FCC set to approve Net Neutrality rules today (1 Viewer)

[Thunderlips]

I'm confused here....Obama wants Net Neutrality...which basically is a more free and open internet. Now...do Republicans not want that...or do they just not want the Federal Government to mandate that?

 

[Thunderlips]

I'm confused here....Obama wants Net Neutrality...which basically is a more free and open internet. Now...do Republicans not want that...or do they just not want the Federal Government to mandate that?

 

[Schlzm]

If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.

ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.

Schlzm

I edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.

Edited edit makes more sense and under standard contractual rules you are correct, though there were cases where this wasn't happening. In my above link pertaining to Comcast cutting off customers this was actively occurring back in the spring of 2007. Here is their service amendment, effective 01OCT2008, stating they are implementing a 250GB/month restriction. I had not seen any successful legal action regarding the cases that had occurred prior to the FCC taking action. Schlzm

Just because people didn't sue, or didn't sue successfully, doesn't mean that existing laws aren't/weren't working. In the one article, the guy they quoted specifically said he didn't sue because he didn't think he could afford the lawyers. I don't think the FCC should be stepping in for such a case.Back to "net neutrality", I just don't see how a carrier telling its customers how much data they can use under their terms of service has anything to do with net neutrality. Ditto for AT&T getting rid of "unlimited" wireless data plans; how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?

What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time. The new regulation does not stop providers from limiting total bandwidth under new terms and also allows providers to give upgraded access (higher speeds) to those who are willing to pay for it. The regulation prevents providers from using an ever shifting notion of an acceptable amount of traffic and then penalize its customers for not complying with nonexistant rules. Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;

Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.

Also as for Mr. McConnell, his claims are actually the exact opposite of what should happen moving forward here. Allowing an access monopoly to occur would do more harm to growth, innovation and development.Schlzm

 

[ffldrew]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.

 

[pantagrapher]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

If only there were some thread with a discussion and links explaining the issue...

 

[Thunderlips]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

If only there were some thread with a discussion and links explaining the issue...

I guess this Net Neutrality thing is already ####### #### up. Now either answer my godamned questions Poindexter, point me in the direction I need to go or..... SHUUUSSSSSHHH!!!!!

 

[Rich Conway]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.

Except that no providers have done this.

 

[Schlzm]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.

Except that no providers have done this.

Comcast was trying it with Level3, it has been cited multiple times. Not to mention the heavy handed approaches it was taking with its customers when it came to high volumes of traffic. Schlzm

 

[Rich Conway]

What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time.

I've heard various allegations to that affect here and there, but I've never seen any proof of the above.

Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;

Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.

This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

 

[Rich Conway]

So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?

People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.

Except that no providers have done this.

Comcast was trying it with Level3, it has been cited multiple times. Not to mention the heavy handed approaches it was taking with its customers when it came to high volumes of traffic. Schlzm

Peering disputes are NOT related to net neutrality. This has been pointed out multiple times. The current Comcast/Level3 dispute has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

 

[Insein]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Here's a nice article my Steve Wozniak: Net Neutrality

The Atlantic Home

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free

Dec 21 2010, 8:30 AM ET 43

To whom it may concern:

I have always loved humor and laughter. As a young engineer I got an impulse to start a Dial-a-Joke in the San Jose/San Francisco area. I was aware of such humor services in other countries, such as Australia. This idea came from my belief in laughter. I could scarcely believe that I was the first person to create such a simple service in my region. Why was I the first? This was 1972 and it was illegal in the U.S. to use your own telephone. It was illegal in the U.S. to use your own answering machine. Hence it also virtually impossible to buy or own such devices. We had a monopoly phone system in our country then.

The major expense for a young engineer is the rent of an apartment. The only answering machine I could legally use, by leasing (not purchasing) it from our phone company, the Codaphone 700, was designed for businesses like theaters. It was out of the price range of creative individuals wanting to try something new like dial-a-joke. This machine leased for more than a typical car payment each month. Despite my great passion and success with Dial-a-Joke, I could not afford it and eventually had to stop after a couple of years. By then, a San Francisco radio station had also started such a service. I believe that my Dial-a-Joke was the most called single line (no extensions) number in the country at that time due to the shortness of my jokes and the high popularity of the service.

