Net Neutrality?

[EarlyMon]

Good article.

We can also tell what they're going to do by looking at what they tried to do:

Comcast Censors some Internet Applications

Packet Forgery By ISPs: A Report on the Comcast Affair | Electronic Frontier Foundation

As the first author opined -

I'm usually all for a government hands-off, no intrusion policy, and let the free market decide, however, there are times when the government needs to intervene - especially in situations where a near monopoly exists. ISPs are often in a near monopoly position, with customers often only having one, perhaps two broadband ISP choices. So perhaps now is the time to revisit the need for Net Neutrality?

The free-market-working meme defies history - this battle started nearly 20 years ago.

 

[byteware]

The free-market-working meme defies history - this battle started nearly 20 years ago.

I think the free market would work, if you introduced solid competition into the market.

If the Federal Government would make it illegal for the same company to own the infrastructure, and sell directly to consumers... then you could have some truly great competition.

It would also need to be illegal for a company that owns the infrastructure and the company that markets to consumers to be owned by the same company.

If the company selling you access has to compete with every other ISP out there on service, then you will have a much more competitive market, and the best service will win (at least theoretically).

However, as long as a near monopoly exists, then you can never truly have competition. Free markets only work as long as you have healthy competition.

 

[sevenstars]

...

 

[EarlyMon]

I think the free market would work, if you introduced solid competition into the market.

If the Federal Government would make it illegal for the same company to own the infrastructure, and sell directly to consumers... then you could have some truly great competition.

It would also need to be illegal for a company that owns the infrastructure and the company that markets to consumers to be owned by the same company.

Right - it's not hard in principle.

And for that reason, we've been OK for a long time.

But - we have infrastructure problems. The internet may have started out here, but compared to other places in the world, we're getting price-gouged and poor data rates.

So - there has been a lot of cooperation along the backbone all along - a little sniping, but still manageable.

But - the days of the itsy-bitsy ISP are not significant. Competitive, powerful ISP are getting their hands on significant technology and can control things in ways not previously considered.

How many people can say, yes, these are all 100% reasonable and viable choices for them right now - iow, how many people can say: Why, yes, for my home I can freely choose between cable, fiber, DSL and wireless - and I can choose pretty much based on cost and how much I like the company and what value I'm offered compared to the competition.

Not so many.

Infrastructure is expensive. So - the roles of the companies, given enough time - as has already happened, get blurred and the barriers to monopolistic practices erode.

In this case, that barrier is product distribution.

 

[copestag]

trying to compare our infrastructure to ANYwhere else in the world isnt a fair comparison......... youre comparing infrastruction of countries who are smaller than most of our states....... Japan (fastest on average in the world) can put fiber in every house in the country and still not stretch as much line as a single state would take

 

[EarlyMon]

I apologize - that wasn't my intention for bringing that point.

Because of competitive pressures to match the foreign levels of service, disruptive technologies have come forward to meet new US market demand.

And it was at that point, that the big players looking at ROI started to get nasty.

I'm going by memory... but I'm going to say that really started hitting the fan maybe 6 years ago, and led to where we are today.

Joe consumer - whether he's a corporate mogul or just some guy - doesn't care about how big other countries are vs. cost of service - they heard better and cheaper and wanted it. (I've sat in many a conference room for many companies listening to senior managers complain that this is so, so that's a firsthand basis, even if anecdotal, for my corporate mogul statement - for the just some guy part, just follow slashdot since 2000 or 2001 and that'll substantiate.)

And that's why it was topical - again, apologies, my bad, I presumed that everyone would just get that.

The internet may have started out here, but compared to other places in the world, we're getting price-gouged and poor data rates.

Yeah - no way my intention was clear there.

 

[Hangdog42]

trying to compare our infrastructure to ANYwhere else in the world isnt a fair comparison......... youre comparing infrastruction of countries who are smaller than most of our states....... Japan (fastest on average in the world) can put fiber in every house in the country and still not stretch as much line as a single state would take

I really wish this comparison would die. I live on the US East Coast just a few miles outside of DC, and it is as densely populated here as anywhere else in the world (well, maybe Japan excepted). Yet our internet access is pathetic compared to the rest of the world. I have the grand choice of Comcast and dial-up. Seriously, if an ISP can't bring world-class speed and service to the DC area, something is seriously, seriously wrong.

