Net Neutrality?

[GeorgeinLA]

let me rephrase my analogy for ya.... maybe help you see my point clearer.....

all animals called dogs must have a collar...... there is no laws regarding cats and collars........ we are now going to reclassify all cats as dogs....... do we need to make a new law that says cats need collars now? NO...... because all cats are now dogs...... they fall under the existing collar laws

To follow your analogy, however, if there are no laws regarding cats and collars, a city administrative agency can't make up its own law regarding cats and collars by reclassifying cats as dogs.

If you were to allow that, then you might as well stop pretending that we live in a democratic system. If some staffer at the EPA decides that from henceforth any place where rain has ever fallen in now reclassified as a wetland, then your property is now under federal wetlands jurisdiction, and you can't build on it. Etc., etc.

 

[zauper]

To follow your analogy, however, if there are no laws regarding cats and collars, a city administrative agency can't make up its own law regarding cats and collars by reclassifying cats as dogs.

If you were to allow that, then you might as well stop pretending that we live in a democratic system. If some staffer at the EPA decides that from henceforth any place where rain has ever fallen in now reclassified as a wetland, then your property is now under federal wetlands jurisdiction, and you can't build on it. Etc., etc.

Here's a more accurate analogy:

The city administrative agency has the authority to regulate 'outdoor animals'.

They require all outdoor animals to have collars.

They classify dogs as outdoor animals, and don't classify cats as outdoor animals.

Then, they issue a regulation classifying cats as outdoor animals, and requiring them to have collars.

The issue with your analogy (and the one proceeding it) is that there are definitions for "cats", "dogs", and "wetlands" that aren't inclusive of what you're getting at. The definitions being used for 'telecommunication services' are broad enough to include teh intarwebs.

 

[GeorgeinLA]

The issue with your analogy (and the one proceeding it) is that there are definitions for "cats", "dogs", and "wetlands" that aren't inclusive of what you're getting at. The definitions being used for 'telecommunication services' are broad enough to include teh intarwebs.

Typically, the definition of something like that will be found within the legislative record. If the legislators did not intent to regulate the Internet, then you can't do it by administrative fiat, or even court ruling. You need to go back and amend the legislation.

 

[Drhyde]

My issues with this net neutrality stem from the fact that the wireless carriers were excluded from it. The FCC used a red herring to say it was because of Android, but what does that have to do with anything?

After seeing that PDF file detailing charges for specific websites I would ponder how in the world do the cell phone companies think they can get away with something like that. I really hope it never happens, but since I thoroughly believe the cell phone companies are in collusion with each other, all it will take is one doing it for the rest to follow suit. Just look at what has happened to unlimited plans and how they all raised their text messaging fees almost at once. Something needs to be done about them.

 

[byteware]

the logic there fails though........ I think we both agree that the internet has not been regulated before...... and Im pretty sure we can both agree that the telecommunication industry has been regulated beyond belief and encompasses everything theyre trying to achieve with net neutrality

That's just it though.

Why would they regulate IP address management for phone systems?

Why would they regulate packet inspection for phone systems?

The regulations that make the phone system open as it is, doesn't translate over to computer networks. They are two related and similar, but different types of networks.

once they reclassify the internet as telecommunications all of those regulations will now apply to the internet (all the regs that currently apply to telcos)...... these regulations already cover EVERYTHING and more that net neutrality is trying to achieve

That's a rather ridiculous statement. I guess you are willing to let the Telco's determine which networks are considered long distance and charge you by the minute to use them?

Computer networks are different than the phone network. New regulation will be required.

once the internet is reclassified as telecommunications...... they fall under the same laws as telcos.... no need for new neutrality regs.... they already exist

This is true, but I'm not sure you want your ISP to be able to charge you for long distance internet usage. I mean, if that's what you want, then I guess that's the way it would be, but I don't think that's to anyone's benefit. Do you?

umm, no. It has been classified that way since the revamp with the telecommunications act and I took the direct legislation and showed you. The various cases reaffirmed that. You're running in circles not proving anything to me.

You haven't shown me anything. You said the Telecommunications Act classified the Internet as an Information Service, but you are unable to provide the text where it does. You've mentioned 2 different court cases, and I've provided text from the actual decisions that stated that the FCC classified the Internet as an "Information Service".