Moving ahead, I have owned four homes in my life. None of these had cable TV, even though one was a new development where the law required cable. None of these had DSL, including my current home, which is only .8 miles up a hill from the populous (constant-homes) town I live in. I pay for a T1 line, which costs many times what DSL runs for about 1/10 the bandwidth. That's as close as I can come to broadband where I live. The local phone providers don't have any obligation to serve all of their phone customers with DSL. They also have no requirement to service everyone living in the geographic area for which they have a monopoly. This is what has happened without regulatory control, despite every politician and president and CEO and PR person since the beginning of the Internet boon saying how important it was to ensure that everyone be provided broadband access.

As a side note, I once phoned the cable company in the town I lived in. I could look from my bedroom window at homes ¾ of a mile away which had cable. I told the cable company that I would be willing to pay the cost of laying cable to my home. The cable company looked into it and got back to me that they could not do this because there were not enough homes on my hill to pay for the monthly rental of running their cable on telephone poles.

In the earliest days of satellite TV to homes, you would buy a receiver and pay a fee to get all the common cable channels. I had a large family (two adults, six kids) and felt like making every room a lot easier to wire for TV. Rather than place a satellite receiver in each room, I'd provide all the common channels on a normal cable, like cable companies do. In my garage, I set up three racks of satellite receivers. I paid for one receiver to access CNN. I paid for another to access TNT. I paid for others to access HBO and other such networks. I had about 30 or 40 channels done this way. I had modulators to put each of these channels onto standard cable TV channels on one cable, which was distributed throughout my home. I could buy any TV I liked and plug it in anywhere in the home and it immediately watch everything without having to install another satellite receiver in that room. I literally had my own cable TV 'company' in the garage, which I called Woz TV, except that I even kept signals in stereo, a quality step that virtually every cable company skipped.

Then I got this idea that I could pretty easily run my signal through the wires in conduits up and down our 60-home neighborhood. The neighborhood had been partially wired for cable before the cable company went bankrupt as the neighborhood was being developed. I phoned HBO and asked how much they would charge me just to be a nice guy and share my signal with 60 neighbors. What came back was an answer that I couldn't do such a personal thing. I had to be a cable company charging my neighbors certain rates and then a percentage of what I was charging, with minimums, had to be paid for HBO. I instantly realized that you couldn't do something nice in your garage as a normal person and I gave up the idea.

The Internet has become as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are being chipped away.

When young, I remember clearly how my father told me why our country was so great, mainly based on the constitution and Bill of Rights. Over my lifetime, I've seen those rights disregarded at every step. Loopholes abound. It's sad. For example, my (Eisenhower Republican) father explained the sanctity of your home and how it could not easily be entered. It was your own private abode. And you had a right to listen to any radio signals that came because the air was free and if it came into your home you had a right to listen to it. That principle went away with a ban on radios that could tune in cell phone frequencies in the days of analog cell phones. Nobody but myself seemed to treat this as a core principle that was too much to give up.

I was also taught that space, and the moon, were free and open. Nobody owned them. No country owned them. I loved this concept of the purest things in the universe being unowned.

The early Internet was so accidental, it also was free and open in this sense. The Internet has become as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are being chipped away. Please, I beg you, open your senses to the will of the people to keep the Internet as free as possible. Local ISP's should provide connection to the Internet but then it should be treated as though you own those wires and can choose what to do with them when and how you want to, as long as you don't destruct them. I don't want to feel that whichever content supplier had the best government connections or paid the most money determined what I can watch and for how much. This is the monopolistic approach and not representative of a truly free market in the case of today's Internet.

Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use. The personal computer revolution would have been delayed a decade or more. If I had to pay for each bit I used on my 6502 microprocessor, I would not have been able to build my own computers anyway. What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove? It would be fair and understandable to charge more for someone who drives more. But one of the most wonderful things in our current life is getting in the car and driving anywhere we feel like at this moment, and with no accounting for cost. You just get in your car and go. This is one of the most popular themes of our life and even our popular music. It's a type of freedom from some concerns that makes us happy and not complain. The roads are already paid for. You rarely hear people complain that roads are "free." The government shines when it comes to having provided us pathways to drive around our country. We don't think of the roadways as being negative like telecommunication carriers. It's a rare breath of fresh air.

