Will the FCC take over the net?
 

Hope this stays off parf...

» It

It is the nature of government. The more you control, the bigger your budget, which creates an incentive for controlling more.

Been nice knowing you..........

The linked article seems to think it's a done deal. So, any idea what type of censorship and/or fees we could expect if the feds take over?

It's for National Security.
Silence is the only way to get the right wingers under control.

Damn!
I guess it's back to the top row of the magazine rack at the convenience store...:(

I've been posting about this for more than a year.

This is about Net Neutrality.

The referenced link's agenda is to prevent expansion of government (which in general I support). But their position on this topic is not in the best interests of the consumer.

The net currently operates on the premise of Net Neutrality (unless you are in china or ME).

Anyone can access anything they want without limitations. That's a good thing.

The FCC has loosely maintained net neutrality even though their authority to do so has always been a grey area..

The large ISP's, Verizon, Cox, Turner, AT&T challenged the FCC's authority on the matter.

Their agenda is simple. They want to tier the internet. Think of your cable TV service. You pay $xx for 100 channels, you want HBO? Cough up $xx more per month. Sports package? That's another $xx per month.

So high bandwidth content that you are currently enjoying, Hulu, Youtube, NetFlix, PlayStation Network, Xbox Live etc...... are all going to cost either you or the provider more. If it costs the provider more you can bet the cost will get passed onto the consumer so end of day the consumer gets hosed.

The FCC and ISP's were in talks to try and hammer the whole thing out. Then it was discovered that google, who proclaimed to be staunch advocates of net neutrality and backed the FCC, and Verizon were having their own private negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html

Google Verizon and Google

I would rather have private companies compete to provide me the services I want (the current model) than the government mandating universally mediocre and expensive service (the net neutrality model).

The one place Comcast doesn't f*** me is for internet service.

For cable, they have figured out how to use the regulations to charge more for less service, and because they are granted a monopoly by the government, there is no one around to compete with them. And no, satelite is not an option in a neighborhood full of 60' trees.

But for internet, I can get it through the phone company and through the cell phone company as well...

Well said...competition creating choice is always best for the consumer.

Net neutrality is the current business model. The FCC is trying to maintain the current situation, the ISPs and the big content providers are tryign to change it.

To date, few (no?) ISPs have actually been discriminating between content by imposing different service levels or extracting different pricing. ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc deliver you webpages and content from content giants like Google/YouTube, eBay, Facebook, etc at more or less the same speed, latency, etc as they deliver content from a medium guy like Pelican or a small guy like your favorite blogger. As a practical matter we have "net neutrality" today.

What the ISPs and the content giants want to do is be able to cut deals between themselves to favor certain companies' Internet traffic over others', in return for a fee. The content giants want to to get their webpages delivered preferentially at higher speeds, with other content providers' webpages being delivered with lower priority, at lower speeds. The ISPs want to get paid for this. That is why they oppose net neutrality.

Personally, I don't want Google and Comcast deciding that I will be able to view YouTube's video streams fast and smoothly, but will have to wait and endure stutters/long buffering if I decide to view video from a different site like Vimeo. Or that I'll get search results lightning fast from Google, but slowly from a different search engine like Bleko. I'd rather the playing field stay level and new, small content providers have the same opportunity to catch on and grow as Google and YouTube did when they were small.

You guys are not getting it.

FCC is looking to maintain what you have TODAY. As in right now.

The private companies are looking to take what you have TODAY and dice it up so they can charge you MORE for the same thing TOMORROW.

What they want is exactly this,

So this will magically be the ONLY time that MORE government regulation leads to lower prices and increased competition?

As soon as government regulates something, it gives the big dogs in an industry a place to lobby to get laws/regulations passed to push the little guys out. This has literally happened in every single industry ever regulated.

Under the current system, anyone can offer internet service that can deliver the technology to deliver it. Under the proposed system, there will certainly be more onerous barriers to entry in the market.

Competition is what keeps the ISPs honest. If tomorrow Comcast decided to block all traffic to BBSes, by next week I'd have Internet through my landline, or through satellite, or through a cell phone provider.