I'm sick and tired of playing second fiddle to the rest of the world when it comes to IT infrastructure. Our cell phones don't do half of what can be done in other countries and our internet speeds are nowhere near what they should be. We are going to be left in the dust by other industrialized countries unless we get our acts together NOW!

 

[Crude]

When I was living in Austria I could get anywhere in our village of 4000 in 20 min. I could get to the neighboring village in 30 min on a bike. I could hope a bus and get to the the largest city in our province and there was a bus every 30 min. I didn't need a car.

I live 15 miles from the first gas station now. For that matter Iowa is 3 times the size of Austria and has 1/3 the population of Austria.

East coast may have a dense population... but trust me, it's still not as dense as most of Europe. When you take an average population density of the US per capita it does not hold a candle any Country in Europe.

 

[Hangdog42]

East coast may have a dense population... but trust me, it's still not as dense as most of Europe. When you take an average population density of the US per capita it does not hold a candle any Country in Europe.

I've been to Europe many, many times and even lived there for a bit, so I do know what I'm talking about. The only way you get to a lower population density for the US is because the US has huge swaths of extremely low-density population (like Iowa) that Europe doesn't have. In the US, about half of the population lives within 50 miles of a coastline, and in those areas, we are very much as densely populated as Europe.

I'm sorry, but the whole density argument is just a way of letting the ISPs off the hook for installing decent infrastructure. We haven't let population density stop us when it comes to other forms of infrastructure such as roads, electricity and telephone. Why are we making excuses for Internet access, when it is just as important, if not more so, to our national progress as any of those?

 

[copestag]

again apples and oranges.......... a road is a road, electricity is electricity, and telephone lines are telephone lines......... the the same lines and technology have been in place for telephones for the better part of the last century........ there are roads around here that havent been touched in 30 years...... and the electric lines in my area are older than me....... do you think an ISP is going to spend TRILLIONS of dollars putting in infrastructure that will be totally useless 10 years from now? it would be outdated before they could even get 1/4th of it installed......

in countries where you run 1 line to a single building and youve hooked up internet for 5000 families its a little bit different (yes a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point)..... the local telco and cable providers did a study on broadband for my county..... they both came to the same conclusion.... it would take them upwards of 50 years just to recoup their cost for installation..... now what ISP who wants to remain in business would ever dream of putting that infrastructure in place in my county?

 

[lordofthereef]

There are also plenty of providers (well I say plenty, but I know of at least one) that throttle torrenting, I assume under the premise that it can be used for illegal activity. The problem is, there are many legitimate uses of torrents. Plenty of games, among other things, use torrents as means of updating. A little bit silly to be throttled to the ground when trying to update something because you MIGHT be using the torrents illegally.

 

[EarlyMon]

Throttling sounds rather innocent, let's remember that in that case it meant packet sniffing, packet injection resulting in service disruption.

 

[Hangdog42]

again apples and oranges.......... a road is a road, electricity is electricity, and telephone lines are telephone lines......... the the same lines and technology have been in place for telephones for the better part of the last century........ there are roads around here that havent been touched in 30 years...... and the electric lines in my area are older than me....... do you think an ISP is going to spend TRILLIONS of dollars putting in infrastructure that will be totally useless 10 years from now? it would be outdated before they could even get 1/4th of it installed......

