Net Neutrality

[imoldernu]

Anyone? Insights on what this might be? Good? Bad?... for whom?

There must be a lot of info in the 330 page bill, but so far, despite trying to do research, I can't figure out what it will mean to us... us being the end user.

What worries me the most, is the ad that first pops up on Google...

Some expectations from CNet:
http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/

Any thoughts?

 

[samclem]

- Regulating broadband providers like public utilities will lock in the advantages the big guys already have and make it harder for disruptive new upstarts to get into the game.

- The growth in bandwidth has been amazing. That's because it has paid off. I'd like to see that continue, it's been good for consumers overall.

- Is all data really worth the same to the public? Hundreds of users can be on this board and use less bandwidth than one person watching Honey Boo Boo. If bandwidth gets scarce/constrained, I think the market will help value things appropriately and 1 person might have to suffer slightly lower-than-HD resolution on a 30minute TV show so 1000 people will get their emails on time.

I don't think the presently proposed rules will adversely affect things immediately (since the providers can still charge more for more data or faster data, as long as they don't make any distinctions about what type of data it is).

 

[M Paquette]

I use an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to move packets between places. I'd like them to continue doing that.

It's sort of annoying to find that they're opening the packets, looking at the contents, and determining if I should pay more to send or receive the packets.

Yes, this has actually happened to me. An ISP refused to allow certain packets to move between my private intranet and another node based solely on what they were able to determine from the internal content (not the routing data, TTL stamp, or packet length and checksum, which I would expect any router to examine) The packets were of ordinary size and properly formed, and there weren't that many of them, perhaps a megabyte a day.

They WOULD allow the packets to move between here and there if I bought a higher priced service. NOT more bandwidth capacity, just a more expensive service that would permit the packets to move between here and there.

Given that behavior, throttling behaviors reported by others, and the recent holding of innovative smaller businesses for ransom in exchange for letting their packets cross their networks, I'd say the telecoms have just reaped what they have sown.

 

[DallasGuy]

It's great news to most users. It ensures that your internet provider can't slow down your access to a specific website because that website won't pay the internet provider for faster access. I honestly don't understand why all internet users aren't for net neutrality...unless of course they're shareholders of companies like Comcast or Verizon who would love to charge companies for the right to have faster access to their website. Net neutrality also gives small startup companies a better chance to survive and thrive on the internet.

 

[harley]

My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.

 

[DallasGuy]

My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.

It was already broken or just about to be broken. Last year Netflix had agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to their website and streaming movies. I'm not sure if that ever went into effect, but that would have just been the start of large internet providers asking for money to provide "fast lanes" to certain websites or they would intentionally slow down that website.

Netflix is paying Comcast for direct connection to network | Ars Technica

This is a line from the article above:

Netflix and Cogent are still at odds with Verizon, apparently resulting in deteriorating quality of streams on Verizon's network.

 

[timo2]

It's great news to most users. It ensures that your internet provider can't slow down your access to a specific website because that website won't pay the internet provider for faster access. I honestly don't understand why all internet users aren't for net neutrality...unless of course they're shareholders of companies like Comcast or Verizon who would love to charge companies for the right to have faster access to their website. Net neutrality also gives small startup companies a better chance to survive and thrive on the internet.

+1
Allowing the big companies the ability to crush their upstart competition by slowing down their internet speed would indeed hurt small business.

These rules are all Verizon's fault anyway. They are the ones that sued the government over the milder set of rules formerly in place. That suit set off a set of events that resulted in these rules. I guess they got too greedy and it backfired.

 

[M Paquette]

For those blissfully unaware, this whole thing is called FCC Proceeding 14-28. That is, it's the 28th proceeding started in 2014 prior to the vote to proceed. This proceeding was referenced by name and number in several thousand news articles over the past year, in everything from Variety to The Nation.

Some 2,054,044 other folks managed to find Proceeding 14-28 and comment on it. At the Proceeding 14-28 website you'll find everything from the initial Public Notice and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Agenda for the Panelist Roundtable from the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis which was streamed live (for those whose ISPs permitted the stream to go through).

It's not exactly as though it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Comic Sans]VOGON CAPTAIN:
[On Speakers] People of Earth your attention please. This is Prostectic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planet Council. As you no doubt will be aware, the plans for the development of the outlying regions of the western spiral arm of the galaxy require the building of a hyperspace express route through your star system and, regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes thank you very much.

MANKIND:
[Yells of protest]

VOGON CAPTAIN:
There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.

MANKIND:
[Louder yells of protest]

VOGON CAPTAIN:
What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind it's only four light years away you know! I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I don't know…apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all…
[/FONT]

 

[Chuckanut]

None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened.

