Net Neutrality

[AlphaCrew]

Originally Posted by brainbone

(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.

I think you may be confusing "stupidity" WITH complacency and apathy.

It takes some amount of arrogance to say "..the majority of the public is stupid..."

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by AlphaCrew

I think you may be confusing "stupidity" WITH complacency and apathy.

It takes some amount of arrogance to say "..the majority of the public is stupid..."

I think you vastly over estimate the intelligence of the average human. I wouldn't call it arrogance to see our population for what it is, knowing full well I am one of them.

To be complacent while being screwed is nothing less than stupid.

[Opus4]

Statistics. It is conceivably possible that most people are below average intelligence. All it takes is for lots of not-so-smart people and a few really smart ones. If you have 99 idiots and 1 genius, then nearly everyone in that group is below the average intelligence of the group.

On the other hand, since I don't know the actual intelligence stats, it is also conceivably possible that most people are above average intelligence... and everyone likes to think they are above average. It is only everyone else who know nothing.

- Andy

[svemuri]

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! 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.

Your first point about ISP also becoming content provider is well taken. However, the problem with current NN reg is that it does not distinguish that situation where preferential treatment is given to its own traffic from ISP being able to offer different classes of service. Keeping politics aside, it is technically a desirable thing to treat different kinds of traffic differently. NN does not allow that. There should be regulation to put walls between content arms and ISP arms of same company, but NN goes much beyond that.

I am not sure I understand your second point. Are you saying that if the traffic is massively asymmetric, ISP can't ask for compensation? Keep in mind that at the heart of Internet is a bunch of peering arrangements between backbone ISPs. Some of them involve payments and many are free. The free ones are made under the assumption that traffic in both direction is roughly equal. If thats not the case, I think a payment arrangement is fair to compensate for infrastructure. Who pays is the question. It can be you the subscriber, which asked for it or the content provider who sent it after already collecting some payment from you. Infrastructure is not free.

When you say ISP should not hinder "your" bits, what do you define as "your" bits? Your request to Netflix or a massive stream from Netflix? There in lies the difficulty of trying to regulate this without a debate and bypassing the well established legislative process. The Internet is not like any thing in the past.

Sarat

[svemuri]

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.

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.

Several real world examples run counter to that, such as Business Class seats, different classes of cars etc.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by svemuri

Several real world examples run counter to that, such as Business Class seats, different classes of cars etc.

Business class seats, higher class cars, etc., are mainly there to increase the apparent value of the lower end products. Most consumers will purchase the lower/middle end product.

But I don't see where you're going with this analogy.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

I personally think Comcast is right in this situation. My understanding is that Level3 (Netflix backbone) and Comcast have a peering arrangement already (Free or paid does not matter). Comcast is claiming that due to things like Netflix, the traffic is becoming massively asymmetrical and wants Level 3 to pay for it. What is wrong with that? I have no illusions that Comcast is not trying to kill Netflix in any possible way, but I don't see a problem with their argument.

Again, there needs to be regulation to make sure that Comcast does not exploit their oligopoly situation to stifle things like Netflix by pricing them out of the market, but NN is way more than that.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by brainbone

(gross over simplification ahead)



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.

Regulation *is* necessary in any monopoly or oligopoly situations as with ISPs. However is current NN is a rouge regulation that is way overboard.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by AlphaCrew

I think you may be confusing "stupidity" WITH complacency and apathy.

It takes some amount of arrogance to say "..the majority of the public is stupid..."

Most "Central Planning" advocates think that vast majority is stupid and they need to be saved from themselves.

Most "Grass Roots" people can't accept that there are people out there that really are smarter than most.

Somewhere in the middle is utopia

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Business class seats, higher class cars, etc., are mainly there to increase the apparent value of the lower end products. Most consumers will purchase the lower/middle end product.

But I don't see where you're going with this analogy.

My bad.. I missed that he is talking about classes or providers and thought he was talking about classes of service.

In case of providers, How would the general public even know that provider A is paying and B is not? It happens in some form even now. Most major content providers pay the likes of Comcast to have special peering arrangements. Many of them use CDN's such as Akamai to get a quasi preferential treatment. The only way public would notice is that A is better than B in terms of quality. In that case, I would say it is just business trying to be better than competition. Nothing wrong with that.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by svemuri

In that case, I would say it is just business trying to be better than competition. Nothing wrong with that.

