Obama puts foot down: No Internet fast lanes

[loumeinhart 0]

cnn_link

Any opinions or further insight on this? From a general perspective, it seems regulation prohibiting Fastlanes is a good thing. Where I'm fuzzy is the talk of Tier 1's as utilities, and arguments that fastlanes would prevent the free exchange of ideas, and Net Neutrality..

[quade 3]

It's a general net neutrality issue. Some companies, like AT&T, want to be able to extort other companies like Netflix into paying higher fees to transport their services. Overall, that does nothing for the benefit of the world as a whole and only benefits companies like AT&T.

I pay AT&T for a connection to the internet the same way I pay the Edison Electric Company for the electricity to run my computer. It shouldn't matter what I choose to do with that electricity. I shouldn't have to pay more for the power simply because I have an Apple vs a Dell and I shouldn't have to pay more for 10Mbps service to stream Netflix vs YouTube. I pay for 10Mbps. I should get 10Mbps no matter who I connect to.

By reclassifying ISPs as utilities, they would be required to provide service agnostic of its use.

There is a darker side to ISPs being able to throttle data too. If they're allowed to slowdown any service you connect to based on "fast lane" extortion, then they could easily slow down the opinions of those whom they disagree with. If the head of AT&T was a member of the "Dog" party, then he could slow down all the messages of the "Cat" party.

Whether you're a dog or cat person, you should rightfully be concerned about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Oh, one more thing . . .

Obama didn't "put his foot down." The FCC can actually do whatever they want. This isn't an Executive Order. It's not a fiat. It's a common sense request based on millions of consumers who have taken the time to get involved and are concerned about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

The whole "fast lane" thing is akin to the proposition in California that makes its way onto the ballot every so often where car insurance companies "want to be able to offer discounts to people for having continuous insurance coverage."

Oh yeah... they're just itching to charge people less money...

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

There is a darker side to ISPs being able to throttle data too. If they're allowed to slowdown any service you connect to based on "fast lane" extortion, then they could easily slow down the opinions of those whom they disagree with. If the head of AT&T was a member of the "Dog" party, then he could slow down all the messages of the "Cat" party.

Whether you're a dog or cat person, you should rightfully be concerned about it.

You don't have to deal with hypotheticals here.

Comcast is one of the primary players in the broadband world, and one of the primary content providers, owning numerous stations. Who is surprised that they'd rather sell you movies via VOD on their network rather than you getting them from Netflix? Same applies to Uverse and Verizon FIOS.

So long as they're providing both content and the pipeline, there's an obvious conflict of interest when they have the option of selectively throttling packets.

[normiss 622]

Yet those rates differ based on 50 amp service, 100 amp service, industrial steam turbine on site rate.
The wording used today was confusing to me.
"More regulation to make it more open."
Why does that sound disconcerting to me?
Sounds like government fees to me.

[quade 3]

normiss

The wording used today was confusing to me.
"More regulation to make it more open."
Why does that sound disconcerting to me?
Sounds like government fees to me.

Because you have not taken the time to do any research into this whatsoever. The proposal isn't asking for a dime.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Yes that exactly what I haven't done.

His wording was oddly contradictory.
I work for a major ISP, I know where the fees and taxes are.

[quade 3]

normiss

His wording was oddly contradictory.

No. It's not. Not one little bit.

Quote

I work for a major ISP, I know where the fees and taxes are.

There are no government fees or taxes associated with this. None.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Now tell me there are no "fast lanes".

[lawrocket 3]

There is a serious issue that isn't being addressed. Look at Netflix - a third of all data flow on the internet (at least during peak hours) comes from Netflix. I'm no engineer, but I do understand that bandwidth is finite. Like if there's a three-lane highway for everyone to use but Netflix is clogging up one of the lanes.

So if they are looking at expanding to four lanes, who should pay? I, myself, think that the ISPs should be responsible for maintaining and expanding their networks. They operate toll roads, but shouldn't be deciding who gets to use lanes aand who doesn't.

Kinda like HOV lanes are bs - they just tie up traffic for others by having a lane being used at less than capacity. But that's another subject. Populists usually have no problem smacking down anyone using or taking more than is deemed to be a fair share...

I'm all for net neutrality. But I see the point of the other side, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

I'm all for net neutrality. But I see the point of the other side, too.

Normally this is where America and free markets would enter into the conversation. Unfortunately, deals made by cable companies and ISPs decades ago usually mean there isn't a free market; just like there isn't a free market in where you get your electricity, gas, or water from. Generally speaking across the country, there is one "real" provider a household can deal with. Oh, in some cases there might be other companies piggy-backing on the ISP's lines and reselling services, but the actual lines are owned by only one company.

So, this will never really be a free-market issue. While the country's internet isn't strictly "A" monopoly, as far as consumers are concerned it is because it's really thousands of mini-monopolies across the country.

Where the ISPs can recoup their costs should rightfully be by charging more to the USER of the high volume of data; not seller. If I want to stream HD Netflix to my home, I can do the math and decide whether I need that 50Mpbs line at a higher cost or my 10Mbps line at a lower cost is just fine. That's exactly analogous to other utilities as well. If I use a lot of water, I pay for it. Use a lot of electricity I pay for that too.

What I don't do is pay more for the electricity to use my Apple computer vs a Dell.

THAT is the issue.

The internet is simply a utility and ought to be treated as such.