So, yes, I guess I am running circles around you.

If the fact that you cannot find where the Internet is classified as an information service in a law passed by Congress doesn't prove it to you, what else do you want me to do?

My issues with this net neutrality stem from the fact that the wireless carriers were excluded from it. The FCC used a red herring to say it was because of Android, but what does that have to do with anything?

Here is the argument that I have heard, and agree with, for Wireless carriers.

There are only so much bandwidth over the airwaves. They cannot lay more FiberOptics to give you more over the air bandwidth.

There is nothing that the Wireless carriers can do to give you more bandwidth, once the bandwidth is used up.

That's the argument I've seen used for excluding wireless carriers (and unfortunately, I agree with it).

 

[Hangdog42]

Why would they regulate IP address management for phone systems?

Why would they regulate packet inspection for phone systems?

The regulations that make the phone system open as it is, doesn't translate over to computer networks. They are two related and similar, but different types of networks.

However, my guess is that in the not so distant future, VOIP is going to become the dominant phone "network" and the old POTS will fade into obscurity. You can already see this where Verizon is ripping out the copper lines after they've put in Fios service. And as far as I know, VOIP is just another set of TCP/IP packets.

There are only so much bandwidth over the airwaves. They cannot lay more FiberOptics to give you more over the air bandwidth.

There is nothing that the Wireless carriers can do to give you more bandwidth, once the bandwidth is used up.

That's the argument I've seen used for excluding wireless carriers (and unfortunately, I agree with it).

I think you're hinting at something really, really important here. Net neutrality (at least as I understand it) isn't about regulating the bandwidth, it is about regulating the source. In other words, you're absolutely right that you can't add more bandwidth to a frequency, so it can become saturated. The wireless carriers MUST be able to throttle traffic so as not to exceed the available bandwidth. That is basic QOS. What net neutrality is about is that when they do throttle, they can't decide on what to throttle based on the origin of the packet. So it would be OK to throttle ALL torrent traffic, but it would NOT be OK to throttle torrent traffic from just Netflix. Or to get back to your phone discussion, it would be OK for an ISP to throttle all audio/phone calls (including their own) but an ISP like Comcast couldn't throttle just Vonage traffic.

 

[byteware]

However, my guess is that in the not so distant future, VOIP is going to become the dominant phone "network" and the old POTS will fade into obscurity. You can already see this where Verizon is ripping out the copper lines after they've put in Fios service. And as far as I know, VOIP is just another set of TCP/IP packets.

That is true, but the regulations for routing aren't there yet.

I think you're hinting at something really, really important here. Net neutrality (at least as I understand it) isn't about regulating the bandwidth, it is about regulating the source. In other words, you're absolutely right that you can't add more bandwidth to a frequency, so it can become saturated. The wireless carriers MUST be able to throttle traffic so as not to exceed the available bandwidth. That is basic QOS. What net neutrality is about is that when they do throttle, they can't decide on what to throttle based on the origin of the packet. So it would be OK to throttle ALL torrent traffic, but it would NOT be OK to throttle torrent traffic from just Netflix. Or to get back to your phone discussion, it would be OK for an ISP to throttle all audio/phone calls (including their own) but an ISP like Comcast couldn't throttle just Vonage traffic.

True, but at some point the bandwidth could be so saturated that throttling ALL the traffic could put us all at dial-up speeds.

That's just not acceptable.

If they have to throttle video so that we can get email in a timely manner, then so be it.

That is my opinion.

Now, if we can develop technology to make more efficient use of our current bandwidth, then I'm all ears. That would be absolutely awesome. However, until that comes along, we are stuck with what we currently have, and must make the best use of it.

 

[Hangdog42]

True, but at some point the bandwidth could be so saturated that throttling ALL the traffic could put us all at dial-up speeds.

I can see this happening for wireless, where I think the carriers are being two-faced about how much bandwidth mobile users are going to use. Face it, by selling a phone with an HDMI interface, the wireless carriers are complicit in causing congestion when people download hi-def movies.