But in a monopoly position, like Comcast arguably has, "competition" has little meaning.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by svemuri

I personally think Comcast is right in this situation. My understanding is that Level3 (Netflix backbone) and Comcast have a peering arrangement already (Free or paid does not matter). Comcast is claiming that due to things like Netflix, the traffic is becoming massively asymmetrical and wants Level 3 to pay for it. What is wrong with that? I have no illusions that Comcast is not trying to kill Netflix in any possible way, but I don't see a problem with their argument.

I don't so much care about the peering argument. I don't know if Comcast is right that there is plenty of precedent for agreements like this, or if L3 is right that L3's new CDN and Comcast aren't really normal peers.

What I do know is that the traffic is coming on to Comcast's network because Comcast customers are asking for it. The alternative that Comcast has given L3 and Netflix is bad for everyone- to use general-purpose transit lines to get stuff on Comcast's network. That alternative would be more expensive for Comcast, provide worse service to Comcast subscribers, and be less reliable delivery mechanism for Netflix.

So, L3 has essentially offered to save Comcast money in the long run and provide better service to Comcast customers, at basically no cost to Comcast. That seems like a pretty sweet deal for Comcast. But, since going through Comcast is the only way to get to Comcast customers, they can demand an even sweeter deal: demanding payment from L3 for the privilege of saving Comcast money and providing better service to Comcast customers.

Again, there needs to be regulation to make sure that Comcast does not exploit their oligopoly situation to stifle things like Netflix by pricing them out of the market, but NN is way more than that.

I agree, although I'd prefer that the government take moves to increase competition, rather than regulate how a business operates. Things like line sharing might be a middle ground that could work.

In general, I don't see why it doesn't make sense to lump ISPs together with telephone providers as a common carrier. Maybe some of the common carrier regulations go overboard, but then it seems like the the ones that are basically good ideas for telephones would be basically good ideas for ISPs. And if things aren't good ideas for ISPs, I think there's a good chance they aren't good ideas for telephone common carriers. That's a big change that shouldn't be taken lightly, but it seems to make sense. If we start seeing problems I think that's something that should be carefully considered. Without changes to the common carrier rules, it might look a lot like net neutrality.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by brainbone

But in a monopoly position, like Comcast arguably has, "competition" has little meaning.

Even if Comcast is a monopoly, both A and B are dealing with the same monopoly. So, I still think the playing field for A and B is level.

It is like Amazon and BN competing for your book business (dying as it may be). They still have to use the monopoly called USPS, but if one is offering a discounted priority mail shipping by working out a deal with USPS then the consumer has a choice between price and speed. If you don't allow USPS to offer any service other than parcel post, we lose.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't so much care about the peering argument. I don't know if Comcast is right that there is plenty of precedent for agreements like this, or if L3 is right that L3's new CDN and Comcast aren't really normal peers.

What I do know is that the traffic is coming on to Comcast's network because Comcast customers are asking for it. The alternative that Comcast has given L3 and Netflix is bad for everyone- to use general-purpose transit lines to get stuff on Comcast's network. That alternative would be more expensive for Comcast, provide worse service to Comcast subscribers, and be less reliable delivery mechanism for Netflix.

So, L3 has essentially offered to save Comcast money in the long run and provide better service to Comcast customers, at basically no cost to Comcast. That seems like a pretty sweet deal for Comcast. But, since going through Comcast is the only way to get to Comcast customers, they can demand an even sweeter deal: demanding payment from L3 for the privilege of saving Comcast money and providing better service to Comcast customers.

See this link from CNET http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html

Comcast is essentially losing Akamai revenue due to L3 stealing that business hiding behind NN. Again, pipes are not free. Akamai was paying and in turn charging Netflix. L3 undercut Akamai becuase they have a "free" peering with Comcast and didn't have to pay. But it is only free as long the traffic is equal. This is more of a peering dispute, but L3 is using NN as an argument, because NN lets them. That's my problem with NN and in this case L3. BTW, I am a customer of Comcast at home and I manage a huge pipe to L3, so I have no beef in this

The typical argument of Content Providers is that they are only sending the traffic in response to ISP's subscribers and they should not pay for it. Unfortunately, there is content and and then there is content. Pushing bits costs money. Traditional bit pushing (text, web pages etc) was mostly symmetrical and uniform and simply charging subscribers is enough. But as streaming and other bandwidth hogs come in to picture requiring huge network upgrades and some one has to pay. Typically, that is the party that wants the content i.e. the subscriber. ISPs can charge the subscriber by "metering" or they can charge content providers (who in turn has to adjust their business model to charge the subscriber). But some how, there has to be payment. I personally think it makes more sense to charge providers as it is easier on every one.

