Net Neutrality

[wrems]

Narflex just posted a call to action for Net Neutrality: http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54014

I'm curious and want to know more. I've been doing my own research but I'm wondering what you guys understand this as.

The good, the bad and the ugly...

I'm not trying to fuel a political debate of any kind. Just facts and understanding of the debate. Care to comment?

[stanger89]

My kneejerk reaction is that is that the net is about the most neutral thing we have and I don't trust the FCC regulating within 10 lightyears of it, that I'd rather "trust" the service provider I can choose to pay or not, than the government agency I have no choice in.

And before anyone chimes in that there's no competition, there's already Cable and DSL in a lot of areas, and with the rapid expansion of 4G LTE/WiMax over the next couple of years with coverage that will overlap each other and the current standard direct-wire options, I am optimistic that we'll have faster speeds, greater availability, and prices kept in check with competition and not regulation.

And FWIW, the ITU's official definition of 4G (IMT-Advanced) calls for 100Mbps "high mobility" and 1Gbps "low mobility" performance, and could be out in a year or two.

Just think what will happen when people can choose between DSL, Cable, and one or more 4G providers offering similar speeds...

[GKusnick]

My feeling is that if you want government agencies to represent your interests, then you have an obligation to speak up and let them know what you think. If the only voices they hear are industry voices, that pretty much guarantees their policies will benefit the providers and not the consumers. Good government requires participation.

[sleonard]

This one is a bit hard to avoid any political debate but I'll try.

My understanding of this is that NN would prevent, for example, my ISP, from blocking or throttling Netflix streaming in order to give their own video streaming service an anti-competitive advantage (My ISP, Cox, has announced plans for such a service). It would also prevent them from giving their own service an extra performance boost that's unavailable to Netflix and other competitors. Another scenario that would ostensibly be illegal under NN would be to block or throttle websites that do not pay the ISP a "toll charge" or give an extra performance boost to websites that do pay extra.

Think about a phone company that says we'll provide you a phone line and you can call anybody in the world you want unless you want to call one of our competitors or someone that does not pay us an additional access fee. In those cases we will block the call outright or just make sure you have a crappy connection.

Me, if I'm paying the ISP for a network connection it had better be the same quality connection no matter what my destination is, period. I'm paying for the connection and it shouldn't matter who my ISP likes, dislikes, has business relationships with or competes with.

OTOH, a co-worker of mine claims it's a "big government" conspiracy to control our internet connections or something like that. I admit I don't really understand what exactly he thinks but it sounded kind of tin-foil-hat like to me. He certainly is quite passionate about the issue though.

I have seen criticism of NN that was reasonable and it is that there hasn't yet been anybody actually engaging or even threatening the type of behavior that NN is supposed to prevent so NN is simply not yet necessary. This criticism comes from the point of view that government regulation should only be put in place to correct known bad behavior, i.e. - reactive instead of pro-active. I'm not so sure but I can at least understand it. Another criticism that seemed reasonable was that the actual NN regulations were poorly written/implemented and won't actually accomplish the goal while being unnecessarily burdonsome. I am not a lawyer and haven't parsed the regulations for myself so I can't speak to that but I can at least sympathize with the general point of view.

S

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

My feeling is that if you want government agencies to represent your interests, then you have an obligation to speak up and let them know what you think. If the only voices they hear are industry voices, that pretty much guarantees their policies will benefit the providers and not the consumers. Good government requires participation.

While I totally agree... the problem is that the average person doesn't even know about net netrality and of those that do know about it... most don't understand it. The govt relies mainly 2 things to pass bad legislation... fear (ie, terrorist will kill you if you don't agree with this, or you don't want your kids abducted by pedophiles, do you?) and ignorance (ie, you can't possibly understand the economics of what this is going to achieve, so trust us, we are looking out for your behalf)... net netrality falls into the latter, and most people couldn't care a less about it.