For wired service, there is no excuse for throttling to low speeds however. If that is happening, it means that the ISP isn't even remotely competent at maintaining their network or predicting usage.

Now, if we can develop technology to make more efficient use of our current bandwidth, then I'm all ears. That would be absolutely awesome. However, until that comes along, we are stuck with what we currently have, and must make the best use of it.

I think you're right for wireless, we're kind of stuck with the bandwidth we have, though I suspect pricing tiers will probably keep it from becoming unusably slow. For wired, if the ISPs are made common carriers and prevented from also being content providers, they actually have a market incentive to build bandwidth to meet the need.

 

[byteware]

I can see this happening for wireless, where I think the carriers are being two-faced about how much bandwidth mobile users are going to use. Face it, by selling a phone with an HDMI interface, the wireless carriers are complicit in causing congestion when people download hi-def movies.

I completely agree. Especially with LTE coming, it's just getting more and more ridiculous how much you can use.

For wired service, there is no excuse for throttling to low speeds however. If that is happening, it means that the ISP isn't even remotely competent at maintaining their network or predicting usage.

I also agree. You are sold a connection speed. It doesn't matter that you will be lucky to get HALF that speed, you are sold a connection speed, and the carrier should be able to provide you with that speed. They should not sell you a speed that they know that they cannot attain.

 

[EarlyMon]

The wireless carriers MUST be able to throttle traffic so as not to exceed the available bandwidth. That is basic QOS. What net neutrality is about is that when they do throttle, they can't decide on what to throttle based on the origin of the packet. So it would be OK to throttle ALL torrent traffic, but it would NOT be OK to throttle torrent traffic from just Netflix.

Why wouldn't they simply throttle all traffic? Was there a reason to say that throttling any single protocol is ok?

For practical purposes, isn't it normal subscriber increase and not p2p that might be at issue?

Are you in favor of tiering wireless broadband services / charges by protocol? Again, just an honest question, because that sounds to me like where that would head.

 

[byteware]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll try to answer anyway.

Why wouldn't they simply throttle all traffic? Was there a reason to say that throttling any single protocol is ok?

Certain protocols consume immense amounts of bandwidth. What makes more sense, everyone having dial-up speeds, or throttling video and large file transfers to a lower speed to free up bandwidth?

For practical purposes, isn't it normal subscriber increase and not p2p that might be at issue?

It might, but if p2p and/or video is taking up 50% of your bandwidth, wouldn't it make sense to throttle it back a bit to free up some bandwidth?

Are you in favor of tiering wireless broadband services / charges by protocol? Again, just an honest question, because that sounds to me like where that would head.

Not at all, and I'm not in favor of throttling video traffic either, unless there is a need to do so in order to maintain a reliable level of internet service.

 

[Hangdog42]

Why wouldn't they simply throttle all traffic? Was there a reason to say that throttling any single protocol is ok?

Well, not all traffic is equally important. For example, voice/sound traffic should probably have priority simply because the order and speed of packets matters, whereas something like a torrent, the packet order doesn't matter, so if some packets get delayed it isn't a big deal. One thing to make clear though, is by delay, I mean milliseconds or maybe a second. I'm not talking about minutes or hours.

As for singling out a protocol, if a significant percentage of your used bandwidth is a single protocol, and that protocol can withstand throttling, then I don't have much of a problem with it.

For practical purposes, isn't it normal subscriber increase and not p2p that might be at issue?

You're absolutely right. The root cause of a lot of these problems is that ISPs have underbuilt and oversold their bandwidth. People like to do bandwidth intensive things, and rather than cut them off at the knees, a much better solution is to build bandwidth to support the demand. However, since that is expensive, private companies would much rather scream about p2p or bandwidth hogs than actually do something constructive. That is why I think private companies have no business owning network infrastructure, they simply don't have the right motivation and because of that, the US is falling behind other countries in Internet speed and cost.

Are you in favor of tiering wireless broadband services / charges by protocol? Again, just an honest question, because that sounds to me like where that would head.

Actually I'm very much against that for one simple reason: You never know where/how the next great thing will surface, and charging by protocol could completely eliminate some great discoveries/inventions. As I've said before, I beleive internet infrastructure is actually a government function, not a private industry function and the infrastructure providers (ISPs) need to be kept separate from the content creators.

