflix currently gets along well with Amazon, it stands to reason that every service provider will get along with every other content provider forever more.

It seems to me there was recently a story in the news about some content provider having a battle with a service provider in the cable TV space. I must be remembering wrong?

barfo

 

[BlazerCaravan]

There are 94 of them.

Seems like Web Hosting and Web Design services are also lumped into this category. Here's my analysis of the Top 20 or so:

Canvas Dreams – Web Hosting (not ISP)
Verizon Wireless – Verizon
CenturyLink – CenturyLink
Verizon Wireless – Verizon
Clear Wire – Sprint (wireless 4G)
Acorn – Web Hosting (not ISP)
Host Portland – Web Hosting (not ISP)
Source Network – Dish
Portland High Speed Internet – Verizon
Cable Internet Portland – Unknown (no website!)
AT&T Authorized Retailer – AT&T
J2 Online – Unknown (no website!)
Wrenegadepoker.com – blocked by work (probably not an ISP)
Sterling Communications – ShoreTel (Business only)
Qwest – CenturyLink
Fortix – Unknown (no website!)
Matrix Networks – Not an ISP (business IP communications/infrastructure)
Affordable Web Technology – SEO Service (not ISP)
Dish Network Retailer – Dish
Homespun Websites – Web Design (not ISP)

One thing I noticed is that if a service is using someone else's backbone, they're partnering with one company to do it, basically becoming a reseller of that provider.

That basically gives us:
Verizon
Dish
CenturyLink
Comcast

AT&T and Sprint are mobile 4G wireless providers, and aren't in the same business, even if some users try to leverage their services to avoid the providers above.

So again I ask, why so few providers? Is it possibly because those with the money to build out infrastructure are proprietary with their resources and hate competition?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Sorry, another list:

http://businessfinder.oregonlive.com/OR-Portland/Internet-Access-Providers

This is the one with 94 on it.

Let's take a look then...

CC Complete - online balloting service (not an ISP)
Fortix - Now Via West - Colocation service (not an ISP)
Solid Technology - DSL and Dialup service
Eleven - Hospitality computers (not an ISP)
Iterasi - no website
Rio Networks - website is blank (defunct?)
CollegeNet - College Tuition/Admissions services (not an ISP)
Clearwire - Sprint Wireless

...I'm not sure about your lists, or what people think is an ISP.

 

[barfo]

It's also worth noting that a lot of the ones that actually are ISPs do not cover the entire metro area. I've got comcast, but not FIOS, and I tried Clearwire - no service at my house.

Basically, my choices are comcast through the cable, or some DSL provider through the phone line. Or add a dish, I suppose?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, I guess if Netflix currently gets along well with Amazon, it stands to reason that every service provider will get along with every other content provider forever more.

It seems to me there was recently a story in the news about some content provider having a battle with a service provider in the cable TV space. I must be remembering wrong?

barfo

You get competing movie channels offered over cable, too. Seems like they want to be a value to their customers.

As for the list of ISPs, there are several that offer competition to cable. The DSL guys.

There is no fairness or neutrality forced now. If there were these imagined issues, we'd have seen them already.

 

[barfo]

You get competing movie channels offered over cable, too. Seems like they want to be a value to their customers.

Comcast provides me only the channels that they want to provide. I don't get S2-TV and never will. Seems to me cable is an example of limiting access, not granting unlimited access.

As for the list of ISPs, there are several that offer competition to cable. The DSL guys.

Yes. If you are satisfied w/ DSL, then there is probably plenty of competition in the ISP space.

There is no fairness or neutrality forced now. If there were these imagined issues, we'd have seen them already.

Hmm. So you are saying the law not only will have no practical effect, but has no legal effect either?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Comcast provides me only the channels that they want to provide. I don't get S2-TV and never will. Seems to me cable is an example of limiting access, not granting unlimited access.



Yes. If you are satisfied w/ DSL, then there is probably plenty of competition in the ISP space.



Hmm. So you are saying the law not only will have no practical effect, but has no legal effect either?

barfo

Cable has technical limitations as to how much content can be transmitted on the wire. A limit to the number of channels. So does satellite. So you'd be in favor of a law requiring the dish companies to launch infinite #'s of satellites to get you unlimited access to programming? How do you expect them to pay for it? It costs tens or hundreds of $millions, at least, to launch a satellite.

I think you're missing the point. There is plenty of competition now. If the status quo changes to the point where you buy Internet that is limiting the # of sites you can visit, the competition will grow. I would bet if you call your local govt. and ask, they'll tell you they'd love to have a 2nd cable provider come in and compete with the 1st. There's nothing stopping one from doing so.

When AT&T and Verizon decided to charge per gigabyte of bandwidth for phones and tablets, people griped. You can go to Sprint, competition!, and get unlimited. Doesn't seem like that's exactly what people want.

 

[barfo]

Cable has technical limitations as to how much content can be transmitted on the wire. A limit to the number of channels. So does satellite. So you'd be in favor of a law requiring the dish companies to launch infinite #'s of satellites to get you unlimited access to programming? How do you expect them to pay for it? It costs tens or hundreds of $millions, at least, to launch a satellite.

Did I say I was in favor of that? I believe I was just pointing out the current situation, not lobbying for a change. Plus I don't have a dish.

I think you're missing the point. There is plenty of competition now. If the status quo changes to the point where you buy Internet that is limiting the # of sites you can visit, the competition will grow.

Yeah, that's why I have so many choices of cable providers. I sometimes lose track when counting, but I think it is... one.

I would bet if you call your local govt. and ask, they'll tell you they'd love to have a 2nd cable provider come in and compete with the 1st. There's nothing stopping one from doing so.

Except basic economics. And the franchise agreement the government made with Comcast.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Comcast has no exclusive right to be the sole cable provider. The franchise agreement grants them access to pull their cable on phone poles or underground. If another company wanted to apply, the city could make a (second) franchise agreement with them.

The economics aren't there because it would be a huge investment with no guarantee of enough customers to break even or profit.

The economics change when Comcast offers only Bing and MSN. Otherwise AOL would still be king.

 

[barfo]

Comcast has no exclusive right to be the sole cable provider. The franchise agreement grants them access to pull their cable on phone poles or underground. If another company wanted to apply, the city could make a (second) franchise agreement with them.

Agreed.

The economics aren't there because it would be a huge investment with no guarantee of enough customers to break even or profit.

correct

The economics change when Comcast offers only Bing and MSN. Otherwise AOL would still be king.

No, they don't. Nobody comes in and lays new cable on my street so that I can get S2. People in Portland just learn to live w/o S2, same way people in the outlying areas learned to live without the Blazers the last few years.

Nobody lays new cable because it is frightfully expensive and there's no guarantee that Comcast won't blow them out of the water midway by simply turning S2 back on.

Now, maybe the government regulators prevent Comcast from turning S2 off in the first place, as a violation of their franchise agreement. But I know you'd rather have S2 turned off than have the government help out.

barfo