Now, if someone could actually attach some numbers to it, like, you'll cable bill will increase/decrease by 5 dollars if you support/oppose it, then people will act out...even if they don't understand it. This happened recently in Canada where the big ISPs started implementing UBB (Usaged based billing) based on a decision from the CRTC (the govt body that looks after the interests of the consumer). While it only affects smaller ISPs that buy wholesale from larger ISPs, the peopel revolted (online) and the CRTC decision is being reversed and reviewed. Most people that complained were not even affected by the decision and they already have UBB and either don't know it, or don't care. And by the same token our version of the DMCA is slipping right on through legislation because people don't have a clue about it, because it won't directly affect their cable/phone bill.

It's a cynical sad world in which I live Govts today depress me more than anything else.... and you don't have voice, unless you have money... and the independent people that do try to rally the people are often just considered crackpots, or tin foil hat people

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sleonard

This one is a bit hard to avoid any political debate but I'll try.

My understanding of this is that NN would prevent, for example, my ISP, from blocking or throttling Netflix streaming in order to give their own video streaming service an anti-competitive advantage (My ISP, Cox, has announced plans for such a service). It would also prevent them from giving their own service an extra performance boost that's unavailable to Netflix and other competitors. Another scenario that would ostensibly be illegal under NN would be to block or throttle websites that do not pay the ISP a "toll charge" or give an extra performance boost to websites that do pay extra.

That all sounds great in theory, but is this an actual problem?

Think about a phone company that says we'll provide you a phone line and you can call anybody in the world you want unless you want to call one of our competitors or someone that does not pay us an additional access fee. In those cases we will block the call outright or just make sure you have a crappy connection.

What about cell carriers giving free unlimited calls for on-network calls but not off network? I think most people see this as a benefit, not something that should be regulated out of existence.

OTOH, a co-worker of mine claims it's a "big government" conspiracy to control our internet connections or something like that. I admit I don't really understand what exactly he thinks but it sounded kind of tin-foil-hat like to me. He certainly is quite passionate about the issue though.

The big question that should be asked is why is NN all of the sudden such a big deal, so important, the idea has been around for a while but it's seems to have become a priority of late, but why?

And of course the overall question of do we really want to give an already power-hungry government/bureaucracy more power?

I mean DMCA, need I say more?

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stanger89

What about cell carriers giving free unlimited calls for on-network calls but not off network? I think most people see this as a benefit, not something that should be regulated out of existence.

Maybe not for a cell phone provider, but such offerings from an ISP should be discouraged.

Are you saying that we should encourage Comcast to discount local traffic, or charge more for traffic to an overseas IP address?

Without some type of regulation, what's to stop Comcast from blocking or lowering the quality of Netflix, or other content providers? Free market? Only if Comcast is making more on its ISP service than the content it's providing over it -- and Comcast's acquisition of NBC universal should show you what direction they're plotting for the future.

I can see it now: On your "Comcast Partner" internet plan, you can get unlimited streaming from Comcast approved content partners! (Other streaming content only $0.75 per GB, where available).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Maybe not for a cell phone provider, but such offerings from an ISP should be discouraged.

Are you saying that we should encourage Comcast to discount local traffic, or charge more for traffic to an overseas IP address?

Comcast has to pay for the bandwidth they use, are you saying they shouldn't be able to pass that along to their customers? Or if traffic within their own infrastructure is less costly they shouldn't be able to pass those savings on either?

Without some type of regulation, what's to stop Comcast from blocking or lowering the quality of Netflix, or other content providers? Free market?

Qwest, Bell, ATT, Verizon/FIOS, Sprint, etc. Yes, the market.

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by stanger89

That all sounds great in theory, but is this an actual problem?

See the first reasonable criticism I mentioned.

Originally Posted by stanger89

What about cell carriers giving free unlimited calls for on-network calls but not off network? I think most people see this as a benefit, not something that should be regulated out of existence.

Good point and I suppose that as long as my ISP always provides the minimum contracted service and only gives me extra service for it's favored sites than I would be OK. Should I trust Cox enough to do this?

Maybe we should wait until an ISP gets caught breaking our trust before enacting regulation? My thoughts are that it won't take long and even if we should wait we definately should not pass laws that prevents us from taking corrective action once an ISP is caught as is being proposed right now.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The big question that should be asked is why is NN all of the sudden such a big deal, so important, the idea has been around for a while but it's seems to have become a priority of late, but why?

