Net Neutrality

[drewg]

Originally Posted by stanger89

But that doesn't make internet a right. And beyond that, what makes you think the result of FCC regulation would be better than FCC regulation of cable/sat. The FCC has been regulating that for decades yet we still have essentially the same situation there that you're complaining about with internet. What makes you think the result will be any better if the FCC gets involved with internet.

Two things.. First, the fear of things actually getting worse, in terms of the cable/phone company throttling competing service/content providers.

Second, the fact that, as Skirge01 points out, things *have* gotten worse. There used to be small mom & pop companies offering DSL, and the Earthlink service via TWC used to be substantially different (cheaper/faster) than TWCs own RoadRunner offering. Both of these things have gone away due to a lack of appropriate regulation (well, Earthlink is still there, but they now cost the same & have the same packages as RR).

Drew

[Skirge01]

One thing that definitely brought a little smile to my face while reading this was how intelligent a lot of the folks here on the forums are. People have at least done some research on the topic(s) and it clearly shows. We've also been able to remain pretty darn civil in the discussion, which--in and of itself--is pretty impressive.

I don't want to derail the topic, but with everyone having such strong opinions, how many of you (us) actually finds out about current legislation and calls, faxes, and/or emails their representatives to try and actually make a difference? For causes which actually matter to me, I'm on mailing lists to be notified of relevant legislation (Humane Society, Defenders of Wildlife, EFF, etc.) and I do take the time to contact my own representatives when I disagree with something.

[vikingisson]

As someone that came within an inch of having my data cap lowered from 200Gs to 25Gs due to the Canadian insanity attempt I can say that we're in danger. I don't use Bell or Rogers yet I was about to be capped to their standards. That would instantly kill any streaming or double or triple my internet bill. Free market capitalism tells me that competition and offerings are up to my provider yet this bill would have killed that freedom.

As for "free" local traffic that is typically done on cell or for services provided directly by ISPs, that's fine. It isn't clogging the netz. But notice that some providers are offering "unlimited" access to external social sites (of course with fine print). That sounds good to a user that it affects but is a slippery slope and the start of something horrible. The internet would become another cable tv service, my provider doesn't do anything to bring external services to me other than push the bits. One service is the same as another and none of their business or to charge for based on the type of content.

It isn't like charging for water and electricity. There is a cost but that cost is tiny and those bits are not limited, renewable if you will.

It would be so simple to just offer me a service that I want instead of forcing me into false barriers and mafia style protection schemes. I'm all for a reasonable cap but that should be up to my ISP, not the incumbents or regulation. My ISP will never sell me something they loose money on. And Bell/Rogers will never sell wholesale bandwidth to my ISP at a loss.

Leave my bits alone.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

how many of you (us) actually finds out about current legislation and calls, faxes, and/or emails their representatives to try and actually make a difference? For causes which actually matter to me, I'm on mailing lists to be notified of relevant legislation (Humane Society, Defenders of Wildlife, EFF, etc.) and I do take the time to contact my own representatives when I disagree with something.

As I get older, I do that more and more. I also vote in every election, and contribute to the campaign of some politicians (at least one US & State Senator, and US & State rep.) which I hope makes them pay slightly more attention.

I've probably written more letters in the last few years than in my entire life before that. I've been putting down to getting older and and more crotchety now that I'm over 40

Drew

[brainbone]

This kind of thing is what has sparked NN.

[Clift]

I only have one simple anecdotal evidence as to why I wholeheartedly support Net Neutrality:
Comcast's attack on Bit Torrent a couple of years ago. Without power the FCC would have no recourse in such a case and, hence, neither would the consumer.

Where I live you either have Brighthouse Networks for high speed internet (10 Mbps) or you have Embarq (1.5 Mbps). That's not competition. Or, I suppose, you could get a Verizon/AT&T/Sprint aircard (no T-Mobile service) but then you have a 5GB cap, limited bandwidth and even more restrictions on the types of things you can do online. I do not believe wireless is an alternative for most. Because of this ISPs really have no reason to play nice since the competition is limited. Or worse, what if everyone (ISPs)decides to play the favoritsm game? Afterall, why not? So Youtube videos play great because "Google" is a preferred partner, but VIMEO doesn't. Or worse, unlimited internet to certain sites but not others. You can pay an additional $10/month to access Hulu. Our basic internet plan does not cover Facebook. That will be $2/month for 150Mb of Facebook, or $19.99/month for unlimited Facebook. Come to think of it I wouldn't mind the Facebook thing one bit

[vikingisson]

That's the big issue Clift. And if they can get away with it they will do it. It is already creeping in with cell data and it is wrong. Bits is bits and if the bit pusher isn't the source of those bits then they can't/shouldn't charge me differently based on where I'm trying to go.