Now that said, I think there are a couple of realities that need to be faced. First, no matter how much bandwidth is built out, there are going to be extreme bandwidth users. There needs to be some ability to throttle back those people when they become an obstacle to other users. Also, networks are expensive, so some degree of QOS infrastructure does need to be in place so no single protocol overwhelms other uses. Like pretty much any other kind of infrastructure likes roads or electricity, peak usage happens and building to accommodate peaks can be prohibitively expensive. so you need some way of controlling peaks.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'm happy with both responses - as well as satisfied.

I'd assert that if we dig deeper, we might find that it's not even video (or a protocol) per se even though that admittedly has a higher data density per transaction (read: a transaction being a web page, an email or a single movie) - that as always, it's transaction size times frequency of occurrence.

That could lead to a simple formula considering capacity to customer charge-outs: per user; per maximum bandwidth use per user; and could allow premium charges for additional traffic flow should the system be able to support it. QOS protective measures could be deployed per user in such a scenarios.

If true - that's much like where we are today with billing / service already - isn't it?

It occurs to me to raise this question, then, because I do not know this, but: didn't we hear about this same issue before?

Wasn't it concerning wireless infrastructure build-out and where we were headed back in the 2G-to-3G transition days, when it was becoming apparent that with the heterogeneous coverage being deployed by non-cooperative wireless carriers that we'd one day hit a wall where no one carrier would be able to upgrade adequately to meet our demand?

I get that I'm sounding clever, but I'm really not - I think I have such a memory, but I could be mistaken so I'm asking. That was years ago, after all.

If I'm not mistaken however then it further occurs to me that the wireless fight against net neutrality is part of an on-going corporate CYA over bad decisions long ago. And perhaps some of the carrier ideas about throttling are nothing more than that same CYA-flavored Kool-Aide.

PS - I'm not unmindful that I used some of each of what you both expressed already as answers to formulate this argument, so yes, I did read the responses quite carefully.

 

[byteware]

I'm happy with both responses - as well as satisfied.

I'd assert that if we dig deeper, we might find that it's not even video (or a protocol) per se even though that admittedly has a higher data density per transaction (read: a transaction being a web page, an email or a single movie) - that as always, it's transaction size times frequency of occurrence.

That could lead to a simple formula considering capacity to customer charge-outs: per user; per maximum bandwidth use per user; and could allow premium charges for additional traffic flow should the system be able to support it. QOS protective measures could be deployed per user in such a scenarios.

If true - that's much like where we are today with billing / service already - isn't it?

It occurs to me to raise this question, then, because I do not know this, but: didn't we hear about this same issue before?

Wasn't it concerning wireless infrastructure build-out and where we were headed back in the 2G-to-3G transition days, when it was becoming apparent that with the heterogeneous coverage being deployed by non-cooperative wireless carriers that we'd one day hit a wall where no one carrier would be able to upgrade adequately to meet our demand?

I get that I'm sounding clever, but I'm really not - I think I have such a memory, but I could be mistaken so I'm asking. That was years ago, after all.

If I'm not mistaken however then it further occurs to me that the wireless fight against net neutrality is part of an on-going corporate CYA over bad decisions long ago. And perhaps some of the carrier ideas about throttling are nothing more than that same CYA-flavored Kool-Aide.

PS - I'm not unmindful that I used some of each of what you both expressed already as answers to formulate this argument, so yes, I did read the responses quite carefully.

I don't know about CYOA, but I do know that demand tends to be infinite, but OTA bandwidth definitely isn't. It doesn't matter if the infrastructure was implemented well or not, eventually we WILL hit a wall where demand will outpace the bandwidth we have available OTA.



As far as landline ISP's, I think they should be forced to sell bandwidth at a guaranteed minimum, not a fairytale maximum. That would change the discussion pretty quick. No matter what kind of traffic you used, you would have your minimum no matter what.

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't know about CYOA, but I do know that demand tends to be infinite, but OTA bandwidth definitely isn't. It doesn't matter if the infrastructure was implemented well or not, eventually we WILL hit a wall where demand will outpace the bandwidth we have available OTA.