Baloney. In all cases we're talking about installing infrastructure that is designed to last decades, or longer. What is going to replace fiber optic cable? Other than wireless (which doesn't have the capacity to replace fiber optic), there is nothing on the horizon. In other words, installing fiber should be an investment lasting decades. By the way, numbers are hard to come by, but nobody is spending trillions on broadband installation. For example. Verizon's spending on this seems to have peaked at around $5 billion a year. That ain't chump change, but at that rate it will take them a couple of decades to spend a trillion. Besides, they are ripping out their copper, so it won't just be broadband operating over fiber. Oh, and by the way, the telecos were already paid billions to install broadband and they did nothing. Their "investment" is not what they would like you to believe.

in countries where you run 1 line to a single building and youve hooked up internet for 5000 families its a little bit different (yes a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point)..... the local telco and cable providers did a study on broadband for my county..... they both came to the same conclusion.... it would take them upwards of 50 years just to recoup their cost for installation..... now what ISP who wants to remain in business would ever dream of putting that infrastructure in place in my county?

Now you're the one comparing apples to oranges. Just because a company in Iowa can't seem to see the need to invest in decent infrastructure, why should much more densely populated areas suffer? You also might start questioning the company doing the estimates. Places like Monticello, MN have found it economical to install their own. Of course the local ISP sued Monticello to try and prevent competition.

What needs to happen is that installing the infrastructure needs to be taken out of companies hands. By your own logic, you shouldn't have roads or electricity, yet you have them both. Not all infrastructure has to pay for itself, sometimes it is a good investment to support the broader economy.

 

[EarlyMon]

Shall we start another thread to discuss infrastructure?

It is getting off-topic by a bit.

 

[wiretap]

Net Neutrality as passed is nothing more than a censorship piece for the FCC.

 

[EarlyMon]

Net Neutrality as passed is nothing more than a censorship piece for the FCC.

Please clarify, thanks.

 

[Hangdog42]

Shall we start another thread to discuss infrastructure?

It is getting off-topic by a bit.

I'll stop with this: Part of the reason for the need for net neutrality stems from the private ownership of the infrastructure, so they are related. Deals like the Comcast-NBC merger means that Comcast will now have a significant financial incentive to keep others out of "their" network.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'll stop with this: Part of the reason for the need for net neutrality stems from the private ownership of the infrastructure, so they are related. Deals like the Comcast-NBC merger means that Comcast will now have a significant financial incentive to keep others out of "their" network.

Yes, the topics are related but both are important.

Way ok by me to start another thread on this, I wasn't whacking, just trying to focus here.

Heated issues tend to multiple last words, so if anyone wants more, start another thread, PM me, and I'll move anyone's posts over on this that wants them moved.

Thanks!

 

[LoyalServant]

Shall we start another thread to discuss infrastructure?

It is getting off-topic by a bit.

I don't think I am getting it..... this is a fight over infrastructure in a sense.
Who gets to control it, despite most infrastructure being on public land such as along highways and roads... so they get free rent AND dictate what gets transmitted?

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't think I am getting it..... this is a fight over infrastructure in a sense.
Who gets to control it, despite most infrastructure being on public land such as along highways and roads... so they get free rent AND dictate what gets transmitted?

Agreed and I'm not trying to over-constrain this thread.

Just suggesting that there are also other (yet still important) political, logistical, financial and technical issues related to infrastructure that it might be best to separate the two at that mystical other point from this particular political issue.

Just asking and suggesting, not dictating.

 

[wiretap]

Please clarify, thanks.

To first begin, the FCC doesn't even have the authority to regulate 'net neutrality' over the internet. It has been struck down in the Federal Court of Appeals several times as unconstitutional. Second, they are going to enforce the regulations by criminal packet monitoring via gateway boxes for every home. They've talked about doing this for months, and now they have the excuse to roll out the program which they already have the contracts lined up for. (National Broadband Plan - Chapter 4: Broadband Competition and Innovation Policy) They've already done it with television and radio, but on the server side with FEMA gateway boxes that allow for interruption of all broadcasts whether it be AM, FM, or television. Now that the FCC claims control of the internet, it will go the same route we've seen with other broadcast media. They'll hand out the big contracts to their favorite companies, give them the priority they want, snuffing out all of the ones that don't have lobbyists giving them money and implementing liberty-cutting features. You're given the illusion of a free market with the control actually being in the hands of the lawmakers. The content will be regulated under the guise of 'national security' as we have already seen in numerous other sectors, and other countries.. even in our own as DHS already started blocking domains. Just as the Senate Judiciary Committee has actually come out and endorsed China's new Internet Regulation/Censorship program (even Joe Liberman, Jay Rockafeller and others have directly said it is a good thing), the ability to police the web has been crafted exactly how they want it. The president already has executive orders on his desk that state he can shut down all forms of communication for national security reasons, why not give it the appearance of being legal now via the FCC and DHS.