I frequently speak to different types of audiences all over the country. When I'm asked my feeling on Net Neutrality I tell the open truth. When I was first asked to "sign on" with some good people interested in Net Neutrality my initial thought was that the economic system works better with tiered pricing for various customers. On the other hand, I'm a founder of the EFF and I care a lot about individuals and their own importance. Finally, the thought hit me that every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed. Every audience that I speak this statement and phrase to bursts into applause.

That's how the people think. They don't want this to encroach on their Internet freedom.

I was brought up being told that one of the main purposes of our government is to help people who need help. When I was very young, this made me prouder than anything else of my government. I felt that way until the year that the San Jose Draft board voted 5-3 to call me not a student because I'd submitted my grades instead of the proper form, and made me 1A for service in Vietnam. As soon as I got a safe draft lottery number, they sent me a letter saying that they would grant me a 2S student deferment, because then they could get a shot at me in a later year. What was this game? Why was the government doing this sort of thing to a citizen? They aren't always about helping the people.

We have very few government agencies that the populace views as looking out for them, the people. The FCC is one of these agencies that is still wearing a white hat. Not only is current action on Net Neutrality one of the most important times ever for the FCC, it's probably the most momentous and watched action of any government agency in memorable times in terms of setting our perception of whether the government represents the wealthy powers or the average citizen, of whether the government is good or is bad. This decision is important far beyond the domain of the FCC itself.

Sincerely,

Woz

 

[Schlzm]

What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time.

I've heard various allegations to that affect here and there, but I've never seen any proof of the above.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/http://consumerist.com/2009/12/comcast-set...ng-lawsuit.html

Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;

Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.

This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. Schlzm

ETA: Where net neutrality started for the partisan hawks.

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

 

[pantagrapher]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

Competitive rate? How many individual broadband networks do you think there are in your city?

 

[Insein]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

Competitive rate? How many individual broadband networks do you think there are in your city?

Not seeing your angle here.

 

[ffldrew]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

But in many places they can't - you have only one provider - many of these providers were given monopoly access to right of ways to allow them to get big and keep out competition as a provider. The providers are trying to put this into place and have been reluctant to complete this model - Chairman Powell of the FCC was wrestling with this for years in the Bush administration and so many companies have been holding off on putting it into place. The Level 3 issues cited are just the tip of the iceberg on what these providers want to do. The Internet was created by the government and as stated before access to the "last mile" was highly regulated by Federal and Local governments all the way back to the Bell companies and ATT - so they have been meddling in this since pretty much Alexander Graham Bell. The Comcasts and Verizons love this because all they will have to do is sit in the middle and count the cash.

 

[Schlzm]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

But in many places they can't - you have only one provider - many of these providers were given monopoly access to right of ways to allow them to get big and keep out competition as a provider. The providers are trying to put this into place and have been reluctant to complete this model - Chairman Powell of the FCC was wrestling with this for years in the Bush administration and so many companies have been holding off on putting it into place. The Level 3 issues cited are just the tip of the iceberg on what these providers want to do. The Internet was created by the government and as stated before access to the "last mile" was highly regulated by Federal and Local governments all the way back to the Bell companies and ATT - so they have been meddling in this since pretty much Alexander Graham Bell. The Comcasts and Verizons love this because all they will have to do is sit in the middle and count the cash.

This should help him understand a little better. I picked the city/state at random.Schlzm

 

[Philo]

So, how does this affect me being able to download rather large movies...?

We could have a porn-free internet before you know it.

 

[jonessed]

The Senate likely kills this early next year anyway. Neither side really approves of the FCC taking this step and they don't need Obama to rescind it.

 

[ffldrew]

The Senate likely kills this early next year anyway. Neither side The campaign contributors don't really approves of the FCC taking this step and they don't need Obama to rescind it.

Fixed

 

[guderian]

It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.

This is absolutely what it's NOT about. If Comcast were to block access to sites (or even slow it) customers would switch en masse to alternative providers. I've lived in my house for 12 years and today I get speeds 6x what I got when I moved in and my monthly charge hasn't budged and I can access whatever I want. So, I'm not seeing a big need for the government to step in and regulate the Internet. This rule-making has been pushed by content providers in an economic dispute with the network providers. The network providers want to charge providers that create disproportionate network demand. Net Neutrality will limit that ability, therefore, the cost of network upgrades will be borne by the consumer or they won't be made. This was marketed as keeping the Internet "free and open", but the Internet has been a huge success story in the past decade plus and it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the government has stepped in to regulate it.