Really?

I know people paying huge amounts of money for internet access and cable TV because they only have one choice. That sounds broken to me. On top of that the cable company owns a big network, so there is an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to carrying other people's content or letting people get that content from a cheaper provider. That sounds broken to me.

 

[bUU]

I think there is a lot of misinformation out there. I disbelieve the conspiracy theories until the objective, documentary evidence is presented and ratified by our legal system. There is simply too much vested interest to prevaricate to believe anything not definitively proven.

Anyway, I think people who supported net neutrality are going to be relatively shocked when they learn what it is they supported. Samclem posted a good summary above. I think the most shocking thing will be the impact on services like Netflix. I wonder if Netflix supported Net Neutrality because they wanted to go back to a situation where they could blame Comcast for how poor their resource-hogging service performs in an environment of reasonable network management within which their traffic is treated the same as Early-Retirement's traffic. That's going to be the initial impact: Without the fast lanes, Netflix becomes just another packet in the network and will be subject to network congestion just like a short all-text email.

 

[Midpack]

Like a few others here, the idea that one user streaming several HD movies per day could pay the same for Internet access as another user who only emails a few times a week seems unfair. The bandwidth hogs should pay (substantially) more IMO, but I'm no expert...

 

[bUU]

The typical counter-argument is that it doesn't make sense to charge people for hogging bandwidth when there is excess bandwidth available. The fact of the matter, though, is that resource-hogging services are those that make it necessary to incur the high cost of expanding capacity in the first place.

The problem is that past trial balloons aiming toward metered service have indicated that standing at the ready is a PR firestorm that would hurt service providers far more than perpetuating the unfairness you outlined. I don't think there is any viable path out of that, not even through government regulation. It isn't as if light users would band together into a class-action suit demanding fairness in pricing.

 

[Winemaker]

Cable TV options are 95% limited by your local government. They don't want multiple cables, and installations of cables digging up yards or more cables on poles. Check your cable bill; there is usually a local municipal fee or tax. Cable companies also pay local municipalities for exclusive access to it's citizens.


I can't think that a 330 page set of regulations that we citizens were not allowed to see and read, be beneficial to anyone. Anybody remember "You have to pass the law to see what is in it"? And how is that working out?


I can't see how a modern unregulated technology 2015 be regulated as a "communication utility" under a 1934 law, allowing unelected appointees to make choices for me, yet alone GOOD choices for me.


If I choose to pay higher rates for faster speeds, it's my business. I am already paying extra fees against my will to pay for someone else's internet service that they can't afford. I also subsidize someone else's cable and cell phone service. I have the choice with my cable to pay for premium channels (although I don't subscribe.)


And anything that could possibly limit my sources of information is something that I do not like.


Call me a moon bat and hand me my tinfoil hat while you are at it.


I'm sure that this will lead to licensing of web sites, extra fees and extra taxes.

 

[bUU]

If I choose to pay higher rates for faster speeds, it's my business.

Most of your comment was off-target, complaining about things that simply aren't any part of what's being discussed or what's the reality of the marketplace you're encountering. For example, you are indeed able to pay higher rates for faster speeds, and nothing about this issue has moved for or against that.

 

[audreyh1]

Like a few others here, the idea that one user streaming several HD movies per day could pay the same for Internet access as another user who only emails a few times a week seems unfair. The bandwidth hogs should pay (substantially) more IMO, but I'm no expert...

I'm pretty sure they do. People pay up for higher bandwidth so they can stream. That's not affected here. What is affected is whether you have to pay different rates depending on whose content you are streaming.

 

[bUU]

I'm pretty sure they do. People pay up for higher bandwidth so they can stream. That's not affected here. What is affected is whether you have to pay different rates depending on whose content you are streaming.

While this surely prohibits that, it wasn't what was going on, and not really what this was aimed at. What's affected is whether service providers can offer premium treatment for specific services. With that now banned, it means that all services will suffer from network limitations equally, all services will be summarily slowed down the same amount when network utilization is high.

 

[MichaelB]

Thread moved to the "Politics" forum.

 

[mystang52]

My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.

+1. Frankly, I just don't trust the motivations behind implementing this, and certainly don't trust the long term ramifications. Solution looking for a problem?

 

[DallasGuy]

+1. Frankly, I just don't trust the motivations behind implementing this, and certainly don't trust the long term ramifications. Solution looking for a problem?

I find it interesting that Comcast and Verizon are against this and you'd rather trust them?? I think that Comcast and Verizon are more concerned about THEIR profits instead of a fair and open internet for the consumer.