Under the proposed system, the ISPs can lobby the FCC for the right to restrict certain kinds of traffic, it can be granted, and I'm SOL.

Net Neutrality is really just Newspeak for Net Control.

Net Neutrality changes nothing as you now know it.

The problem for the ISP's is this, broadband penetration is saturated right now, ~75% of households. The remaining 25% are mostly too rural (expensive) to be considered for fiber runs or are apartment complexes where access is provided to all tenants over one wire, ISP facing account.

Add in the mobile devices like the iPhone which pushed mobil data traffic higher than anyone has ever seen.

And the type of content has changed drastically to bandwidth sucking rich media.

The ISP's are feeling cheated by VoIP services, (and I can see their point). With respect to the major's they also provide TV. Why would anyone pay $2-3 for an on demand movie when they can sign up for Netflix and get unlimited streaming movies for $8 a month which is carried to the consumer over the ISP's pipe.

The ISP's want a piece of that content pie. Tiering the net is their way to get it.

You cannot tell me that once the government gives itself the right to regulate something, it will stick to its original mandate.

The EPA was created to stop pollution, it has just given itself the right to regulate CO2.

The FCC was created to regulate landlines, it has given itself the right to regulate television and cable.

Even if the FCC sticks to its mandate of "net neutrality" for now...someone at some time will get the bright idea to "improve" the regulations.

Getting the government involved gives lobbyist a one-stop shop for enacting their agenda. The PETA will want hunting videos banned. "Decency" activists will want porn banned. All it will take is a few politicians who want their votes in exchange for delivering their fringe agendas and the internet will no longer be "neutral".

Even from the start, the FCC will be required to decide what things are more equal than others. Should bandwidth be rationed to ensure equality? (Who will pay for the software to enforce the rationing?)

Google got a taste of their own medicine recently over that, too

Google TV being blocked by major networks

and...

More Things You Can't Stream on Google TV: Comedy Central, VH1, and MTV

There are very few companies that own the "last mile" access to your house.

The local cable company owns the coax access - which they acquired during decades of regulated monopoly status. The local telco owns the copper access - again, acquired during decades as a regulated monopoly. As a result, a handful of companies effectively have a oligoopoly over the last mile access required to deliver wired Internet access to most Americans' homes. They would like to use this oligopoly control to extract payments from the content providers. And the biggest content providers would like to enlist the access providers to disadvantage competing content providers. Thus the efforts to change the current system of de facto net neutrality. No dominant company actually wants to compete in a free market, you know.

Things are different in wireless. There, each Anerican has a choice between several wireless access providers, and anyone can start another access business, you just need about $10 billion. So I don't have a strong opinion about whether net neutrality should apply to wireless.

Interesting.

There is only one reason that this is an issue at all.

The ISP's, desire to take more control of the net purely for their own financial gains.

They have spent hundreds of millions of $'s lobbying and contributing to political campaigns with the sole purpose of separating you from more of your money.

The FCC sat with them to try and hammer it out. But Verizon got caught talking out of both sides of their face and forced the the FCC into this position.

And you're on their side?

Recent related development. Comcast informed Level Three, who handles the online streaming of movies for Netflix, that it would block online movies to a Comcast subscriber unless Level Three pays Comcast a fee per subscriber.

People don't understand "net neutrality" it would be a bad thing and it has nothing to do with your home Internet connection.

The reason is because the handoff of data is totally lopsided. Level 3 gives bandwidth away for pennies then hands it off to companies that actually have infrastructure in place.

Not because online movie and TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu are leading some people to cancel or downgrade their Comcast cable subscriptions . . . ? Or because Comcast's own streaming video service has not been successful compared to that of its' competitors like Netflix . . . ? Or because Comcast sees Netflix streaming becoming adopted by set-top box companies like TiVO to Apple, and realizes that it threatens Comcast's own DVR rental business . . . ?

Note that Comcast is already paid, via its subscribers' steep monthly fees, for providing bandwidth and infrastructure to subscriber homes. Note further than Comcast is not blocking other heavy traffic services like YouTube, so apparently they do care what the content is, not just how much bandwidth it uses.