Because actual regulations were recently passed. Before it was just a theoretical debate.

Originally Posted by stanger89

And of course the overall question of do we really want to give an already power-hungry government/bureaucracy more power?

I mean DMCA, need I say more?

I understand and sympathize with that view. I will add the horribly mis-named "Patriot Act". IMHO, those that voted for that POS should be tarred and feathered. But, I also recognized that government is not the only threat to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is simply naive to think that corporate America would voluntarily refrain from dumping their toxic waste into our common air, water and food supplies, for example. You won't find me apologizing to BP for the way they were treated.

In fact it could be fairly argued that despite the few DMCA's and Patriot Acts the vast, vast majority of government regulations were the direct result of a few abusing the many in undemocratic ways. See Teddy Roosevelt and his gleeful trustbusting as well as his views on the environment.

S

[wrems]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The big question that should be asked is why is NN all of the sudden such a big deal, so important, the idea has been around for a while but it's seems to have become a priority of late, but why?

And of course the overall question of do we really want to give an already power-hungry government/bureaucracy more power?

I mean DMCA, need I say more?

This is the part that has given me pause. It sounds prudent to regulate the ISP's at first glance. After all, it would be a consumer protection. But whats the bigger picture/end game? If this is designed to prevent the ISP's from filtering/throttling etc. what's stopping the FCC or whatever division of the government from doing the same thing?

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by wrems

If this is designed to prevent the ISP's from filtering/throttling etc. what's stopping the FCC or whatever division of the government from doing the same thing?

At the most basic level, the FCC doesn't own the Internet infrastructure. They can't just go downstairs and flip a switch to turn on filtering the way the carriers can. They'd have to do it through regulation and the courts, with lots of public discussion along the way.

[korben_dallas]

I would be much more inclined to participate if this were related to SageTV's efforts for a digital household gateway.

I don't think the FCC has done a very good job of governing cable companies, and that is supposed to be one of the FCC's areas of expertise. I fear how badly they would munge up the internet, and area where they have no expertise.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by korben_dallas

I don't think the FCC has done a very good job of governing cable companies, and that is supposed to be one of the FCC's areas of expertise.

Right, but look at who's been in charge for the last decade. The previous administration had no interest in governing cable companies, but were happy to let them do as they pleased. If you don't like the result, blame the guys who got us into this mess, not the new guys who are trying to get us out of it. The whole point is that they're looking to improve their governance, and they need our input to decide how best to do that. Telling them to back off and leave it alone is basically an endorsement of the old do-nothing policy.

[Spectrum]

Just remember that NN != "dumb pipes" which is what everyone seems to think. Make sure you actually READ and UNDERSTAND any legislation you are supporting. Once you give the government power over something, they will not relenquish it. Just look at the 'Patriot Act'.

[wrems]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

At the most basic level, the FCC doesn't own the Internet infrastructure. They can't just go downstairs and flip a switch to turn on filtering the way the carriers can. They'd have to do it through regulation and the courts, with lots of public discussion along the way.

Right. At the same time, what about Allvid? Doesn't that device place an FCC appliance in a person's house that acts similarly to an ISP? All the micromanaging control they want over all aspects of communication over the net. Not very neutral just shifting who's controlling the data.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sleonard

Good point and I suppose that as long as my ISP always provides the minimum contracted service and only gives me extra service for it's favored sites than I would be OK. Should I trust Cox enough to do this?

Do you trust Verizon actually gives you free unlimited calling to on-network numbers? Do you go through your bill and check that you don't actually get charged for calling other Verizon numbers?

Maybe we should wait until an ISP gets caught breaking our trust before enacting regulation?

Yes we should.

Because actual regulations were recently passed. Before it was just a theoretical debate.

No, not why is it an issue for Sage, why did the FCC decide it was necessary to pass regulations now.

I understand and sympathize with that view. I will add the horribly mis-named "Patriot Act". IMHO, those that voted for that POS should be tarred and feathered. But, I also recognized that government is not the only threat to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Internet isn't a right, it's not the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone has internet, or to legislate what it should cost.

