Net Neutrality

[oneill225]

If cable companies are permitted to pick and choose what they'll deliver to their customers and/or what speed certain things will be delivered, my prediction isn't that we'll get slammed with a NetFlix block overnight. It's going to be a death of 1000 cuts. First, they'll put data caps (which is fine), but not fine is saying that their own video services will be exempt from the caps. This way, they're giving complete freedom to NetFlix, but getting their foot in the video content door by giving themselves an advantage. That will only be the first step. There will be more insidious pricing after that. But you watch. NN will "lose", and let's watch for the first moves to grab video revenue.

Who would be "permitting" cable companies to pick and choose anything under your scenario? What you are really saying is that companies will be free to negotiate agreements without the heavy hand of government involvement. That is how it should be.

If this results in anti-competitive practices or censorship of information, then laws are already in existence to deal with it irrespective of NN. Do you honestly believe that Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc... will be held hostage by the ISPs and not fight back in the courts?

The good news is that NN will be repealed in the coming months. We will see if the system collapses when that happens.

 

[kcowan]

"Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed."

and yet those same customers will patiently sit in traffic on a toll road. We often have to stop video on facetime or a download when watching streaming videos in HD. In France, we all waited for a laptop update for 90 minutes before continuing to watch a movie.

 

[bUU]

and yet those same customers will patiently sit in traffic on a toll road.

Heh! I'm not sure how patient people sitting in traffic necessarily are, but most of them understand that a speed limit doesn't means you can rely on going that speed all the time.

 

[Texas Proud]

OK... the definition of monopoly (just so we can be clear)... from dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.


2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
​

SOOO, it seems that your semantics are wrong... it IS a monopoly based on the definition... #2 is exactly the definition of what we were talking about...

No, it doesn't. That's the point. You want to think the words match your personal perspective as a justification for your criticism of how things are, but the reality is that things are the way they are because your interpretation of the definitions are incorrect.

No. It is that way in your eyes. The fact is that they are franchises. The fact is that franchising authorities choose between competitors in a competitive marketplace. I am sorry that there is no more effective way to help you understand this. Perhaps you need to contact your local franchising authority and make sure that you're at least an observer of the process next time it occurs. Perhaps seeing it with your own eyes will help you overcome this barrier.

From the reality of the situation which you are upset about. I have to sympathize with those who are looking at how things are as an example of how they're being victimized unfairly instead of the reality: That they are mistaken about legal foundation of the perspectives that they're expressing.

Last time for me as you seem to be reading something else than I am...

Local gvmt gives a franchise... franchise is the only provider... def #1 says you are a monopoly if you have exclusive control.... well, if you are the only provider you have exclusive control... #2 is even closer... an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.... the franchise has an exclusive privilege to carry on that business.... nobody else can provide it.... do not put down 'what I think' or what I see as that has nothing to do with the definition....

It is irrelevant that the monopoly occurred from a bidding process from multiple bidders... the final outcome is a gvmt giving exclusive rights (see def #2)....

Would you say that if you have one choice of an electricity provider or gas provider to your home they are a monopoly or a franchise? By definition they are monopolies... if you want, we can take a poll to see if your definition or mine is how most people read it.... if I loose I will say I was wrong and give apologies...


BTW, you have said a few times that it is a criticism of how things are... I do not live where there is a monopoly so this is purely getting a definition correct for me....

 

[sengsational]

I've been reading about peering and transit agreements that the owners of the Internet's "big pipes" have with each other. Interesting strategies being played in that realm.

Rather than clog a link between two networks, Netflix has paid various Internet backbone companies to house Netflix servers. This way, one copy of a particular TV show or whatever can go across the link between the networks instead of one per watcher. Of course the industry standard price for supporting a server is peanuts, so it's not costing Netflix much to plunk down servers wherever they can. Of course those backbone companies that would prefer to sell more content aren't selling rack space to Netflix. I thought this was an interesting dynamic at this level.

 

[ERD50]

...

Rather than clog a link between two networks, Netflix has paid various Internet backbone companies to house Netflix servers. This way, one copy of a particular TV show or whatever can go across the link between the networks instead of one per watcher. ...