Explain please, what is your understanding of what net neutrality is and why do you think it's bad?

Netflix ='s competitive content

Youtube ='s not.

So yes, I agree, it would appear it's an issue of content.

There just isn't enough competition in communication companies to the home and these cable companies have built their own 'conflict of interest' within the company by offering competing services.

I used to work for Time Warner Cable managing some of their cable modem networks. It was a great job by the way but I digress... Video is a natural over these high bandwidth services. They see that they are putting their own cash cows out of business by offering the services that support the video delivery systems of the internet.

The answer is a better competition model ultimately but how do we stimulate that? Tiered internet systems are coming back I suspect... Yep, I said COMING BACK! they used to be all the rage back in the dial up days - pay per minute and all that. Now it'll be 'pay per mega/giga/tera byte/bit'.

Personally, I don't like the trend and I hate the idea of these contracts determining which web pages get better treatment. I don't know that the answer is but I know the root cause is the way we monopolize local access. There just isn't enough viable competition.

At my house I have 4 options but none of them really compete well. I can get cable, the best option probably as far as speeds are concerned. I'm supposed to be able to get DSL but every time I call them to talk about it they tell me it isn't available in my area. I could do a cellular plan but even their 'unlimited' plans are capped at 5GB per month (unlimited is redefined in the fine print) and then there is satellite which is way expensive and slower.

The infrastructure model we are using today simply does not work.

There is an interesting infrastructure that I have seen for businesses in Santa Monica. They have their own city fiber infrastructure and the city sells access to it to the carriers. The last mile is owned by the carrier. I don't know how well it works but it sounds better to me. It allows any carrier to provide service to any customer.

Sounds interesting to me.

I thought fighting that was the basis of the Net Neutrality push.
Now I see some articles saying that Net Neutrality is the devil, or isn't what we were led to believe it was. :?:

A real 'net neutrality' bill in my book would be very simple.

Quality of Service, prioritization or marking of any kind to determine preference for traffic is not permitted for anything but VOICE traffic. Voice traffic must be prioritized if it is providing e-911 service but NOT if it isn't. In otherwords - if it isn't primarly line - screw it. It's just like everything else.

nobody is preferred over anyone else. It's FAIR and based on the bandwidth available to the customer.

I'm okay with paying Comcast a significant monthly fee for high-speed internet access (and I do pay).

Having paid that fee, I'm not okay with Comcast then trying to control what I can use that internet access for, including their attempt to economically hobble the $10/mo Netflix on-demand service and steer me toward Comcast's own on-demand service which is clunky and costs a lot more.

Considering Comcast made $36BN of revenue and $3.6BN of net income in 2009, I think they are making enough money off me, without getting me to pay more for their lousy on-demand service.

If the federal government can't do anything about Wikileaks...I doubt it can deny other offensive sites...

It's about those that have infrastructure like comcast and those that don't like level 3 and cogent. These guys sell bandwidth to companies like Netflix for dirt cheap then just handoff the traffic to other carriers that have the infrastructure to deliver the content to your devices. It costs a lot of money to have a decent network and it's hurting the companies that are forced to carry the extra traffic more or less for free.

They aren't doing it for free - they charge their customers an access fee to get to that and other content providers. Comcast and the other home internet providers are upset because there are competing services to their video and phone services out there on the internet.

Competition is GOOD right? We just don't have it in the penultimate and last mile of residential Internet services. They have a conflict of competitive interest in that they both provide internet access to users who want to get to content on the internet and they also have a great deal of their company wrapped up in a product that competes with those content providers.

No, level 3 hands off ip traffic to the other carriers for free. It's supposed to be a near 50/50 handoff but it's not.

Comcast isn't carrying Netflix streams to me "for free". My $100/mo and the other subscriber fees that add up to $36 billion/yr in revenue proves it. Their $12 billion in operating cash flow and $5 billion in free cash flow (from memory) prove it. They are being paid very well for carrying that content. I want that content, and I'm paying Comcast to carry it to me. What Comcast is doing is trying to get me to switch my choice of content - they charge L3, L3 charges Netflix, Netflix charges me, I switch to Comcast's on-demand video, Netflix goes under, then lo and behold Comcast charges me more for on-demand video. It is quite transparent.

