191–200 of 343 posts
The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…
Help! More details anyone?
To be more clear, let's consider: I pay my ISP, a cable TV company, so much a month for Internet service with speeds -- Mbps, million bits per second -- as stated in the service, maybe 25 Mbps upload (from me to the Internet) speed and 101 Mbps download speed.
Now those speeds are just between my computer and my ISP. So, if I watch a video clip from some server in Romania, maybe I only get 2 Mbps for that video clip because that is all my ISP is getting from the server in Romania.
And I am paying nothing per bit moved. So, if I watch 10 movies a day at 4 billion bytes per movie, even then I don't pay more.
Now, to get the bits they send me, my ISP gets those from some connection(s) to the 'Internet backbone' or some 'points of presence' (PoP) or some such at various backbone 'tiers', 'peering centers', etc.
Now, long common in such digital communications have been 'quality of service' (QoS) and 'class of service' (CoS). QoS can have to do with latency (how long have to wait until the first packet arrives?), 'jitter' (the time between packets varies significantly?), dropped packets (TCP notices and requests retransmission), out of order packets (to be straightened out by the TCP logic or just handled by TCP requesting retransmission), etc. Heck, maybe with low QoS some packets come with coffee stains from a pass by the NSA or some such! And CoS might mean, if a router gets too busy (the way the Internet is designed, that can happen), then some packets from a lower 'class' of service can be dropped.
But my not very good understanding is that QoS and CoS, etc., don't much apply between my computer and my ISP and, really, apply mostly just to various parts of the 'Internet backbone' where the really big data rates are. And there my understanding is that QoS and CoS are essentially fixed and not adjusted just for me or Netflix, etc. E.g., once one of the packets headed for me gets on a wavelength on a long haul optical fiber, that packet will move just like many millions of others, that is, with full 'network neutrality'.
So, I ask for some packets from a server at Netflix, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Vimeo, WaPo, NYT, HN, Microsoft's MSDN, etc. Then that server connects to essentially an ISP but with likely a connection to the Internet at 1, 10, 40, 100 Gbps (billion bits per second). And, really, my packets may come from Amazon Web Services (AWS), CloudFlare, Akamai, some colocation facility by Level3 or some such; e.g., the ads may come from some ad server quite far from where the data I personally was interested in came from.
Note: I'm building a Web site, and my local colocation facility says that they can provide me with dual Ethernet connections to the Internet at 10 Gbps per connection.
Note: Apparently roughly at present it is common commercial practice to have one cable with maybe 144 optical fibers each with a few dozen wavelengths of laser light (dense wavelength division multiplexing -- DWDM) with data rate of 40 or 100 Gbps per wavelength.
So, there is me, a little guy, getting the packets for, say, a Web page. Various servers send the packets, they rattle around in various tiers of the Internet backbone, treated in the backbone like any other packets, arrive at my ISP, and are sent to me over coax to my neighborhood and to me.
So, with this setup, just where could, say, Netflix be asked to pay more and for what? That is, Netflix is already paying their ISP. That ISP dumps the Netflix packets on the Internet backbone, and millions of consumer ISPs get the packets. My ISP is just a local guy; tough to believe that Netflix will pay them. Besides, there is no need for Netflix to pay my ISP since my ISP is already doing what they say, that is, as I can confirm with Web site
I'm getting the speeds I paid my ISP for.
Netflix is going to pay more to whom for what?
Now, maybe the issue is: If the Netflix ISP and my ISP are the same huge company, UGE, that, maybe, also provides on-line movies, then UGE can ask Netflix to pay more or one or the other of the UGE ISPs will throttle the Netflix data. Dirty business.
But Netflix is a big boy and could get a different ISP at their end. Then the UGE ISP who serves a consumer could find that the UGE ISP still throttles data from Netflix but not from the UGE movie service? Then the consumer's ISP would be failing to provide the data rate the consumer paid for.