I can drive down several different routes to get to the theme park. My options get more limited as I approach the park. I pay to get into the theme park. My journey itself has some cost but isn't related to the theme park specifically. I could go the same route and visit the gas station or picnic table next door and the only cost difference is what I buy or not buy when I get there. The trip is the same and that's how the ISPs must also behave. Their cost isn't different no matter how much value the end point is to me.

I'm sorry that ISPs feel differently and want to be viewed as content providers and not bit pushers. They are bit pushers but have the option to also be content providers but they don't own the bits they don't create. The irony is that to be more than bit pushers they must also be the best bit pusher and that is where it is starting to fall apart.

[Clift]

Originally Posted by vikingisson

That's the big issue Clift. And if they can get away with it they will do it. It is already creeping in with cell data and it is wrong. Bits is bits and if the bit pusher isn't the source of those bits then they can't/shouldn't charge me differently based on where I'm trying to go.

I can drive down several different routes to get to the theme park. My options get more limited as I approach the park. I pay to get into the theme park. My journey itself has some cost but isn't related to the theme park specifically. I could go the same route and visit the gas station or picnic table next door and the only cost difference is what I buy or not buy when I get there. The trip is the same and that's how the ISPs must also behave. Their cost isn't different no matter how much value the end point is to me.

I'm sorry that ISPs feel differently and want to be viewed as content providers and not bit pushers. They are bit pushers but have the option to also be content providers but they don't own the bits they don't create. The irony is that to be more than bit pushers they must also be the best bit pusher and that is where it is starting to fall apart.

And you can't trust the fox to watch the hen house. If the ISP's didn;t have to invest into their network or were not providing competing services, then I wouldn't mind trusting them. For example, how many people really ever think about what data caps will do to people who use Skype or Vonage religiously? We always talk about Netflix or Hulu or even Youtube.... The cableco's now bundle home phone with their services. Who's to say they won;t insert crap packets into all Vonage traffic, leading to low satisfaction with Vonage, leading to people choosing the cableco telephone service instead?

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by Clift

And you can't trust the fox to watch the hen house. If the ISP's didn;t have to invest into their network or were not providing competing services, then I wouldn't mind trusting them. For example, how many people really ever think about what data caps will do to people who use Skype or Vonage religiously? We always talk about Netflix or Hulu or even Youtube.... The cableco's now bundle home phone with their services. Who's to say they won;t insert crap packets into all Vonage traffic, leading to low satisfaction with Vonage, leading to people choosing the cableco telephone service instead?

1) Comcast vs bittorrent protocol - resolved only because the FCC intervened to protect the free market

2) Comcast vs Level 3 Communications - ongoing and unlikely to be resolved without FCC intervention to protect the free market

3) The case that caused the FCC stance on NN in the first place - a telco run ISP vs VoIP - yet again resolved only with FCC intervention to protect the free market.


How many more cases of a corporation engaging in anti-competitive activities will it take before the people can protect and police their free-market interests without being falsely labeled big-government and, ironically, anti-free market?

Adam Smith himself observed that free markets cannot exist absent government regulation to protect them because the dominant businesses will always attempt to keep others from competing fairly.

S

BTW, yes, I absolutely believe things are FAR better because of the breakup of AT&T. In fact, I am amazed that anyone could possibly argue otherwise. Really, AT&T is one of the best examples of anti-competitive behavior in American history. Their anti-competitive behavior goes back to 1913 and continued even into the 1990's after they had been broken up - the 1996 Telecom Act that established the interconnection policies we now take for granted (and which, I think, someone earlier claimed, incorrectly, was the result of free-market competition) was the direct result of Ameritech (a baby Bell) once again refusing to allow a local telco's customers to complete calls to or from Ameritech customers - the self-same behavior they were engaging in against Sprint, MCI and others in the '70's that resulted in the 1982 anti-trust suit.

[kingwr]

Net Neurtrality rules will not increase competition, just add regulatory burden and possibly reduce competition because some non-cable and non-telco providers may stop investing.

If you want to create competition, the FCC or Congress should start with the damn cable and telco franchise agreements that prevents people from having choices in the first place.

I an not asking for no regulation, I want to see the right regulation.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by kingwr

If you want to create competition, the FCC or Congress should start with the damn cable and telco franchise agreements that prevents people from having choices in the first place.

In my experience, this is usually a municipality issue. In essence, your mayor and local officials have allowed these franchise agreements (aka monopolies) to continue.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by kingwr

Net Neurtrality rules will not increase competition, just add regulatory burden

Unless you are looking at it from the point of view of an existing monopoly, history seems to show otherwise. "Regulatory burden" is often just another way of saying "difficulty exploiting my monopoly position".