What's in it for Netflix? Just a better chance of a good connection for the customer (a stuttering connection is a problem for Netflix, even if it isn't their 'fault')? There would be fewer paths to go through, so lower average delays, and the load would be distributed across different parts of the network so that should improve performance (if I understand the Internet at this level).

But when two people stream the same show, unless it is 'live', they must each be getting a separate stream all the way from the source, right? I mean, I can pause or 'rewind' 10 seconds - so I'm not "in sync" with anyone else, am I? Or do they set the start points at 10 second increments, figuring at least some people will be at the same 10 second portion?

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

> But when two people stream the same show, unless it is 'live', they must each be getting a separate stream all the way from the source, right?

The "source" (probably) is a Netflix owned device located in your ISP's facility. The data is not traveling over the big data backbones for each person viewing a video on Netflix.

Info: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/

 

[sengsational]

Yeah, every watcher has their own stream. It just makes sense to put the server as close to the person watching as possible (fewest hops). Netflix has their own "ISP", kind of an ISP anyway. I think it's Cogent, but don't hold me to that. Anyway, if all of the Netflix servers were on the on Cogent, then unless the customer was also Cogent, the bits would need to exit Cogent, and get on AT&T or whatever. So those links where those peering and transit arrangements are made would get loaded-down. But if a Netflix server is placed directly on the AT&T network, then those links stay much more quiet.

Netflix probably saves on network costs by placing these servers. If two networks give and get about the same amount, they sometimes agree to peer, and they don't pay each other. But other times, when it's lopsided, then money is involved. Netflix is the definition of lopsided.

 

[USGrant1962]

The FCC and FTC have signed an agreement defining how they will operate with regard to ISP regulation going forward. Summary and various partisan quotes here: FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality repeal | TheHill

The actual agreement is here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1211/DOC-348192A1.pdf but you might need to try a few times to get it - the site seems to be hammered.

 

[aja8888]

The FCC and FTC have signed an agreement defining how they will operate with regard to ISP regulation going forward. Summary and various partisan quotes here: FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality repeal | TheHill

The actual agreement is here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1211/DOC-348192A1.pdf but you might need to try a few times to get it - the site seems to be hammered.

Oh this is going to work real well.....government agency policing companies like Comcast from deceiving the public. (Yeah, right!)

 

[bUU]

There is no doubt that net neutrality supporters will be disappointed with whatever the FTC and FCC do now, since that is invariably going to be driven by the reality of the situation, which includes the revocation of the net neutrality provisions, and the actual definitions what words like Monopoly and terms like Restraint of Trade, rather than these personal definitions that net neutrality supporters may have.

The real question is whether or not there is true progress, and true progress must necessarily come in the form of net neutrality supporters realizing they need to change their overall perspective on business, commerce and economics in order to justify the kinds of company behaviors that they wish were the standard. Or perhaps they'll realize that there is a cost to such changes, in terms of their perspective of the impact on the overall, and therefore those changes are not worthwhile from their standpoint even though they are necessary to bring about the kind of changes they want in these small sectors.

 

[ERD50]

...Or perhaps they'll realize that there is a cost to such changes, ....

I think just about everyone here supporting NN has been upfront about costs - if I'm going to stream 24/7, then sure, if we want our ISP to be a 'pipe', and not charge the sources, I will need to be charged more than the person who checks their email and the weather twice a day. It is realized. And accepted.

You keep putting up straw men.

...in terms of their perspective of the impact on the overall, and therefore those changes are not worthwhile from their standpoint even though they are necessary to bring about the kind of changes they want in these small sectors.

I do think it is worthwhile to have NN. Other issues can be dealt with separately.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

I think just about everyone here supporting NN has been upfront about costs - if I'm going to stream 24/7, then sure, if we want our ISP to be a 'pipe', and not charge the sources, I will need to be charged more than the person who checks their email and the weather twice a day. It is realized. And accepted.