 

[ArkTinkerer]

It was already broken or just about to be broken. Last year Netflix had agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to their website and streaming movies. I'm not sure if that ever went into effect, but that would have just been the start of large internet providers asking for money to provide "fast lanes" to certain websites or they would intentionally slow down that website.

The issue with Netflix has to do with what they call "peering" and involves the provider setting up more ports for connections. This is not throttling the speed. I don't think the new regs address this but I'm not sure. I know some early drafts didn't.

Setting up servers in the ISPs facilities is a solution to this issue and I think this is where they are still butting heads but again, I don't think this is covered in the new regulations.

 

[timo2]

While this surely prohibits that, it wasn't what was going on, and not really what this was aimed at. What's affected is whether service providers can offer premium treatment for specific services. With that now banned, it means that all services will suffer from network limitations equally, all services will be summarily slowed down the same amount when network utilization is high.

Yes that is what this is about, but I don't think 'suffer' is the correct phrase.

Compare it to a highway. The big communication companies want to build 'lexus lanes' for content providers that would pay higher transmission fees. The problem is, AFAIK, it really is a zero sum game. Everyone else would be left in the clogged regular highway. It really would hamper new startups and competition to the established content providers. That's is why net neutrality, by keeping all lanes open, helps with free and open commerce.

Also, regarding other posts in this thread, that is different than me paying more for higher speeds on my own connection/ Which I do, for streaming and to work at home.

 

[mpeirce]

Cable TV options are 95% limited by your local government. They don't want multiple cables, and installations of cables digging up yards or more cables on poles. Check your cable bill; there is usually a local municipal fee or tax. Cable companies also pay local municipalities for exclusive access to it's citizens.

I love living outside of town. In our township we actually have two different cables running though our backyard. Yes, we can choose from two different cable companies (WoW and Time Warner) with differing levels of service and pricing.

I personally think having the FCC invoking Title II is ridiculous. Thank you Theodore Roosevelt.

I do wish I could buy stock in the law firms that will be litigating this for years to come.

And it's not like ATT et al don't know how to take advantage of regulatory environment. The big guys will do just fine.

 

[Chuckanut]

I can't see how a modern unregulated technology 2015 be regulated as a "communication utility" under a 1934 law, allowing unelected appointees to make choices for me, yet alone GOOD choices for me

And anything that could possibly limit my sources of information is something that I do not like.

I agree that the laws covering a communication utility need to be updated to reflect modern technology. What we have today is meant to control simple cable TV companies that serve a small number of people who can't get broadcast TV, not huge entertainment and media organizations have huge conflicts of interest and near monopolistic powers.

Manyy sources of information are already limited today, by the cable companies. For example, coverage of Olympics sports and the World Cup - if I don't pay for cable, I can't see it, except for a very chopped up highlight show at the end of the day. Did I mention that my local cable company also owns the network that broadcasts the Olympics? No wonder they won't broadcast it live over the air. They have a monopoly on coverage, one can't turn to another channel to watch the 100 meter dash.

Another limitation, of sorts, is having to pay for things one does not want while having to pay extra for things one wants. My friends with cable have to pay for ESPN which they never watch, but can't get an entertainment channel unless they buy a package that includes it.

What we need is more competition, pure and simple. I am somewhat lucky in that I have FIOS fiber in my neighborhood so I have a choice from a duopoly. That's not enough. Academic studies show a market needs at least three competitors to have reasonable levels of competition. But, it is better than most friends who have no practical choice for internet and TV except for the cable company. The are usually hit by one or two rate increases a year! Sometimes it's the basic rate, sometimes it's changes in the packages, sometimes it's new charges for equipment.

Simply put there is nothing wrong with this business that competition would cure or at least make easier to deal with. The old laws do not allow for competition and need to be changed to allow it. More free enterprise capitalism is the best cure.

 

[Midpack]

I'm pretty sure they do. People pay up for higher bandwidth so they can stream. That's not affected here. What is affected is whether you have to pay different rates depending on whose content you are streaming.

Thanks, that's not what I'd read here in early threads before, but we often don't know how credible sources are on the internet.

And I know there are different rates for different speeds, at least 8 speed/cost packages on XFinity that I know of. But I thought you could stream all but 4K/UHD on all but the slowest package?

I learn something every day, sometimes here...

 

[target2019]

Net neutrality has been a concern since at least 2003, according to this wikipedia entry:

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The recent FCC rules will establish some basis whereby you can complain if comcrap slows down your Netflix, as they did previously:

In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients. This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of the 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase in connection.

You could complain before, but the ISP was not dis-allowed from above behavior. So you were stuck with crappy streaming until Netflix paid up.

Will problems go away? I don't think so. But you at least know in principle that the carriers are not supposed to de-prioritize certain traffic.