[svemuri]

Sorry, I am late to the party, but couldn't pass up leaving my 2c.

Without "inventing" problems, there have only been a handful of instances where ISP's tried to show some bias in throttling. No hijacking of any kind was attempted by any decent ISP. So NN regulation is not really attempting to solve today's problem, rather it is trying to solve an future imaginary problem, which may or may not exist.

What it does however is to prohibit ISPs from establishing preferential treatment to traffic (toll lanes if you will). For example, Netflix can't pay (actually doesn't want to as evidenced by Level3 fight) Comacast to prioritize its streaming if NN.

So the only source of revenue for ISP is the access fees paid by you and me. As so many pointed out above, the choice of ISPs in many markets is limited an all cost about the same.

So, if NN regs stick, what incentive does an ISP have to improve its infrastructure to higher capacity? It is still going to get the same $30-$60 since it is the only one (or two) game in town. So we are stuck at current capacity (may be marginal improvements). New content services (like streaming HD etc) won't happen since the provider doesn't have a way to deliver them. They can't even pay some one to enable it because of NN even if they have money, which they won't since they can't offer the latest greatest new service. This creates a vicious circle and stifles innovative services

The above is why I think NN is a bad idea.

On the other hand, if NN is killed and toll lanes are allowed, content providers will essentially fund the development of faster access. May be to a point where it is free or essentially free (a.l.a TV networks). This is not unfair at all since most of the monetization of Internet is done by them (e-commerce, ads, streaming revenue etc).

To be clear, I do think some form of regulation is inevitable to make sure that deep pockets don't monopolize the pipe. That may be achieved by making sure that some portion of the pipe remains toll-free. But the current NN regulation is ham handed and is like using a shot gun to kill an imaginary flea in your face.

Besides the above, there are other fundamental problems that has nothing to do with Internet in this FCC's brazen attempt to sidestep congress. Supreme Court said that regulating Internet is out of scope for FCC. But it did it any way. If we do have to regulate, I'd rather Congress do it properly by creating a separate entity or explicitly authorize FCC to do it, but provide a framework for it.

Current NN is nothing but an attempt by a powerful cartel (Content Providers) to preserve the status quo as long as possible.

Sarat

[Taddeusz]

The problem with anti-neutrality rhetoric is that it is at it's most fundamental level flawed. The idea that an ISP is any more than a bit pusher is preposterous! Even if that ISP also happens to supply some kind of media services such as cable TV. Certainly, in the face of the popularity of streaming services by running both they run the risk of losing customers from their TV service who will keep their internet service for the purpose of streaming. There is that kind of risk in any endeavor.

Without net neutrality these "payments to the godfather", I believe, are being seen as a way to offset the loss of customers to streaming. Since they can't get money from more customers they think that drawing money from the companies they think are ripping them off is they way to go. All this is really doing is drawing out the inevitable. Rather than really embracing the change they would rather try to stifle the change through their own form of taxation. Because really, what web site is really going to want to pay homage to ALL the ISP's out there just to get preferential treatment?

The idea is ludicrous. Anti-neutrality's function is only to keep change from happening. Nothing more. If I am paying an ISP for bits I expect those bits to be unhindered.

[Taddeusz]

Another problem with the idea of letting the free market decide about net neutrality (or rather lack of) is that consumers are really ill informed. They have little concept of the difference between a web service they are paying for and their ISP. From their point of view they are basically one and the same.

So say streaming service A is paying homage but B is not. Since most people probably will not be aware of this preferential treatment they will assume there must be something wrong with service B and migrate to service A, regardless of how good service B might be.

So basically companies that cannot afford to pay up will lose customers to those that can.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The problem with anti-neutrality rhetoric is that it is at it's most fundamental level flawed. The idea that an ISP is any more than a bit pusher is preposterous!

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement. In a perfect world, I'd actually prefer to see ISPs do more than blind bit-pushing. If it would be reliably identified, I'd rather see QoS prioritization be implemented. I don't really care if my file download is delayed a bit, but I do care if my skype traffic is, for instance.

In general, there are some applications in which I'd like to see nearly guaranteed service. For instance, I want my telephone to work and my TV to work, even if my neighbors are all streaming Netflix HD. At the same time, I'm price conscious, and don't particularly want to fund massive improvements to Comcast's network in the hopes that reducing the over-subscription rate will lead to nearly guaranteed service.

So, for things like that the natural solution might be, from time to time, letting Comcast segregate a portion of their internal network traffic to those services. Maybe they'd even partner with outside companies to provide nearly guaranteed service.

I don't think approaches like that are consistent with a strict interpretation of net neutrality. Certainly there are downsides to an approach like that, but I don't think its inherently consumer-unfriendly.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

If I am paying an ISP for bits I expect those bits to be unhindered.