I was referring to costs in terms of the ramifications of applying the same legal logic to non-essential products and services beyond just Internet service. The point, which I've already made clear previously, is that you are advocating for treatment for this one non-essential that is not even afforded to other, more critically essential, products and services.

You keep putting up straw men.

Hardly. I keep relaying the reality of the situation, which you happen not to like. You made clear that don't like that net neutrality is gone. You don't like what may result from the revocation. By contrast, rather that projecting that what I like will become reality, my comments, which you don't like, fit with the actual reality. More importantly, things going forward are going to fit with what I've said, and not with what you've said. You don't believe that. I'm okay with that. All we can say at this point is that time will tell. Repeated efforts to claim your wishful thinking will prevail over both status quo and how such things work with other commodities seems like beating a dead horse.

 

[Chuckanut]

I was just thinking about the current situation with Amazon and Google in regards to how big corporations act even if it hurts the consumers of their products.

Amazon will not allow the sale of Google Home products (like those that compete with the Echo). Type in Google Home on Amazon and you get a list of Echo devices, nothing from Google.

Google won't let the YouTube app run on Amazon's tablets as of January 1 next year.

IMHO this is something to consider.

 

[retiredunder50]

So far I haven't heard anyone say how they've been affected by NN one way/other, only what might be.

There metered use approach sounds like a good idea that neither way - open/nn - deals with.

Netflix was basically forced to pay a premium to Comcast to have their traffic properly stream: https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346
That cost obviously gets passed on to customers.

Verizon recently admitted to throttling: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

The bottom line for me is that I effectively pay my ISP for a pipe of bandwidth. How I fill it is my concern. If the major internet service providers cannot compete with other video content providers on cost, then they need to get out of content delivery business.

 

[Hamlet]

Here's something I've been thinking about that hasn't really been brought up in this thread--

We've been focused on the endpoints in this discussion, but there are typically multiple intermediate providers involved when you connect to something on the internet.

Say I want to stream something from Netflix in CA from my home in MN. I pay my local ISP ( in this case Comcast) and Netflix pays their provider (say Cox for argument's sake). The traffic may end up traversing other ISP's to get between us (say Verizon and AT&T for arguments sake).

It's not just Cox and Comcast that have the potential to interfere with my reaching Netflix. Verizon and AT&T may also see an opportunity to extort a little extra money out of me as well. I suspect that we may end up having to pay off each hop in the path to get to the content we want without NN.

Actually, I suspect that Comcast and Time Warner will quickly abuse their customers ( like the scorpion on the frog, it is their nature ) by trying to prevent them from reaching services in competition with their own. I think the screaming of those customers will result in a relatively quick return to NN. I'd put the over under at about 2 years before the ISPs manage to anger enough people that we return to NN.

 

[Texas Proud]

I was referring to costs in terms of the ramifications of applying the same legal logic to non-essential products and services beyond just Internet service. The point, which I've already made clear previously, is that you are advocating for treatment for this one non-essential that is not even afforded to other, more critically essential, products and services.

Hardly. I keep relaying the reality of the situation, which you happen not to like. You made clear that don't like that net neutrality is gone. You don't like what may result from the revocation. By contrast, rather that projecting that what I like will become reality, my comments, which you don't like, fit with the actual reality. More importantly, things going forward are going to fit with what I've said, and not with what you've said. You don't believe that. I'm okay with that. All we can say at this point is that time will tell. Repeated efforts to claim your wishful thinking will prevail over both status quo and how such things work with other commodities seems like beating a dead horse.

I actually cannot remember you saying anything on what you like about NN going away.... care to say again?

 

[sengsational]

The bottom line for me is that I effectively pay my ISP for a pipe of bandwidth. How I fill it is my concern. If the major internet service providers cannot compete with other video content providers on cost, then they need to get out of content delivery business.

You, and 98% of the other unique comments posted when the FCC asked for feedback.

I'd put the over under at about 2 years before the ISPs manage to anger enough people that we return to NN.

Yeah, something like that. Cable was different. This time, we've all experienced what it's like not to have to buy bundles just to get the one TV show you want. As soon as they start doing that, there will be a stampede on Washington. Might be NN, might be something else, but I doubt people will take it sitting down.

