Saving Net Neutrality in US

[amirm]

FYI, I received a (form) response from one of our state representatives, Patty Murray:

----

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality and the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) efforts to dismantle the net neutrality rules put in place under the Obama Administration. I appreciate hearing from you.


First and foremost, I support net neutrality. As you know, net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers (ISP) should not be allowed to block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate between lawful content on their networks and across the internet. Net neutrality has been a core characteristic of the internet since its creation and has ensured that companies of all sizes have a level playing field to compete and pursue new ideas on. I am extremely proud of Washington state’s robust tech sector and firmly believe that net neutrality has be essential to its growth and development.


The net neutrality rules that are currently in place were adopted by the FCC on February 26, 2015 after millions of Americans wrote and expressed their support for a free and open internet. These rules provide the FCC with the regulatory tools to protect and maintain net neutrality across wired and wireless networks, and provide a general net neutrality standard to evaluate future ISP policies against. The 2015 rules did not empower the FCC to regulate how much ISPs could charge customers or invest in their networks. I supported these rules when they were initially adopted and continue to support them now.


That is why I am deeply troubled by the steps the FCC is taking to roll back its existing net neutrality rules. Already, millions of Americans have written in to the FCC urging the Commission to keep its current rules in place and not to replace them with a weaker standard. I agree with these comments and I will continue to fight for a free and open internet on the behalf of individuals and businesses in Washington state and across the country.

 

[Don Hills]

You don't actually know the information carrying capacity of the cable entering my house, nor the exact methods being used to get the data across it, so you cannot say that dropping the TV channels wouldn't allow more bandwidth for data. You even say "With some limited exceptions..." so I don't think the patronising "homework" comment is in order. ...

The total capacity depends on your cable company's specific implementation, but I do know the exact methods being used to get the data across it. If you had done your homework you'd have some idea of how it actually works and you'd know what the limited exceptions are.

I asked the more general question:

Combining carriers of different colours or frequencies will not miraculously (the word I introduced) mean that there is no conflict for data carrying capacity in the ISP's networks.

That's true, but it's not what you originally claimed. My correction was only to your claim about contention between the TV channels and the data channel. Removing TV channels doesn't miraculously increase the data carrying capacity of the cable. The freed channels can be allocated to data, but it's not available to you. Your bandwidth is limited by the physical capacity of the channel your data modem is using. Allocating more data channels just allows the ISP to support more subscribers.

... Part of the service we get at our house is that the TV box can access on-demand services like Youtube, the BBC iPlayer and, if you subscribe to them, Netflix, etc. Now, supposing my ISP prioritises the on-demand TV packets above my next door neighbour's browsing of ASR. According to net neutrality, this is a no-no.

Prioritising of different traffic types already occurs, for example VOIP traffic will be prioritised over regular data. This is standard QOS and every well managed network does it. Provided that your ISP hasn't oversubscribed the bandwidth, you'll still get the bandwidth you're subscribed for. However, this is NOT a net neutrality issue. Neutrality is when all traffic of a given Class Of Service, regardless of source, is given equal priority within the ISP's network. In the case of you and your neighbour, if you're watching Netflix and they are watching the ISP's own streaming service, both of your streams get equal priority. If there's contention, you are both affected equally. Lack of net neutrality rules means that the ISP can prioritise their own streaming service packets over Netflix's packets in various ways.

The answer to the rest of your post is, simply, no. You have constructed your scenario on a false premise.

 

[Cosmik]

I am just assuming that that the common definition of net neutrality is literally what we have now:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

If they are allowed to shape traffic based on different protocols already, then that does seem to conflict with that idea - but obviously commercial arrangements to speed up certain companies' packets, etc. would be taking it to another level. What seems to be being suggested is that people don't really want net neutrality in the literal sense defined above, but they do want to stop anyone being able to buy an advantage. Fair enough.

 

[Wombat]

You don't get it. Hey, didn't our President promise to "make America great again"? What could possibly be greater than screwing millions of citizen consumers and small companies in favor of big telecoms, ISPs and media giants? Land of the free, home of the brave!