 

[Rich Conway]

Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;

Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.

This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. Schlzm

ETA: Where net neutrality started for the partisan hawks.

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how asking anyone (be it individual customer, carrier, ISP, or corporate customer) to pay more for more bandwidth or traffic relates to net neutrality. When did the country decide that all internet subscriptions must be unlimited at a flat rate?Why shouldn't AT&T Wireless be able to charge you $20 a month for 2GB of data, $30/month for 4GB, and $50/month for 10GB?

Why should Comcast have to accept Level3 pushing five times as much traffic to Comcast as Comcast pushes to Level3 without compensation?

Hell, for that matter, since it's apparently been decided that all internet subscriptions must be flat rate and unlimited, who says $39.99 a month for cable internet is the right price? Maybe the government should mandate it be no more than $25.

Again, if you want to discuss types of traffic or source of traffic, then we can discuss what rules the FCC (or anyone else) should be able to make. But charging more for more bandwidth? I can't see any way that it relates to "net neutrality".

 

[Schlzm]

Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;

Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.

This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. Schlzm

ETA: Where net neutrality started for the partisan hawks.

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how asking anyone (be it individual customer, carrier, ISP, or corporate customer) to pay more for more bandwidth or traffic relates to net neutrality. When did the country decide that all internet subscriptions must be unlimited at a flat rate?Why shouldn't AT&T Wireless be able to charge you $20 a month for 2GB of data, $30/month for 4GB, and $50/month for 10GB?

Why should Comcast have to accept Level3 pushing five times as much traffic to Comcast as Comcast pushes to Level3 without compensation?

Hell, for that matter, since it's apparently been decided that all internet subscriptions must be flat rate and unlimited, who says $39.99 a month for cable internet is the right price? Maybe the government should mandate it be no more than $25.

Again, if you want to discuss types of traffic or source of traffic, then we can discuss what rules the FCC (or anyone else) should be able to make. But charging more for more bandwidth? I can't see any way that it relates to "net neutrality".

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

 

[Thunderlips]

So, how does this affect me being able to download rather large movies...?

We could have a porn-free internet before you know it.

I wouldn't like it if the Conservatives did that!

 

[Insomniac]

It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.

This is absolutely what it's NOT about. If Comcast were to block access to sites (or even slow it) customers would switch en masse to alternative providers. I've lived in my house for 12 years and today I get speeds 6x what I got when I moved in and my monthly charge hasn't budged and I can access whatever I want. So, I'm not seeing a big need for the government to step in and regulate the Internet. This rule-making has been pushed by content providers in an economic dispute with the network providers. The network providers want to charge providers that create disproportionate network demand. Net Neutrality will limit that ability, therefore, the cost of network upgrades will be borne by the consumer or they won't be made. This was marketed as keeping the Internet "free and open", but the Internet has been a huge success story in the past decade plus and it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the government has stepped in to regulate it.

What alternate providers? Comcast and the other ISPs are not just network providers they're also content providers. If I want to watch a movie I can pay Comcast $4.99 for each movie or pay $7.99 a month to Netflix to stream as many movies and TV shows as I want. (At least that's what their web site says, I don't use it). Doesn't it seem likely to you that Comcast would like regulations that would allow them to degrade Netflix so much that nobody would use it? Then they could get more people to pay their outrageous prices.

 

[Rich Conway]

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?

 

[Schlzm]

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?

I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?Schlzm

 

[tommyboy]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

 

[Schlzm]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

 

[Insein]

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?

I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?Schlzm

I pity you, schlzm. You just take things at face value and accept what is handed to you. They say that they are keeping the internet "free and open" by enacting new regulations to do so. The internet is already free and open. How will this make it more so? You say its to stop hypothetically situations where telecoms will close the internet that havent occured yet. Yet the only examples you provide are, as Conway stated, contract disputes between 2 individual, PRIVATE parties. You refuse to see how this simple action of "protecting the free and openness of the internet," something no one would think of as a bad thing on its face is just the first step in the door to regulating the whole thing. They could care less about how free or open the internet is. They want to get in and start telling companies how much bandwidth is a "fair" amount so that they have a precedent to tell companies what is "appropriate" content later on.