Couldn't agree more - the 4G building is all about meeting new demand.

I'm ok with rational use of resources and I'm not concerned with QOS actions that must be taken for the good of the resource and all of its users. Not one bit.

I'm simply against practices that hide behind that to artificially drain the little guy financially.

I'm not anti-capitalistic by any means and am not advocating entitlement.

As far as landline ISP's, I think they should be forced to sell bandwidth at a guaranteed minimum, not a fairytale maximum. That would change the discussion pretty quick. No matter what kind of traffic you used, you would have your minimum no matter what.

Ah. Exactly what businesses pay for on SDSL to subsidize ADSL for the homeowner - and with it also comes specified maximum downtime.

 

[cjr72]

Sorry for bringing this up from the dead but I think this is an interesting write up about the issue (from a libertarian point of view):
Internet Cop - Reason Magazine

 

[knivesout]

Net neutrality: US expected to ratify new rules on internet access

Net neutrality: US expected to ratify new rules on internet access | Technology | guardian.co.uk

I don't quite understand why they're treating the mobile internet differently. This sounds like a consolation prize if you ask me. It was only a matter of time before the big corporations stepped in to wrap their fat, greedy fingers around the best tool for free speech, and free expression since the invention of the paper and pencil. On the face of it, the landline net neutrality rules look enticing but I'd really have to see the fine print.

You're right, it's becoming more and more obvious that we'll all be mobile soon, landline anything is going away in the future, except for applications in fixed locations that require fiber optic speed. Even then, I don't put it past wireless technology to catch up or at least close the gap a lot more.

That would mean we're a mostly mobile computing society, and 3G, 4, over 9000G networks are going to need to be more heavily scrutinized for neutrality issues.

 

[byteware]

the problem is bandwidth. You can't just invent new bandwidth. Over the air radio traffic is limited in how much it can carry. So, eventually, that 90000G Mobile broadband will be delivering everything at dial-up speeds. At that point, I would mind dialing down multimedia communication speeds so that everyone can get webpages loaded in a decent time frame.

 

[EarlyMon]

Again - quality of service measures have zero to do with net neutrality.

 

[Bob Maxey]

That being said, I feel that mobile internet is a bit different (and I have a good reason).

With traditional internet, you can provide more bandwidth by laying more fiber. There are only so many airwaves to use. And it's not like we can put more out there once we use them all.

So, with mobile internet we may not have a choice but to throttle bandwidth intensive traffic.

I hate it. I don't like it. But eventually we might not have a choice, unless we either do something to substantially increase the efficiency with which we are using the airwaves, or increase the spectrum which we can use for mobile internet.

Yes indeed.

The issue I have is the possibility some of the Amateur Radio Frequencies will be lost to the insatiable need for spectrum. History has proven that by and large, Amateur Operators have proven their need for the space is greater than the publics need for better playback of YouTube video.

There is always a chance that we can find out ways to use frequencies above what we currently use, but who knows.

I have no problem slowing things down because it might mean we all have access. Let's face it, as mobile devices arrive, the RF space must come from somewhere. It is hard sometimes to explain to people that we simply cannot support the growth by adding more frequencies. When it is gone, it is gone.

We amateur radio operators have a undisputed record of service to the community, and I would hate to see us loose something vital.

For those that do not know, the radio frequency spectrum is a continuous band of frequencies that are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The RF spectrum is all we have for the most part and it is by no means unlimited. It is highly coveted real estate to be sure.

It is like your house as it is now, without modifications like additions, wings, or more floors. You have all that is within your four walls and when that is gone, that's it. You simply cannot create more RF spectrum; all you can do is figure out ways to be more effective and organized so you can fit more useless crap in the structure.

Orr take spectrum from other users.

We need to find out how to use what little we have with greater efficiency.

http://bit.ly/hsPUOm

Bob Maxey

 

[EarlyMon]

Again - quality of service measures have zero to do with net neutrality.

 

[Bob Maxey]

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.

So what about this: if Comcast (just because they have been mentioned throughout this thread) discovered that large numbers of people are downloading movies, perhaps some sort of restriction should be placed on those folks. Either increased costs or slowing down their speed. Can you tell me why this is wrong? Seems fair to me. You use more, you should pay the costs.

