Net Neutrality - Who needs it ?
 

I can honestly say I don't understand all this.
Why would Verizon or Comcast or whoever want to change this ?
Are the bandwidths actually a limiting factor now or in the near future ?

NY Times article

Web Plan Is Dividing Companies
By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER and BRIAN STELTER
Published: August 11, 2010

Well I have Verizon. Let's say they decide they're going to start up a spiffy message forum--The Basement. What if they start de-prioritizing traffic from cellar.org and making sure all the basement.org traffic had a clear shot? Is that fair?

OK, let's say instead of Verizon, I'm the one starting up The Basement. Now Verizon says to me, they'll put my traffic at a higher priority--for a small fee. And they tell Undertoad the same thing. Verizon gets some extra cash, and cellar.org and basement.org have an advantage over all the other, scuzzier forums.

That's why the ISPs want to change this.


One way to think of it is this: Let's say tomorrow somebody out in the middle of nowhere, USA gets pissed off because his bread was put under a half dozen cans of soup, and he starts a blog dedicated to exposing the incompetence of supermarket baggers.

Do you think you should have the same opportunity to read this blog as you do to read cnn.com?

The answer IMO is a resounding "maybe." No matter how much bandwidth you have, you can always make a hypothetical that would use it all up. In the olden days (say 15 years ago) the consortium where I worked maintained a 3Mb link for three entire college campuses, including dorms. Now I have 20 at my house. Give us another 15 years, and I expect that 20 will look primitive too.

Also the big boys, like Verizon and Comcast, do more than just carry traffic, they also sell original content. Unchecked, these carriers can give priority to their own content, while slowing competitors content.

When they give priority to commercial outfits like Amazon, everyone else waits.

All was discussed previously under phrases such as "data transporter", "content provider", "information service", and "telecommunication service". In a thread entitled The internet is over!. You have much to read and learn.

Also discussed was an intentional effort by the George Jr administration to subvert the 1996 Federal Communicatio Act (that made broadband available) so as to create a dupoply. To quash other data transporters (ie Covad) that were creating a free market for telecommunication services.

During those eight years, America dropped on the list of best connected nations. While innovative companies (ie Skype) were fighting for their lives due to companies such as Comcast. Comcast was caught by the FCC suberting Skype packets - and lying about it.

Net neutrality is not a problem when companies have specific tasks - ie data transporter. And increase profits by innovating and by providing better service. Still to be addressed is the George Jr poltical agenda that protected the cable company and telephone company at the expense of all other innovators. Changes that may seriously affect the future of WiMax and LTE. That affect on-demand services such as NetFlicks, Boxee, Hulu, and other interactive TVs. And even an inevitable breakup between cell phone providers and the cell phone networks - something equvialent to the 1984 breakup of AT&T.

An underlying word common to all this should be innovation. That was not the objective starting in 2000.

Lamplighter, have you been introduced to TW yet? He's pretty tech-savvy, but sometimes his people skills are ... well, he's pretty tech-savvy. This:

is his Obi-Wan persona. Like Yoda's his writing sometimes is. Carry on.

To be clear, the current dance is all about mobile traffic. The carriers are trying vainly to figure out how to provide what the people actually want, which is Youtube on their phones (and Youporn, I wager) without breaking the back of the network. Thus AT&T removed their all-you-can-eat data plan, and Verizon is rumored to be considering this too.

There is no need to get worked up over this; after all, this is the Internet, and we are in charge here.

UT, I want to believe you...:rolleyes:

So is there a "law" now that requires net-neutrality, or is it just common practice now among the ISP's ?

Where I'm confused is at the level of the work place.
The NY Times article and others talk about a distinction between what will happen with wireless (mobile phones, etc) and "cable".

But I can't see a real world difference.
At the brick-site office , almost every business uses the internet in one way or another and I assume this kind of usage qualifies as "cable".
But for the traveling worker (repairmen, sales people, etc) they may well be using the same internet resources as their stay-at-office colleagues.
So if usage is delayed for one (non-net neutrality) and not the other it seem as though that's a real negative... and an strong argument for net neutrality.

Are we talking a technical problem, greed of the ISP's, or inept government regulation ?

PS: Please keep the technical jargon simple and at a minimum for us old folk...

I'm not quite as optimistic as UT, for very meta reasons.

The big ISPs are trying to combine two distinct issues--and, so far, seem to have a decent chance of succeeding.

The problem of bandwidth allocation is a technical issue. How do we make sure that a small handful of people don't overwhelm the available capacity? There are straightforward ways to do this, by metering and limiting how much people use. I mean "straightforward" in a technical sense, not a marketing or political one. Pay-per-use internet service has not been commercially viable in the consumer sphere since, maybe the early 90s?