 

[tommyboy]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

 

[Schlzm]

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?

I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?Schlzm

I pity you, schlzm. You just take things at face value and accept what is handed to you. They say that they are keeping the internet "free and open" by enacting new regulations to do so. The internet is already free and open. How will this make it more so? You say its to stop hypothetically situations where telecoms will close the internet that havent occured yet. Yet the only examples you provide are, as Conway stated, contract disputes between 2 individual, PRIVATE parties. You refuse to see how this simple action of "protecting the free and openness of the internet," something no one would think of as a bad thing on its face is just the first step in the door to regulating the whole thing. They could care less about how free or open the internet is. They want to get in and start telling companies how much bandwidth is a "fair" amount so that they have a precedent to tell companies what is "appropriate" content later on.

Well written but otherwise nothing more than a semi-eloquent attempt at a personal attack, which is weak at best considering my positions on other, and significantly more relevant, legislation. So pity away all you want gb.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

I am more than willing for this to be addressed in Congress and a better piece of legislation drafted that provides a clear cut ruling that provides maximum protections for the consumer and corporations without inhibiting available product or otherwise damage the industry. That would provide a better outcme overall and the FCC could be credited with getting this off the ground.Schlzm

 

[ffldrew]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.

 

[Insein]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.

So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?

 

[ffldrew]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.

So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?

Show me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.

 

[Philo]

maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?

Any government agency can regulate anything they want now, without Congressional approval or oversight. All they need to say is "We know what's best for you", and the sheeple roll over for it.

 

[Schlzm]

Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.

Schlzm

the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.

Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.

So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?

Show me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.

This is my feeling on it, pretty good middle ground for a fairly mild resolution.Schlzm

 

[Unlucky]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

Right, I'll just cancel my Comcast broadband internet and get the Other broadband internet company instead. What's that? There isn't another broadband company that provides internet via the cable lines to my place? I can't call someone to install that? Oh, right. I'm sure in some places, people don't have cable lines and rely on satellite. Or DSL. Neither of which are as fast or reliable.

In all seriousness, your attitude that companies will do the right thing because they don't want to lose business is a bunch of baloney. Just ask those fellas on Wall Street that Greenspan was sure would regulate themselves without the need for government interference.

 

[bueno]

I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.

 

[Unlucky]

I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.

Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.

 

[Unlucky]

Last thing before I go to bed: I'm with Rich Conway in that network providers should be able to charge for bandwidth if they so choose. I don't see it as being all that different from the power company charging you by how much electricity you use. However, it's got to be clearly stated.

What I'm not OK with is the network providers altering how web content is delivered based on what site I'm getting it from. As the end user, I should have equal access to all sites and the speeds I'm paying for.

 

[bueno]

I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.

Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.

Is Comcast a monopoly?

 

[Insein]

It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.

There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.

Right, I'll just cancel my Comcast broadband internet and get the Other broadband internet company instead. What's that? There isn't another broadband company that provides internet via the cable lines to my place? I can't call someone to install that? Oh, right. I'm sure in some places, people don't have cable lines and rely on satellite. Or DSL. Neither of which are as fast or reliable.

In all seriousness, your attitude that companies will do the right thing because they don't want to lose business is a bunch of baloney. Just ask those fellas on Wall Street that Greenspan was sure would regulate themselves without the need for government interference.

So you buy into the idea that a problem, that has yet to manifest itself, is going to threaten the internet. So we must police it before it exists. Sounds like the government is the right entity for the job. Government: If you think the problems we cause are bad, wait until you see our solutions.

 

[ffldrew]

I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.

Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.

Is Comcast a monopoly?

For broadband in some markets - yes

 

[Philo]

Show me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.

I'm gonna shoot my neighbor's dog, then kick his wife in the shin. Neither will be happy, sounds like that's a job well done.

 

[Philo]

Last thing before I go to bed: I'm with Rich Conway in that network providers should be able to charge for bandwidth if they so choose. I don't see it as being all that different from the power company charging you by how much electricity you use. However, it's got to be clearly stated.