In that case, there are other options for Internet service, assuming you're willing to cough up the cash for it. Other customers might be perfectly happy to let ISPs do restrictive and/or invasive network management for lower prices.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

So say streaming service A is paying homage but B is not. Since most people probably will not be aware of this preferential treatment they will assume there must be something wrong with service B and migrate to service A, regardless of how good service B might be.

Companies with limited resources are always going to struggle. Really data intensive things aren't going to sent over long-haul transit links. Even in a net neutrality world we're all better off if they're sent over a CDN to someplace close to the end-user.

I think this starts to get at why it would be really, really hard to effectively regulate this. As far as I understand it (and I haven't been following it terribly closely, so I could be wrong), proposed rules for net neutrality wouldn't really help with the current Comcast/L3/Netflix spat. Comcast isn't trying to charge Netflix for the traffic being sent to Comcast customers. Nor is Comcast trying to charge Netflix for preferred prioritization on their network. Instead Comcast is charging L3 for the privilege of setting up special network interconnects in Comcast data centers. Comcast at least claims to be perfectly happy to accept Netflix traffic over their general-purpose transit links, where it would be treated just like any other traffic. It's Netflix that doesn't like that route, because being treated just like any other traffic isn't good enough for high-bandwidth real-time video streaming.

I think Comcast is being totally unfair in this particular situation, but I don't see how you could effectively regulate it. I don't think it would be fair to say Comcast has to agree to interconnects with anyone that asks for them. Or that they would have to agree to host caching servers for free like Akamai caches.

Having backdoor routes onto the Comcast network is going to be a type of prioritization by itself, since it would be a way to bypass congestion on general-purpose transit links. Would you say you can't have those at all? That would be an expensive proposition for long-haul ISPs and consumer ISPs, and I don't think anyone really wants that.

I just don't have a lot of faith that this is something that the FCC, or the government as a whole, can address without causing more harm than good.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The idea is ludicrous. Anti-neutrality's function is only to keep change from happening. Nothing more. If I am paying an ISP for bits I expect those bits to be unhindered.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Another problem with the idea of letting the free market decide about net neutrality (or rather lack of) is that consumers are really ill informed. They have little concept of the difference between a web service they are paying for and their ISP. From their point of view they are basically one and the same.

What's more ludicrous is the idea that one person, or a small group of people are smarter than the public as a whole, or the market left to it's own. This idea that the public is to stupid and a few "very smart" people can engineer an ideal system is what's got us into a lot of the messes we're in today.

[AlphaCrew]

This is a complicated issue indeed, but IMO it will at the least stifle innovation, at worst create the necessity for ISP's to implement data caps (I don't remember reading across the board data caps being prohibited in the rules).

Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so at some point 2 things will need to happen. Caps implemented or major infrastructure investment, and history shows gov. regulations don't typically spur innovation or investment. So as our president has said "..prices will necessarily sky rocket.."

With that said, the real issue for Americans is how our "Government" is conducting it's self.

svemuri stated it very well:

" Besides the above, there are other fundamental problems that has nothing to do with Internet in this FCC's brazen attempt to sidestep congress. Supreme Court said that regulating Internet is out of scope for FCC. But it did it any way. If we do have to regulate, I'd rather Congress do it properly by creating a separate entity or explicitly authorize FCC to do it, but provide a framework for it. "

When a "governmental" agency decides to go "rouge" it will never ever end well. The problem is there are so many Americans simply don't understand / appreciate the framework created by this country's founders in the Constitution.

anyway my .02

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stanger89

This idea that the public is to stupid and a few "very smart" people can engineer an ideal system is what's got us into a lot of the messes we're in today.

(gross over simplification ahead)

But that is exactly the point. In general, the majority of the "public" is "too stupid". Mindless sheep that will eat whatever is thrown in their trough. History has shown this to be true again and again.

Is this the fault of business? Of course not, but it does require that some regulations are in place to not overly exploit these sheep -- else our economy suffers as a whole, since there will be few sheep of value left to exploit.

What got us in this mess today is the idea that business will self regulate.

Originally Posted by svemuri

Without "inventing" problems, there have only been a handful of instances where ISP's tried to show some bias in throttling.

It always starts with a few .. but it's growing. The basic idea of Net Neutrality is to lessen the impact of monopolies like Comcast on other content providers and ISPs. The idea that the free market will control Comcast's exploitation of its monopoly position (see the Level 3 situation as one example) is ridiculous.

[Taddeusz]

And this kind of restates my point. In most area there are few broadband choices. If the largest are throttling some web sites. Those web sites will suffer since the consumers can't realistically change ISP's. They are forced to change web services rather than their "pipe".