The problem of preferring certain traffic over others is a business issue. The ISPs want this to happen because they see it as potential revenue from content providers, and potential competitive advantage in cases where the ISPs themselves are serving the content. Some large non-ISP content providers want it to happen too because they think they can use it to muscle around smaller competitors. Be that as it may, for the most part the issues in this category do not have any bearing at all on technological capabilities. For the most part--clearly with things like high-quality streaming video you have overlap between the two categories. But really, do sites like cnn.com and nytimes.com cause resource hogging on today's Internet? Please.

Now, to make a massive overgeneralizaton: Most people feel the technical issue of bandwidth capacity is a legitimate problem, or at least a legitimate potential problem. Most people feel that the desire of ISPs to favor some providers over others for business reasons is horseshit and shouldn't be allowed.

Yet, if the ISPs and/or "big content" are successful in conflating the two issues, we run the risk of a solution to Part A carrying a very convenient way to address Part B through the back door.

The whole Google/Verizon agreement is about mobile.

I don't know, but I would imagine that a large part of the technical issue is guaranteeing latency, not actual bandwidth. Everything on the Internet is a file; a video file could be a 200GB file. But if you want to actually watch video, that 200GB has to be delivered with a certain throughput. A certain number of bits per second, every second. I would imagine that's very difficult on mobile, where you have to do complicated math handing off between cell towers and stuff.

Same goes with voice btw. If big data usage hurts voice, there will be tremendous outrage and a demand for bandwidth allocation to favor voice traffic.

But I doubt there will be a time when you are promised a certain bandwidth and then can't get that on speedtest.net.

Step back and view a larger picture. Some industries (autos, finance) need heavy regulation because of their 'we want profits at the expense of the customer' attitude. Therefore even every piece of glass in a car conforms to extensive laws and regulations.

The computer industry historically has always been about the product. Serve the customer. Make better products. Don't worry about profits. Then massive profits will exist. Historically, computer companies that tried to maximize profits / ignore the product quickly had no profits.

Net neutrality has been mostly about that attitude. However where some companies attempted to subvert that (ie the telecoms, AT&T, cable companies, etc), then the 1996 Federal Communication Act said free market forces can provide what those companies would not. An example of where law promoted more net neutrality. It should be obvious to every layman what the 1996 Federal Communication Act did.

The question is whether we need a new business model. It is not entirely clear what this Verizon Google deal involves. Cell phone companies can routinely increase bandwidth with little restriction. Simply make cells smaller. Simply sell larger bandwidth to customers who would pay for that larger bandwidth. After all, that is always how a neutral net worked. (A concept that literally put fear in 'we fear to innovate' companies such as AT&T).

Companies simply move data without knowledge (or should care) of what that data is. The relationship of data transporters and information providers automatically made net neutrally not just necessary, but preferred. For some reason, this business model is being questioned.

Well, it is companies such as Comcast that all but wanted government regulation put onto the computer industry. Comcast wanted to maximize profits with money games rather than innovation. Comcast want to use their data transporter position to manipulate and dominate the information provider industry – which is why Comcast bought NBC, subverted Skype packets, etc. If too many companies do this - what is a normal attitude in the finance industry - then net neutrality may have to be legislated.

Details of the Verizon Google negotiations are not limited to mobile phones. They are only discussing mobile phones. But it threatens to be imposed everywhere in the internet. And that may (we can fear) result in massive (and necessary) government regulations.

One of the first laws that made net neutrality possible was the CarterPhone decision - about mobile phones. That meant you no longer paid $400 a month for a digital data line and $hundreds a month to rent their modem. Yes, AT&T was that anti-innovative. Opening the network to free market innovation was probably the first step to what we now called net neutrality. Followed by the 1984 breakup of AT&T.

Is net neutrality created by laws. Yes. And not directly. Every example in this thread are the simple things that any consumer should know. Would know, but had not yet connected the dot to see the bigger picture.

I know little or nothing about net neutrality, but I fear giving government any power over the internet, lest we end up with the kind of censorship China has.

That already happens at peak usage times. The trick is the promise is always "up to".

Yes, the CURRENT conversation is about mobile. How many years has the public been in an uproar about this issue in general? This is an obvious major potential revenue stream for the providers, yet now... they are framing this as just applying to mobile traffic and we are all saying "oh, okay, well that seems reasonable." Why would they stop there? THIS IS FREE MONEY. They want to charge us for something we get for free currently, why would they stop, once a precedent has been set in this scenario?