Good god. no, they do not charge L3. They cant. Telecom act of 95. oh yea great 12 whole billion? wow man. that is nothing. its not going to cover the upgrades they have to make to keep up with what L3 and Cogent dump on them.

L3 and Cogent go under. Neflix is forced to buy from one of the real players. Every one watches their netflix like nothing ever happened. Everyone is happy. It is quite transparent.

Comcast is likely BUYING bandwidth from L3, just like they have to do with every other major telecoms to connect to what is commonly referred to as 'The Internet'. L3 and cogent aren't dumping on them, Comcast's customers are requesting access to services on the Internet. If comcast's network can't handle it then that is their problem and they need to remedy it. IF they need to raise prices to do it - then that again is the way it is.

The Internet is just a conglomeration of Telco/Carrier networks. Netflix buys bandwidth from L3 as their Internet Carrier. If Comcast has bandwidth from L3 - then they are likely paying for that. If they don't like it they can disconnect it, the traffic will still get to Netflix via L3 - it'll just go through another carrier to get to L3. These Internet 'backbone' companies like L3, AT&T, Verizon, and others sell their peering arrangements and those peering arrangements are what make the Internet so.

Comcast likely has set themselves up to have a backbone provider-like network. In the ISP's I have worked at - that is what our goal was most of the time. We would partner with someone like L3 to get us 'backbone' connectivity between our different properties across the country and then have major points of presence where our customer's traffic would exit our network to get to the rest of the Internet. In these major points of presence we would usually peer with more than one carrier to diversify our routes and optimize our customer's experience. My ISP experiences however did not hold any content so the traffic was always exiting our network - never staying local unless it was P2P traffic or some service we were providing like mail, voice, etc.

Google's arrangement with Verizon is a little unique in that they are actually putting content inside Verizon's network to get it closer to those customers. That is a little different - at that point Verizon doesn't really have to prioritize it in anyway as it won't be competing to get out of the Verizon network. It might be competing locally with other user traffic but not to get out of Verizon's network.

Those two scenarios make up the battle. The first bit is competing to get through and out of the local network - say the neighborhood, to the regional aggregation point and then to the point of presence. The next step is getting out to the Internet from the POP. In either of those scenarios you can treat traffic to different content or of different purpose differently. Most of the time that only is the case when you have congestion but it can be 'shaped' so that it is treated some way specially all the time.

It's called Quality of Service.

If the Internet were neutral - QOS would be minimal and all traffic would be treated the same regardless of source, destination or purpose. There should be few exceptions to that in my opinion.

I hope Comcast charges L3. There is no room left for pissant networks to operate in the US. Several times in the last 5+ years, att vizon sprint whoever have pulled the peering plug on level 3 and cogent. Net Neutrality folks like to make a big deal out of it but if the government didn’t force it, no one would peer with them.

Also, my opinion of this whole Comcast/L3/Netflix deal is that it isn't about the content it's about the peering agreement between Comcast and L3. This isn't about net neutrality - it's a peering dispute. If Comcast doesn't want to be transit for L3 then they should just tag their BGP neighbor relationships with 'no-advertise'.

I agree with you there.

So instead of competing for business by offering better prices or better service, they want to put restrictions on the other guy so they can offer their same old service at higher prices. That's free market capitalism at work. That's always best for the consumer.

But competition is not good for business. Monopolies are the best way to make money. Capitalism discovered that in the late 19th century. That's why we have anti-trust laws, (which are apparently bad because it's the darn government meddling again). "Competition creating choice" without control (ie government) will result in one or two providers owning the whole system and completely controlling prices and content. Someone is going to be in control. I'd rather it be someone I can vote for or against.

Yup. Netflix's CDN was Akemei who did pay Transit to to Comcast. Level 3 did not want to pay Transit and thought they could force it under their existing Peering agreement.

The Net Neutrality claim in this case is simply the playing the race card.

Level 3 thought Comcast would fold as they don't want the negative press while they try to purchase NBC.