You don't get it. Hey, didn't our President promise to "make America great again"? What could possibly be greater than screwing millions of citizen consumers and small companies in favor of big telecoms, ISPs and media giants? Land of the free, home of the brave!

Bill Clinton promised to make America Great Again and recently you know who promised it, yet again. The masses didn't ask for whom.

Great rhymes with Magnate.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

What I see in that push against the current net neutrality rules as an effort for the Telecom, now mostly cable companies to get to the old days of Telecom companies dominance. They may get it with an administration that has shown a reluctance to technology and Science. Bluntly put the Internet has made those Kings (Telecom companies and Telecom Infrastructure companies) almost irrelevant. They want to revert to a model where prices is content related. That was the case in voice where we had a few years ago almost everywhere in the World something called "Long Distance" .. calls . The Internet destroyed this model and with it went away BILLIONS of dollars in revenues for the Telecom companies. This fight is being fought everywhere. In the USA right it is a last ditch effort by the Telecom companies to bring back some revenues. I would think their victory will not last long as people will see the effect of it and the reactions will be quite brutal for the operators and the legislators who are getting their money.
As an aside back in the day (15 years ago) as an ISP we paid $25,000/month for a 6 Mb/s link .... I recently got on on an European trip 600 Mb/s ... for what would amount for about $85/month for an "unlimited" data plan .. didn't spend a month there but ... the ridiculously quick data rate was something to behold

 

[Cosmik]

They want to revert to a model where prices is content related.

Ah, that's another subtle angle.

Basically, as consumers we want to pay ISPs for the job of shifting bits around, but nothing else. I'm all for that - and it's their choice to be in this business on that basis or not.

 

[Old Listener]

A personal example of why cable companies want net neutrality removed.

Until April 2017, I was paying about $ 90 / month to my cable company for cable TV service. Much of that money went to content providers like NBC,CBS, ABC, Fox and CNN but the cable companies got a big cut. Then I cut the cable leaving only $ 80 / month for internet service. Now I pay Netflix about $ 12 / month for content delivered over the internet and the cable company gets none of that revenue.

The net neutrality struggle isn't about technology or philosophy; it is about power, control and money.

They want to get a share of the content revenue from Netflix and other internet based content providers like Amazon and YouTube. In most communities, there is only one supplier of high speed internet service in the home. Those monopolists want to extort money for the the content they deliver. Spending a few millions on lobbying and campaign contributions may give them greater returns from existing infrastructure. That is a cheap investment compared to spending billions upgrading their infrastructure.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

A personal example of why cable companies want net neutrality removed.

Until April 2017, I was paying about $ 90 / month to my cable company for cable TV service. Much of that money went to content providers like NBC,CBS, ABC, Fox and CNN but the cable companies got a big cut. Then I cut the cable leaving only $ 80 / month for internet service. Now I pay Netflix about $ 12 / month for content delivered over the internet and the cable company gets none of that revenue.

The net neutrality struggle isn't about technology or philosophy; it is about power, control and money.

They want to get a share of the content revenue from Netflix and other internet based content providers like Amazon and YouTube. In most communities, there is only one supplier of high speed internet service in the home. Those monopolists want to extort money for the the content they deliver. Spending a few millions on lobbying and campaign contributions may give them greater returns from existing infrastructure. That is a cheap investment compared to spending billions upgrading their infrastructure.

I agree. It is simply all about monopoly/oligopoly profits at the expense of consumers. When a former attorney for a huge telecom is appointed to head up the industry regulatory agency, watch your wallets.

 

[c1ferrari]

The instinct among most of the intelligentsia these days is that free speech should be suppressed if it is "deplorable" or "populist" or fake news".

Indeed! What 'intelligentsia'? A paradox would be a charitable observation.

 

[c1ferrari]

What happens though is in the interim while they experiment, consumer suffers.

Can you put that in the form of a motion? Some 'experiments', clearly, are gratuitous, while others -- criminal.

 

[Old Listener]

A relevant article about Comcast and net neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

 

[amirm]

Quite interesting. Sure signals their intentions to take advantage of this rule change.