 

[Hangdog42]

To first begin, the FCC doesn't even have the authority to regulate 'net neutrality' over the internet. It has been struck down in the Federal Court of Appeals several times as unconstitutional

Citation please. Since this is the first time the FCC has tried to regulate "net neutrality", I would definitely like to see how they were struck down.

To first begin, the FCC doesn't even have the authority to regulate 'net neutrality' o]Second, they are going to enforce the regulations by criminal packet monitoring via gateway boxes for every home. They've talked about doing this for months, and now they have the excuse to roll out the program which they already have the contracts lined up for.

Citation please. What you linked to makes it pretty clear that the FCC considers deep packet inspection a bad thing.

They've already done it with television and radio, but on the server side with FEMA gateway boxes that allow for interruption of all broadcasts whether it be AM, FM, or television.

Citation please.

Actually, please post some support for your whole rant.

 

[wiretap]

Really? Do you live under a rock? This has been mainline knowledge in the technology sector for months now.. it has been fought over for years now.

1. Just type into google U.S. Court of Appeals overturns FCC authority over the internet. You'll get quite a few results. There was even a huge suit that got overturned when the FCC tried to tell Comcast they had to route their traffic in a way the government saw fit. The FCC claimed they had "ancillary jurisdiction" which was overturned. But now the FCC has bypassed Congress and the Judicial Branch by modifying Title II of the Communications Act, which is itself unconstitutional because they are now giving themselves executive powers out of thin air.

2. Deep packet inspection was mandated for for ISP's to comply as of FCC Title 47 Subpart Z.

3. Go to any of your broadcast media outlets and ask them first hand, even view it with your own eyes, don't rely on me providing you a link. I worked in a television studio from 2002 to 2006, and every licensed broadcast network must be in compliance with a FEMA Emergency Broadcast Interruptable Gateway. HINT: IPAWS, Executive Order 13407

 

[Hangdog42]

There was even a huge suit that got overturned when the FCC tried to tell Comcast they had to route their traffic in a way the government saw fit.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the decision, and it isn't what you're claiming it is. It was a fairly narrowly worded decisions that basically said the FCC couldn't micromanage how Comcast ran their network.

But now the FCC has bypassed Congress and the Judicial Branch by modifying Title II of the Communications Act, which is itself unconstitutional because they are now giving themselves executive powers out of thin air.

If that actually is the case (instead of people just making stuff up), the FCC will quickly be sued and it will be overturned. Of course what needs to happen is for the FCC to stop screwing around and declare ISPs to be common carriers.

Deep packet inspection was mandated for for ISP's to comply as of FCC Title 47 Subpart Z.

From which I will quote:

Ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with appropriate legal authorization, appropriate carrier authorization, and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission

In other words, they need a warrant to activate deep packet inspection, just like they would any other type of wiretap.

worked in a television studio from 2002 to 2006, and every licensed broadcast network must be in compliance with a FEMA Emergency Broadcast Interruptable Gateway. HINT: IPAWS, Executive Order 13407

Gee, what a surprise, a private company using a public good (frequencies) has to provide for emergency communications. The order can be found here.

 

[wiretap]

That's some deep denial.. LOL. You claim I'm making things up and ask for sources, then I actually provide them, indicating exactly what I'm asserting, then all of a sudden you claim to be an expert and just dismiss them. hah. It's pretty obvious you're on a completely different intellectual level and can't even comprehend what's going on. But yeah, the government having shut down boxes at every gateway is a good thing. It's for your security. Pathetic. But, just to expand your intellect a bit, you may want to look what your proper 'warrant' is. Ever hear of the Patriot Act? No warrants needed in the present, they just claim future warrants in the name of national security. Bypassing the Constitution once again.