¿What do we get for free currently?

Actually, having now read the framework and Google's public policy blog entries about it, what they are pretty much saying is that the wired network must remain neutral.

Well understood is that people prefer to pay a fixed fee for unlimited service rather than being nickeled and dimed for usage. The fixed fee tend to create a feeling of 'free'. Charges by the minute or consumption tends to make people feel they are paying for everything.

A mobile phone with unlimited usage. A Scandanavian country tried that once. Then discovered people using their mobile phones constantly connected as baby monitors. That didn't work.

Us: "We want a full double rainbow!"

http://cellar.org/2010/dblrainbow.jpg

Starbucks: "Our studies show that people's favorite color is blue. Many people coming to our stores are looking for a full double rainbow, but sometimes this is because they want blue. So we are offering a great deal: as much free blue as you want. Our designers have chosen a shade that we feel you'll agree is calming and interesting. You can have the full double rainbow if you want, but believe us, blue is really cool."

http://cellar.org/2010/bluebucks.gif

Google/Verizon: "We know you want a full double rainbow, and in fact our entire business model is based on providing it wherever and whenever you want it. But there are no regulatory agencies that can guarantee that to you. So we've come up with a compromise: everybody gets a full double rainbow at home, and on mobile devices, either half a double rainbow, or a single rainbow that people can look at twice."

http://cellar.org/2010/droid2singlerainbow.jpg

and UT nails it!

Dammit, I said a DOUBLE COMPLETE RAINBOW. What is your problem, are you off drugs?

Isn't her query about 'who do you want calling all the shots' misleading? I mean, as in, 'do you really want the government calling all the shots about internet traffic'. Would that really be the case with internet neutrality? Or is this just a scare tactic.

And she says that "unimportant" stuff shouldn't have as high priority as "important" stuff. Then she asks who I want deciding what's important, and pops up the COX logo, as if they are a good option?

No, I want nobody to make that decision, and the FCC making sure that COX doesn't.

How many years does it take to forget lessons from history? The internet is stories about why one industry - also called the 'last mile' - cannot be trusted.

For example, when was DSL available? 1981. Same year that the IBM PC came out. One year before MacIntosh existed. That meant data communication at 1,000,000 bits per second. What were we provided maximum? 1200 bits per second.

For 15 years, we were stuck with a maximum 50,000 bits per second - less in most places - because these companies could be trusted.

So Bill Clinton passed the 1996 Federal Communication Act. It said, if a communication company did not offer at least 1,000,000 bits per second, then anyone could provide it on their lines. Suddenly Verizon and Comcast had to innovate.

Welcome to some industries who will do anything to screw you - to increase their profits at the expense of America.

Well George Jr came to power. Said government was the problem. So Powell's son and a Republican congress removed the 1996 Communication act. Suddenly upstart communication companies were driven out of business by the few big boys. These politicians said it would increase competition. Reality: these Republicans were getting massive campaign contributions from Verizon, Comcast, et al.

So you love it that you only have two Internet choices? Internet costs in American are increasing compared to the rest of the industrial world. US internet bandwidth has now fallen to somewhere below 10th on the list for Internet bandwidth access - and it still dropping.

A duopoly has increased your internet costs. And is attempting to incur additional costs for access to services such as Bit-torrent and Google. Is this good for you? Is this good for America? Yes according to those who blame government. Who removed government oversight from Communications, Securities industry, and in so many other places that then provided less service.

How quickly were these lessons forgotten? Comcast in particular has a problem. They must double their cables to handle the load. Technology says they can provide that service at same costs - as happens in any productive industry. So Comcast wants to change the rules. Want even more freedom to also control the information sources (ie NBC).

At what point do history lessons say why American broadband access is decreasing compared to the rest of the industrial world? When oversight was removed, they simply played money games to eliminate competition and raise prices. Even subverted Skype traffic. Which , BTW, is now legal for them to do again.

Or read lessons taught by the destruction of Covad.

When are profits more important than the product - and this is good?

What Kim Kommando forgets to include as an example. All phone calls are also prioritized. Gossip was obstructed because it also was not important. Or we deal with reality. The internet must grow to handle all traffic just as the phone system had to grow to even handle gossip.

She has simply hyped a myth used by 'last mile' providers to increase profits. As if Comcast's profits were not high enough. They even built the highest building in Philadelphia because the internet is so unprofitable. In places where interent traffic is heavier (ie Korea), net neutrality works just fine. And access rates are lower. But then Korea does not have a duopoly. Strange how the internet has no problem in Korea where interent provider invest in infastructure - not skyscrapers and TV networks.