Originally Posted by reggie14

In general, I don't see why it doesn't make sense to lump ISPs together with telephone providers as a common carrier. Maybe some of the common carrier regulations go overboard, but then it seems like the the ones that are basically good ideas for telephones would be basically good ideas for ISPs. And if things aren't good ideas for ISPs, I think there's a good chance they aren't good ideas for telephone common carriers. That's a big change that shouldn't be taken lightly, but it seems to make sense. If we start seeing problems I think that's something that should be carefully considered. Without changes to the common carrier rules, it might look a lot like net neutrality.

The current common carrier rules are not designed to address the asymmetric and loose peering nature of Internet. In the telephony world units of transactions are well defined (minutes, channels etc). So, rules can be written relatively easily. While one can define the unit of transaction as bytes on the Internet, it appears that no one wants to account/meter that. Also, in telecom, usually caller pays for the entire call. In case of Internet, it appears that callers only want to pay for the "ring" or the request and some how are under the impression that the rest of the call (or stream or download) should be free. Again, pipes are not free. So a different model is (still) evolving. It currently consists of a hodgepodge of access fees to ISPs, peering fees, CDNs and a hole host of other things. Instead of letting it evolve, NN is taking a heavy handed approach. Thats why it should be killed and a proper channel should be established for regulating the "last mile" of the Internet.

Sarat

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by svemuri

Even if Comcast is a monopoly, both A and B are dealing with the same monopoly. So, I still think the playing field for A and B is level.

The problem is not the playing field between A and B, but Comcast having nothing to keep themselves in-line. What is to stop Comcast from charging A a higher rate, because A carries content that competes with content Comcast themselves offer?

Originally Posted by svemuri

It is like Amazon and BN competing for your book business (dying as it may be). They still have to use the monopoly called USPS, but if one is offering a discounted priority mail shipping by working out a deal with USPS then the consumer has a choice between price and speed. If you don't allow USPS to offer any service other than parcel post, we lose.

FedEX, UPS, etc. all deliver to the same address as USPS. No address has an exclusive arrangement to only receive deliveries from USPS. Most people do not have both a DSL line and Comcast (I do, but for other reasons), and, being bundled with other services, once singed up to Comcast, most people will stay with them, regardless of Comcast raking Netflix/Level 3 over the coals. It could be a different story if you select your ISP every time you connected to the net, the way you do when you select your courier -- but for many, the choice will still only be Comcast.

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by brainbone

The problem is not the playing field between A and B, but Comcast having nothing to keep themselves in-line. What is to stop Comcast from charging A a higher rate, because A carries content that competes with content Comcast themselves offer?

I do believe that regulation is necessary to make sure Comcast plays fair. I just don't think NN is it nor do I think FCC played by the rules in coming up with NN.

Originally Posted by brainbone

FedEX, UPS, etc. all deliver to the same address as USPS. No address has an exclusive arrangement to only receive deliveries from USPS. Most people do not have both a DSL line and Comcast (I do, but for other reasons), and, being bundled with other services, once singed up to Comcast, most people will stay with them, regardless of Comcast raking Netflix/Level 3 over the coals. It could be a different story if you select your ISP every time you connected to the net, the way you do when you select your courier -- but for many, the choice will still only be Comcast.

It is difficult to come up with an exact analogy since this is not like anything we have. But my point is that NN essentially prohibits ISPs from offering different classes of service (e.g. Ground, Overnight, 2 day etc). There are both business and technical reasons to be able to offer different classes. NN mixes up offering different classes with Comcast prioritizing their own content (which needs to be kept under control).

[Taddeusz]

By classes of service do you mean different speeds of service as in the current tiered services currently offered by ISP's. I don't believe NN would limit ISP's in that regard.

