Net Neutrality - Who needs it ?

[Lamplighter]

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

“People need to understand that’s what we’re debating here.”

The debate revolves around net neutrality, which in the broadest sense holds that Internet users should have equal access to all types of information online, and that companies offering Internet service should not be able to give priority to some sources or types of content.

In other words, on mobile phones or on special access lanes, carriers like Verizon and AT&T could charge content companies a toll for faster access to customers or, some analysts worry, block certain services from reaching customers altogether.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Why would Verizon or Comcast or whoever want to change this ?

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?

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Are the bandwidths actually a limiting factor now or in the near future ?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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 ?

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.

[ZenGum]

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:

You have much to read and learn.

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[Lamplighter]

UT, I want to believe you...

[Lamplighter]

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...

[SteveDallas]

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

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.

[spudcon]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The whole Google/Verizon agreement is about mobile.

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?

[Undertoad]

¿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.