It is simply naive to think that corporate America would voluntarily refrain from dumping their toxic waste into our common air, water and food supplies, for example. You won't find me apologizing to BP for the way they were treated.

In fact it could be fairly argued that despite the few DMCA's and Patriot Acts the vast, vast majority of government regulations were the direct result of a few abusing the many in undemocratic ways. See Teddy Roosevelt and his gleeful trustbusting as well as his views on the environment.

I better stop before this really turns into a political debate, but I'll just leave it at this, we haven't really tried the free market in decades.

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Right, but look at who's been in charge for the last decade. The previous administration had no interest in governing cable companies, but were happy to let them do as they pleased. If you don't like the result, blame the guys who got us into this mess, not the new guys who are trying to get us out of it. The whole point is that they're looking to improve their governance, and they need our input to decide how best to do that. Telling them to back off and leave it alone is basically an endorsement of the old do-nothing policy.

So, for 8 years we had lots of governance that nobody liked, so the answer is....

...even more governance.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Do you trust Verizon actually gives you free unlimited calling to on-network numbers? Do you go through your bill and check that you don't actually get charged for calling other Verizon numbers?

I think this example is a little off. Yes I trust that in most cases companies like Verizon will do what they are contractually obligated to do. However, I don't trust that they will always offer contracts that are fair to me and don't have some BS hidden in the fine print.

An example would be how Comcast managed to get waivers that allowed them to encrypt most of their previously Cleam-QAM stations in order to push through their DTA boxes.

I must say that Comcast's recent acquisition of NBC-Universal is very frightening. In the absence of Net Neutraility laws it wouldn't surprise me at all if Comcast decided to start throttling video streaming services other than its own. Without regulation, there is nothing to prevent them from re-directing web searches to its own sites (e.g. imagine if I type in Netflix.com and my browser goes to fancast.com instead, or instead imagine it takes me to a landing page with a message that says, "your plan does not allow access to this site. Please click here and you will be charged $0.05 per MB to access this service).

Originally Posted by stanger89

The Internet isn't a right, it's not the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone has internet, or to legislate what it should cost.

This is actually debatable. When the internet was first created, it was a novelty. Over time it became more and more useful. Now it has become nearly impossible to conduct business without internet access. Because of this shift, many people are starting to consider the internet to be as important as electricity, running water, or phone service. It took government regulation to ensure that these other services were available to all Americans.

[tmiranda]

Big Business = Bad.
Big Government = Worse.

I have enough regulation in my world, I want less.

[Taddeusz]

To me the real reason that the NN debate started up was because ISP's all of a sudden felt that high traffic web sites such as Google were over burdening their networks and they want remuneration for it. The problem with their logic is that the web sites aren't willy nilly sending stuff to people. Users on those ISP's are actively seeking the content. All the bandwidth is bought and paid for from end to end by the peering agreements each network carries with the networks they are connected to. Because of this the logic of The ISP's really has no legs to stand on.

The obvious problem comes up with what has already been discussed. When an ISP wants to throttle traffic to particular sites to favor their own services or they want to charge web sites for priority access. The whole idea only serves to negatively impact users. The end result should be that people will be drawn away from those ISP's that throttle services but the reality is probably that due to market monopolies people will be forced to just accept it because they have few to no other choices.

[Skirge01]

I'm honestly still not sure where I fall in this debate and I've done a lot of reading on the subject. I do believe that our government has forgotten how to represent the people (See NBC/Comcast merger, Patriot Act, DMCA, etc.). I do believe that our government is too big (Do you really need examples?). At the same time, I also believe that businesses have proven time and again that a lack of oversight can lead to unfair, illegal, and monopolistic practices. (See Microsoft antitrust, Intel antitrust, Google antitrust, CD price fixing, Comcast throttling, etc.)

However, I have quite a bit of respect for Ars Technica and this editorial makes for an interesting read. Additionally, while I haven't finished the entire article, they've provided some insight about four books with different perspectives on why net neutrality matters.