We should switch back to a pay-per-usage model. $1/gb downloaded or whatever. Then split the revenue among the media providers: NBC, ESPN, YouTube, etc. If they offered to let us stream anything we wanted in exchange... any movie we want, any TV show we want, live sports events, whatever... it'd be a great deal. An end to piracy, an end to copyright controls, an end to Viacom et al. pulling remixes from Youtube, and a rational way to build an internet economy.

 

[tommyboy]

i guess you could compare the broadband industry to the railroad industry. there's about 5 major carriers left in the US, BNSF, UP, CN, CSXT and the NS are largest and each has mini monopolies in certain areas of the country yet they crossover in several major hubs as well. The theory is they would compete for business but since there's only 5 of them and they pretty much all know what each other is charging for freight hauls there's a defacto monopoly in place on hauling freight around the US. Congress has deregulated rail, and here we are today. You the consumer are paying for record railroad profits the last several years because they have no reason to compete. Is this good for us? i doubt it. Everything you buy is now more expensive simply because it costs more to move stuff.

I can see the same thing the broadband industry.

so on the one hand I'm for some regulation, mainly to force these companies to have to compete because in a robust capitalist society the free open market will determine the proper rates for goods and service in normal conditions. However what we have in the US is a few companies colluding to obstruct competition to protect margins and shareholder returns. I'm all for eliminating through congress the ability to obstruct competition, i'm all against the FCC making a powerplay to assign itself authority to make law.

 

[Insein]

i guess you could compare the broadband industry to the railroad industry. there's about 5 major carriers left in the US, BNSF, UP, CN, CSXT and the NS are largest and each has mini monopolies in certain areas of the country yet they crossover in several major hubs as well. The theory is they would compete for business but since there's only 5 of them and they pretty much all know what each other is charging for freight hauls there's a defacto monopoly in place on hauling freight around the US. Congress has deregulated rail, and here we are today. You the consumer are paying for record railroad profits the last several years because they have no reason to compete. Is this good for us? i doubt it. Everything you buy is now more expensive simply because it costs more to move stuff.

I can see the same thing the broadband industry.

so on the one hand I'm for some regulation, mainly to force these companies to have to compete because in a robust capitalist society the free open market will determine the proper rates for goods and service in normal conditions. However what we have in the US is a few companies colluding to obstruct competition to protect margins and shareholder returns. I'm all for eliminating through congress the ability to obstruct competition, i'm all against the FCC making a powerplay to assign itself authority to make law.

And thats what it all comes down to. If Congress passes a law that dictates this, theres not much we can say about it except to vote out the politicians we disagree with in the next election. If the FCC arbitrarily decrees that it has the authority to do these things, there is NOTHNG we the people can do about it.

 

[Rich Conway]

Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm

Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?

I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?Schlzm

Here's a grand summary of where I am with this. I'm not ignoring anything, just short on time.As a general rule, I'm against unnecessary government regulation. Further, I feel the burden of proof is on the government to show that any particular regulation/authority is necessary, rather than the other way around. That is, I shouldn't have to show why government shouldn't do something; government should have to show why it is necessary that they should do something. I don't think anyone has shown why this is necessary yet.The Comcast/Level3 thing is totally irrelevant to me, so anyone pointing to that isn't showing why government needs to step in. Ditto for AT&T, Comcast, or any other provider limiting consumers to certain amounts of GB per month. In most places, there are multiple options for internet access. True, there may only be one "cable internet" provider, but there are other options (e.g. DSL, satellite, etc.). The argument that "those aren't as good as cable" is a bad one. That's like arguing that Pepsi isn't as good as Coke, and therefore, government should be able to regulate how much Coke can charge because they have a monopoly on Coke. More to the point, even if there are locations where there is only one option, I think any regulation should come in the form of government regulating the local monopoly (e.g. making sure the local monopoly isn't using their monopoly status to overcharge its customers), not "regulating the internet federally".To date, the only instance that anyone has offered in this thread that comes close to a net neutrality argument is the BitTorrent thing, and from what I read in the articles posted, even those allegations were iffy.Back to the FCC, my issue with them doing anything in this area is one of the slippery slope principle. Once they've asserted their ability to regulate in this area and it goes unchallenged, I think it's a short step for them to go the next step and tell the carriers that they must block/deprioritize/report certain sites (e.g. gambling, drugs, etc.).