Wonder what Netflix is going to do in all of this: pay to have the priority or fight? They are one of the few that can afford to pay. As is, they pay a big bounty to at device maker that gets someone to sign up for Netflix and hence the reason they get top placement in smart TVs and such.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Quite interesting. Sure signals their intentions to take advantage of this rule change.

Wonder what Netflix is going to do in all of this: pay to have the priority or fight? They are one of the few that can afford to pay. As is, they pay a big bounty to at device maker that gets someone to sign up for Netflix and hence the reason they get top placement in smart TVs and such.

The only problem is if Netflix decides to pay, it is actually we who will pay, as they pass this through to consumers. Oh, wait, they may already have done that in their recent increase for streaming services.

 

[ceedee]

They want to get a share of the content revenue from Netflix and other internet based content providers like Amazon and YouTube.

I have a question: before "net neutrality" became a big issue, was anyone actually doing this? Like, charging more for Netflix traffic, or throttling Netflix compared to the cable company's competing product?

I understand people want to be protected against anti-competitive behavior, and I'm not sure if there are already laws on the books to deal with this. However, "treating every packet the same" seems like a terrible way to run any network. It seems to me that people have been worked up into a frenzy in fear of not having their Netflix (or being charged more for it).

I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix, Hulu, and the others are doing just as much lobbying to make sure "net neutrality" is law. Unfortunately, I think it's quite a complex issue that really can't be solved by government regulation (as most things can't). Maybe we have to deal with specific abuses of companies who take advantage of their customers...who knows.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Yes, Comcast, for one, was actually doing it to Netflix streaming, until Netflix paid them to stop it. There is an article on the subject in today's New York Times.

 

[amirm]

Indeed. There was also an ISP/phone company that blocked vonage IP voice service because it competed with its own voice service. A court ruling stopped them from doing so.

 

[ceedee]

Interesting about the Comcast vs. Netflix issue. I'm sure the staggering amount of bandwidth that Netflix takes up poses a real issue for the underlying networks themselves (even without any anti-competitive motive involved.) Related to this, there something in the current regulations that I didn't know about. This is set to remain in the no-throttling and no-blocking subsections with the new rules:

Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

It seems to me that, during peak usage, some ISPs may consider it reasonable to throttle video services that are using most of the available bandwidth on their networks, if it affects other services. At least if I'm understanding this correctly, it means that the oft-repeated notion of "all bits treated exactly the same no matter what they are" has never really been true.

Here is an interesting article about Netflix and its stance(s) toward net neutrality over the years:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/20/14960154/netflix-net-neutrality-stances-timeline

Interesting to note that Netflix participates in so-called zero-rating, where they make deals with cell carriers to allow customers to stream their content without affecting data caps. Other companies do this as well, and it doesn't seem to violate "net neutrality" regulations.

This article is also interesting. The author goes through the actual regulations and finds only a few small changes. According to him, there are no changes to the no-blocking, no-throttling, or no-paid-prioritization parts of the existing regulations. I haven't read through all of the documents myself, but he quotes the relevant ones in the article.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/there-is-no-net-neutrality-the-fcc-changes-arent-what-you-think/

One obvious problem to me is the lack of competition for ISPs. In some markets, there may be only one viable option. In larger markets, such as where I live, you can switch to another ISP if you don't agree with what your current one is doing. If everyone had choices available, companies would quickly lose subscribers if they start playing games with access to different services. That said, I still think there is a lot of scaremongering going on over what evil corporations may do to the internet if the government doesn't protect us.

 

[amirm]

As expected the FCC voted along party lines and nuked net neutrality with a 3 to 2 vote. Challenges expected in courts and such.

A moment of silence please.....

 

[watchnerd]

I heard on NPR today that Washington state plans to fight this via local regulation for any provider it feels doesn't meet net neutrality with everything from additional taxes and fees to denying access to / charging for access to public telephone poles.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Just contributing to our common knowledge, the technology used to prioritize certain applications is called Quality of service (QoS). Implemented this a few years back on a Nordic banks WAN.

"In the field of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks, quality of service refers to traffic prioritization and resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service