If I want to de-couple my HBO service from my cable bill and shift it to my internet, I ought to be able to do that too without having to worry if the alternative is going to be degraded by the same cable company who was previous selling me HBO.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

There is a serious issue that isn't being addressed. Look at Netflix - a third of all data flow on the internet (at least during peak hours) comes from Netflix. I'm no engineer, but I do understand that bandwidth is finite. Like if there's a three-lane highway for everyone to use but Netflix is clogging up one of the lanes.

heh - Comcast/AT&T/Verizon have that bandwidth in place to deliver their VOD already. And much as power generation has to deal with a daytime peak with plenty to spare during nighttime, the same is true for the internet providers. This is about competition to be the content provider.

As Quade already wrote, if there really is a true cost (there isn't), then you cap it. The reality is this is difficult to do if customers actually have choice, because someone will continue to sell unlimited. I know they'd love to get acceptance so they can rape their broadband customers they way they do with cellular data and SMS.

In most of the world outside the US, these caps are normal, and one reason for cheaper rates than we see.

[normiss 622]

Akamai and Google buy a TON more bandwidth than the DSL networks get.


Coloring/marking/filtering/prioritizing of data is also a fee based offering as well.

So I'm still confused what the issue actually is.
Like most things in the market in this country, money buys you more. I couldn't afford a 100GB connection if I wanted it, hell I couldn't even afford the interface.
Lots of major players can and do and want more.

Meanwhile the FCC is still sitting on their collective asses in re: NFL market rights for broadcasting games. They've approved the change but not enacted it as I understand.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'm no engineer,

Uh-oh.

[billvon 2,435]

>So if they are looking at expanding to four lanes, who should pay?

Everyone who uses it!

[normiss 622]

Without those fast lanes of prioritization, a lot of services will simply not function.

[billvon 2,435]

>heh - Comcast/AT&T/Verizon have that bandwidth in place to deliver their VOD already.

I thought those services were head end to consumer (i.e. using exclusively Verizon transport) rather than general IP-based delivery.

[Stumpy 256]

normiss

Without those fast lanes of prioritization, a lot of services will simply not function.

Yep - the crap ones, that can't survive in the market without the preferential treatment. Such as some of those provided or backed by the ISP's.

ISP's should be a dumb pipe, no more and no less.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***I'm all for net neutrality. But I see the point of the other side, too.

Normally this is where America and free markets would enter into the conversation. Unfortunately, deals made by cable companies and ISPs decades ago usually mean there isn't a free market; just like there isn't a free market in where you get your electricity, gas, or water from. Generally speaking across the country, there is one "real" provider a household can deal with. Oh, in some cases there might be other companies piggy-backing on the ISP's lines and reselling services, but the actual lines are owned by only one company.

So, this will never really be a free-market issue. While the country's internet isn't strictly "A" monopoly, as far as consumers are concerned it is because it's really thousands of mini-monopolies across the country.

Where the ISPs can recoup their costs should rightfully be by charging more to the USER of the high volume of data; not seller. If I want to stream HD Netflix to my home, I can do the math and decide whether I need that 50Mpbs line at a higher cost or my 10Mbps line at a lower cost is just fine. That's exactly analogous to other utilities as well. If I use a lot of water, I pay for it. Use a lot of electricity I pay for that too.

What I don't do is pay more for the electricity to use my Apple computer vs a Dell.

THAT is the issue.

The internet is simply a utility and ought to be treated as such.

If I want to de-couple my HBO service from my cable bill and shift it to my internet, I ought to be able to do that too without having to worry if the alternative is going to be degraded by the same cable company who was previous selling me HBO.

This.

Well said.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

billvon

>heh - Comcast/AT&T/Verizon have that bandwidth in place to deliver their VOD already.

I thought those services were head end to consumer (i.e. using exclusively Verizon transport) rather than general IP-based delivery.

That was roughly my understanding as well, that they had some shared "last-mile" channel bands allocated to draw VOD from a local cable-company owned server.

[Bolas 5]

normiss

Without those fast lanes of prioritization, a lot of services will simply not function.

Are you referring to traffic prioritization by data type? Yes, to maintain QOS, this is done and needs to happen.

The concern is prioritization by source or destination address.

It's perfectly acceptable for streaming video packets to receive a certainty priority, what's not acceptable is prioritizing Hulu traffic differently than YouTube, Netflix, Xtube, etc.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[normiss 622]

Prioritization based on customer wallets has always been around.
Don't kid yourself.

"Dumb pipe" is impossible to manage. We learned years ago that simply throwing bandwidth at ALL data (it IS all data today) simply does not work. I can't HBO! talk to you on NETFLIX! the phone or PORN! cellular networks when IPTV! data steps on HELLO? HELLO? Connection dropped.

So say a VOIP company wants to sell me a service, their data MUST be first priority for it to even function.
I see costs increasing due to the need to build additional networks to handle the varying types of traffic separately.
This is already done to some degree. (IPTV, VoIP, E911)
Did someone say Ma Bell?

[Bolas 5]

normiss

Prioritization based on customer wallets has always been around.
Don't kid yourself.

If it's by traffic type, that's one thing and while the increased priority is mostly paid for by the big companies, all that are sending that type of traffic benefit.
Ex: videoconferencing
Apple, Google, and Microsoft may have each paid to increase prioritization for FaceTime, Hangouts, and Skype respectively, but Bob's start up videoconferencing company, which may revolutionize the industry gets that same prioritization.

However, if the companies were only paying to increase prioritization of traffic from their own site, not only is Bob basically shut out, but the ISP can then also make these companies pay higher and higher fees if they want higher prioritization than their direct competitors or "punish" companies if they stop paying.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,435]

>So say a VOIP company wants to sell me a service, their data MUST be first
>priority for it to even function.

Right. And if Verizon provides VoIP over their lines, using their trunks - no problem at all (which is usually how that works.) If, however, they want to use more public backbones they might have problems. So the problem generally works itself out without having to prioritize one service over another (other than on the parts of the system the carrier itself owns.)