This FCC proposal regarding the traditional "internet" seems reasonable to me,
especially the part about allowing a separate cable system for heavy use businesses.

I still have no idea about what it means for "wireless" users.
I see the advantages of wireless internet for the service-industry people who must travel to do their work.
But watching movies on "smart" phones doesn't raise my passions.

This article has a more details.

NYTimes
F.C.C. Chairman Outlines Broadband Framework
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: December 1, 2010

Nor mine, but I can see people trapped in cubicles wanting it.

It's astonishing they've managed to convince people that bitch continuously about being raped by cable providers, that government rules to prevent at least some of that, and try to keep it from getting worse, is a bad thing.

Comcast is again going to war to maximize their profits at the expense of net neutrality. Comcast says that Netflix are being downloaded mostly from the Level3 backbone. So Comcast wants to surcharge Level3 for connections to Comcast customers. Comcast now want to restrict access to the internet.

Comcast can do this because Comcast got classified as an information provides - not a data transporter. And the Supreme Court has, essentially, banned the FCC from enforcing rules that protect net neutrality.

It's just a matter of time before Comcast goes back to subvert Skype packets so that users will be force to use Comcast telephones - not Skype. Even that is now legal thanks to a Supreme Court ruling (and the monopoly created by Michael Powell last decade).

Comcast needs more cash to pay for a 50 story skyscraper, NBC, Tivo, and other purchases.

Check out the current Comcast/Level 3 dispute. Level 3 wants to deliver netflix via broadband. Comcast is about to acquire NBC/Universal. This would put them into the position of owning content and distribution, which is why they have not yet gotten approval. If they intend to charge Level 3 a fee but not charge themselves the same fee for their content....


http://seekingalpha.com/article/2397...o-is-laughable

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...288688392.html

I have been reading that the FCC has been directed to do an end-around on the slow pace of the Congressional action and that their rules will attempt to add other things like content control.

Who is so bought and paid for as to want net neutrality subverted? From the Washington Post of 17 Dec 2010: Companies such as Comcast would have to earn their profits by innovating rather than by subverting other services to extract more money.

These same extremists changed the rule so that all internet providers, but two, were driven from the market. These extremist said two big companies was better than many innovative internet providers. Since then, broadband in America has been quickly decreasing compared to all other OECD nations. Decreasing in average bandwidth. And decreasing in broadband availability. Subverting principles of the 1996 Federal Communication laws that essentially said, "either you provide broadband or anyone else can provide it on your lines".

How dare government require companies to innovate. Extremists said a duopoly is better. These same extremists say Comcast subverting Skype data packets is both good and desirable. That surcharging Netflix is good so that consumers instead will buy same and more expensive services from Comcast.

Remember when cable TV was $8 per month? Why are consumers now paying more than $100 per month? Free markets and competition?

FCC should no longer stop corrupt actions. Comcast should have the right to buy any software they want to corrupt Skype packets. And should have the right to lie about doing same. That means more campaign contributions from companies such as Comcast. The political agenda is far more important than the consumer.

What might we expect next from these same politicians? Hate of Muslims? Hate of gays? Do anything to make Obama fail? The internet should be a profit center only for the highest paid executives. Executives who can now contribute all they want to buy their favorite politicians. Screw net neutrality when a political agenda is far more important.

It started when the 1996 Federal Communication Act was subverted in the early 2000. Changed to drive out free markets and competition. What happened to companies such as Covad or PSINet? Apparently the only free market that should remain free is the one that buys politicians.

Apparently Verizon is not happy, Skype is, and other corps have mixed reactions but are going along.

Errrr... Except for the incoming oversight by Republicans,
Rep Cliff Stearns and Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison who are vowing
to overturn ruling.

Computer World
FCC's Net neutrality vote hit from both sides
By Grant Gross
December 21, 2010 03:46 PM ET

I have mixed feelings about it. It is not about the attempts to ensure free and open access, it is about the fine print when a branch of government, in this case the FCC, just says it suddenly has some power it never had before without Congressional oversight. Isn't this a similar situation where people complained about other entities overstepping their perceived bounds? I am more bothered by the fact they just took it upon themselves to begin to regulate something that they never regulated before.

Wow. This really changes the way I am looking at the whole issue.....

The Net Neutrality Coup
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_LEADTop=

Last chance.
http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/s...y_vid?gfhgf=rw

Merc, the corporate giants don't want internet regulation because they don't want anything preventing their control of the money they make (and prevent littler companies from making) off the internet (and phone and cable). They just want to keep raising the rates they charge me without being hassled.

Is it just about rates? Or is it about controlling access?

Its always about money.