When you sign up for Comcast, what if their terms clearly state how much bandwidth you can consume? If you agree, then do they not have the right to charge you more if you exceed the level you contracted for? They darn well do have that right in my view. They have the right to stop your service for illegal activities, and they should have the right to charge heavy users heavier dollars. Is that fair?

Cricket limits how much bandwidth I can use, after all. After a set amount, I am charged more. Same for Virgin broadband...limited to a set amount.

Comcast might be a bad guy here, but what about their right to run their business at a profit? Do they have the right to charge us small fry more because many more people might be using more bandwidth?

Since Comcast is in the business of providing services like TV, why should they be forced to support other on-demand services.. in other words, their competition. Does not work in the offline world; Harley is not required by law to support Yamaha, for example. And if you water your yard three times a day, you pay the cost, not me.

There are those that suggest the Net Neutrality law(s) are the camel's nose under the tent and the next step is regulating what is on the net, just like they regulate what can be on over the air broadcasts like radio and TV.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has a few opinions about the FCC's role in the neutrality and fairness doctrine issues. He said this:

I spent yesterday, Tom, in Washington on two issues I want to raise quickly this morning. One, we met

 

[EarlyMon]

So what about this: if Comcast (just because they have been mentioned throughout this thread) discovered that large numbers of people are downloading movies, perhaps some sort of restriction should be placed on those folks. Either increased costs or slowing down their speed. Can you tell me why this is wrong? Seems fair to me. You use more, you should pay the costs.

Because you're overlooking that Comcast has a profit motive in supplying you movies by other means.

And WHEN they ALREADY did throttle that data, that was the reason - not quality of service and not bandwidth.

You seem to have either not noticed this earlier, or you're discounting it to make a point that cannot be made.

Quality of service has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Never has, never will, and no hypothetical arguments can make it so.

Here's past speculation:

How much of a threat is Google TV to cable providers? | ZDNet

Here's what happened:

Will media giants doom Google TV to failure? - The Week

There's a reason that Comcast was mentioned earlier. It's astonishing that you're going to fight to defend your point using that example.

And when you're done picking another example:

Quality of service actions have nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Again - quality of service measures have zero to do with net neutrality.

I understand the principals.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Some Internet service providers sell applications and/or services. The law would prevent the service provider from charging more if the customer decides to use a competitors' apps. Neutrality would also prevent discriminating against competitors, by making sure their video applications work faster on their networks as opposed to the competitions.[/FONT]

What if I develop a lightening fast video player? I would hate to think Comcast is blocking access and forcing their customers to use a crappy Comcast app. I would hate to be charged more or prevented from using Opera if my ISP has a sweet deal with Microsoft and requires that I use IE.

If you want to make calls on your device, there should be no restrictions. Thats in the proposed the law. If you want to DL a movie, ditto, no restrictions. But, as we buy more devices to do things like watch live TV in another country or DL movies, it costs more to support those activities. Why can't Comcast block access to these activities or charge more?

If the law says no, you cannot restrict any web activity, everyone must pay for those activities that consume more bandwidth and it costs someone, something. Or we all pay with decreased bandwidth.

So, yes... it has lots to do with cost as well as quality of service because quality of service could decrease and costs, increase. As soon as a free TV service or free movie service arrives that kills whatever Comcast is offering, should subscribers have a right to avoid Comcast and the PPV costs and freely use the competition's service? Or should Comcast have the right to say no, you agreed to use our service and we are not allowing you to use another service.

Bob Maxey

 

[knivesout]

Again - quality of service measures have zero to do with net neutrality.

I disagree; they have a lot to do with QoS measures. QoS comes into play when Comcast decides that Netflix isn't going to be allowed the percentage of bandwidth it may use on their network and they implement a policy that holds Netflix streaming bandwidth back where the traffic enters their network, because Comcast sells their own VOD services and doesn't like the competition. This is just a hypothetical, but similar things have been said by AT&T and Verizon in the past, such as implicating that Google is somehow robbing their bandwidth when the people they already collect monthly service fees from use the bandwidth they paid for to reach Google.

It isn't all about pay walls, if that's what you're suggesting.