If the problem is the highly asymmetrical nature of new technologies by allowing prioritization of traffic by which web service pays more money the small or new online business is the inevitable loser. Consumers would not get to chose online businesses on an even playing field. Their opinion of various paying and nonpaying online businesses would be filtered by their ISP. How is that right?

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by svemuri

But my point is that NN essentially prohibits ISPs from offering different classes of service (e.g. Ground, Overnight, 2 day etc).

I think you may be misunderstanding NN. AFAIK, nothing in NN prohibits an ISP from offering different classes of service to their customers. What it does try to do is stop ISPs from preferring certain content providers over others -- thus stopping Comcast from reducing the speed, or outright blocking, the content someone is trying to deliver to a customer unless the content provider pays the ISP a toll charge.

Say provider A is streaming content about fluffy puppies to Comcast customers. Comcast does not provide any fluffy puppy content themselves, and lets the content pass. Provider B, on the other hand, is streaming piano playing kittens. Comcast also provides piano playing kittens on one or more of their services, so they decide to charge provider B more than provider A, because they feel provider B is otherwise taking away from their piano playing kitten revenue stream.

Without NN, nothing currently prevents Comcast from doing this.

The free market will not correct this issue, because Comcast customers may not be aware of the politics happening behind the scenes, and the multitude of provider B's that were put out of business because of Comcast's antics.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

Wow, I must not be a very nice guy. I'm under the impression that I pay for bits and I don't care what those bits are, or what my neighbors are doing. I've payed for my bits and want them delivered. While my neighbor might think that video of cute puppies running around is soooo important, I don't. I want my software updates fast so I can install them and go do other things. There in lies the rub. Who get's to decide what is important?

The real problem is bit pushers have been overselling bandwidth much worse than airlines oversell flight capacity and when I show up and say your blocking my downloads the bit pusher says "sorry, piss off" rather than the airline who has to fess up that they screwed me over by overselling the flight and offer me a hotel to stay overnight + a seat upgrade on my free flight tomorrow and maybe even a flight voucher for the next time I fly.

Originally Posted by stanger89

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.

Exactly. Look up eugenics for what happens when a few elites get to decide what is "best" for society.

Originally Posted by Opus4

Statistics. It is conceivably possible that most people are below average intelligence. All it takes is for lots of not-so-smart people and a few really smart ones. If you have 99 idiots and 1 genius, then nearly everyone in that group is below the average intelligence of the group.

On the other hand, since I don't know the actual intelligence stats, it is also conceivably possible that most people are above average intelligence... and everyone likes to think they are above average. It is only everyone else who know nothing.

- Andy

Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.....


I ended up cutting quite a few posts from my reply list to keep from feeding the flames. My main point is NN is not the answer in its current form. It provides too many escape clauses for special interests and pet projects. If NN was just a conversation about dumb pipes (which many people believe it is) than it would be so much simpler. The problem is congress critters are trying to tack on crap like "broadband as a right" and other nonsense.

I'll climb off my soapbox and let regularly scheduled forum posts resume

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by brainbone

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.

And history has also shown that even at that, the "public" is still smarter than those who think they, themselves know better.

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.

Just like DRM debates, it seems this has turned into the typical "If you're not with us (regulation in this case) you're against us."

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

I utterly and categorically disagree with that, what's got us in the mess is the idea that "a few" can regulate an ideal society. We haven't tried the free market for about a hundred years, what's failed is over-regulation and economic and social engineering.

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.

Not as ridiculous as the idea that the FCC in the current power grabbing, logic ignoring political and regulatory environment will make things better.

Originally Posted by svemuri

Most "Central Planning" advocates think that vast majority is stupid and they need to be saved from themselves.

Most "Grass Roots" people can't accept that there are people out there that really are smarter than most.

That's a red herring, everyone knows not everyone is the same level of intelligence. My point is even the smartest among us aren't smart enough to successfully engineer a market or society. Every time it's been tried it's ended with disastrous results.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Exactly. Look up eugenics for what happens when a few elites get to decide what is "best" for society.

You don't even need to go that far, just go back to this housing "bubble". Everyone blames "predatory lenders" and stupid borrowers, but what about the government's huge push to get everyone into a house, pushing banks to make stupid loans? How did that work out for us?

To paraphrase Agent Smith from The Matrix:

"We lack the programming language to describe our perfect world."