Or, maybe, the UGE ISP that serves me might send the movies from the UGE movie service not part of the, say, 101 download speed from my ISP to me and, instead, provide me with, say, 141 Mbps while the UGE movie is playing. This situation would be 'tying', right? Then if Netflix wants to be part of this 141 Mbps to a user who paid for only 101 Mbps, then Netflix has to pay their UGE ISP more; this can work for UGE because they have two ISPs and 'own both ends of the wire'.
I can easily accept that a big company with interests at several parts of the Internet and of media more generally may use parts of their business to hurt competition. Such should be stopped.
But so far the public discussions seem to describe non-problems.
"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…
Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…
Yes, this is a definition of an ISP. The ISP transmits requests from users to the internet, and the requested data back to the users. This is the product that Comcast already provides and charges their users for.
The users ask for internet content, the ISP (Comcast) is responsible for delivering it. If the users are clamoring for more content, taking more bandwidth, so be it. Comcast charges end users more money for more bandwidth already, through different pricing Tiers. If their infrastructure isn't big enough to keep up with customers demands then either they aren't meeting their existing contractual obligations with their customers, or they are falling behind technology wise. They have the money to keep up. They tend not to invest enough in their infrastructure, but that is a business issue. If Comcast is unhappy that users are using the service they paid for, they may need to restructure their offering to users, for example paying for bandwidth as a 'per amount transferred'. The critical point here is that it is a relationship only between the ISP (Comcast) and the end user, and the content providers aren't involved.
It is incredibly dangerous to confuse their relationship with their users with outside entities.
Net neutrality doesn't mean Comcast has to handle double the traffic from Netflix. Net neutrality means that Comcast has to handle the traffic from Netflix in the same way it handles it from other places. It could be slow, choppy, and a bad experience. They could choose to invest in a better network or not. They can charge users for more bandwidth, or other related infrastructure services.
What they cannot be allowed to do is discriminate against users and outside companies.
The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…
Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…
Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied.
The battle over getting Title II into consideration has already been won. The front has moved on to the details.
Also, how can an American government organisation consider paid priority on The (global) Internet? Isn't it better to say that "FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet for those who connect to it via a US telecoms provider"?
Each cable company will then assume the role of warlord for their userbase and proceed to dictate the terms and agreements under which their users will experience the internet. All of which guided solely by their desire to maximise profits.
If people aren't worried yet, they should be. Serfs didn't enjoy medieval Europe for a reason.
The only two viable routes out of this nightmare are:
1. Enshrine net-neutrality / common carrier status in law
or
2. Radically break up the US ISP/cable market so that real competition exists. This way Comcast is free to try and milk every teat they can find. If users or content providers don't like the result, Comcast can wither on the vine and die while competitors pick up their fleeing users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What difference does it make what they advertise? The existing advertising doesn't guarantee streaming 20Mbit from any host on the internet 24/7. If their advertising were scrupulously accurate, but they delivered the same service, why should you be happier?
twoodin: >The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly. dec0dedab0de: >Then maybe they should advertise a different bandwidth? twoodin: >What difference does it make what they advertise? If Comcast is having a hard time delivering on what they advertise, as…
"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…
Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…
This is based on a misunderstanding of what network neutrality means. The question isn't whether Comcast invests in their network but whether they can charge different rates based on the kind of traffic rather than the total volume.
If Comcast wants to skimp on network infrastructure, no problem.
If Comcast wants to charge their customers more for a high speed or uncapped plan, no problem.
If Comcast wants to charge their customers more to watch Netflix than Google Play, problem.
It really is time to decentralize and move forward with mesh networking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a valuable approach. If we could come up with examples of services like nonprofits that would be unable to pay and have their services negatively affected I think that could make people care about this issue. Maybe if we focused on things like Khan Academy, where their content is largely video. I think in that case its clear their money would be better spent developing a larger knowledge base instead…
I think if people would get away from this nebulous message that mostly seems to benefit for-profit companies, and focus on issues like ensuring access for non-profits and educational organizations, that there would be a lot more bi-partisan traction. Right now, the optics, for those not invested in the issue, come across as being mostly about Comcast and Netflix bickering over profits.
It'll backfire big time, and waste valuable time.