 

[retiredunder50]

If we really had a healthy choice of multiple suppliers of high-speed internet service, then we might easily be able to deal with the ISPs who start charging tolls and employing throttle techniques to competitor content. However, the nation is pretty much set up with either a monopoly or duopoly choice in terms of local providers. Technology that was developed partially with government R&D dollars and some of the infrastructure that was laid via the approved collection of fees/taxes is basically considered, for business purposes, to be mostly under control of the local ISP. For their part, the big name companies have a long history of weasel practices, overpriced service, and the deserved worst customer service ratings. People already do complain frequently to utility boards, consumer protection agencies, and on social media, and yet, the ISPs are always well represented in the top 10 or 20 worst companies to deal with. Expansion of public municipal networks have been fought off by telecoms and cable provider companies. The US invented the internet and we pay the 7th highest (out of 90 countries) for broadband access. Something is broken. It might be OK to get rid of net neutrality if we can fix what is broken first.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=33

 

[meierlde]

Here is a link to an interesting web site that will tell you by zip code about internet service providers in the zip code including what percent of the area is covered. https://decisiondata.org/internet-providers-by-zip-code-plus-tv/
If I take the zip code where I used to live in Houston, there are 2 fiber 3 dsl and 2 other wired providers. Plus the cell companies (although not feasable if you like to stream), As well as the satellite internet provide. Now of course some services are only offered in some addresses but it does look like in general there are at least 2 fixed ISP's in these zip codes (I also checked where I used to live in MI and my sisters address in NM) typically it is the old local exchange telephone operation and the cable company. In addition of course if you live in a single family house there are the satellite operations and suposedly when 5g wireless comes out it will be as fast as some of the wired options, giving folks at least 2 more options.

 

[bUU]

I actually cannot remember you saying anything on what you like about NN going away....

That's my point: What I like - and what you like - doesn't matter. You're going on and on about something that has no relevance to how things are or is going to be. I'm not.

You, and 98% of the other unique comments posted when the FCC asked for feedback.

And yet look what happened.

 

[Dawg52]

That's my point: What I like - and what you like - doesn't matter. You're going on and on about something that has no relevance to how things are or is going to be. I'm not.



.

So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

 

[REWahoo]

So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

You've been a member of this forum for 12 years and just now figured this out?

 

[bUU]

So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

On the contrary, considering the matter practically and pragmatically has greater value than considering it otherwise. What "point" is there is tilting against windmills? None. However, recognizing the true "enemy" and turning one's attention toward that has great value. The point I've made a couple of times is that ISPs are the windmills. What is it that people *want*? Read through the comments in this thread and if you have any mind for business you can come to understand clearly what people want: They want more affordable and unencumbered Internet service. We even have had people highlight the ideal they're looking for, citing certain parts of Europe, for example. So if you want a "point" to the thread - i.e., something actionable - then logically that means understanding what happens *there* that doesn't happen *here*. That's why I cited the subsidies. I have also highlighted other distinctions of *there* that aren't present here, such as a more pervasive atmosphere of regulation over business, in general, that in turn fosters a more pervasive atmosphere over ISPs. This is a practical and pragmatic view of the matter. It doesn't get lost in what we wish were true. It doesn't try to figuratively hang service providers in effigy to slake some baseless antipathy. It recognizes that the service providers aren't doing anything wrong. They're doing precisely what they should be doing given the way we have crafted our society and economy. And more importantly, it doesn't lead people toward wasting energy on getting upset at service providers when they aren't the problem.

 

[devans0]

There is a huge discrepancy between what's advertised as available and what is actually delivered. For example 100G is in 100 % of my area but they are down for days at a time in my area, any rain within the last 24-48 hours? Nope.

What we get is 12 - 20 meg. Service people have been out eight times, even re-laying cable lines, to very little improvement. The last one said he could not get an ok signal from our distribution hub.

Any site with pop ups hijacking our screen, logjams and prevents use for a couple minutes. $80 a month for that service! No. But this is the provider I get.