So long Net Neutrality!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

I understand (except for the homework part), it has become yet another form of media. But we've become spoiled with expectation that none of this cost any money. You didn't read newspapers or magazine for free back in the day, except when going to the library, because they cost money to produce. I don't know the comparative cost for the internet infrastructure per customer, so maybe it is pretty low and can be spread out to everyone providing some level of access. Speed and perhaps what you can access (non-essential services) are probably premium, as they have always been in other mediums.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jobs, employment searching, banking, schools, medicine, and most of our daily social interactions aren't moving toward TV though. I think the internet would be closer to the phone company than to TV.

and we now pay more for phones and to the phone companies than we have ever had.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, I wouldn't, much like a lot of things in my life I can do without and had left behind. Many other sites I would not go to if pay, FOFC would be one of the last though. I pay Comcast for email, my bank for online banking and Verizon for stuff on my Apple devices. Don't really need (as oppose to want/desire) anything else.

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

and we now pay more for phones and to the phone companies than we have ever had.

How do you figure? I can remember when we'd pay like $1/minute for long distance.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How do you figure? I can remember when we'd pay like $1/minute for long distance.

Sure but I am paying Verizon $50/month per phone (x4) even if I use no data. Don't recall ever paying that much in the old days even with long distance charges.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

Or if Comcast decided to charge per connection to Steam (I know, I'm sure Bucc installed Civ V via 87 3.5" disks).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

Then I would simply go to the bank in person like we used to, remember? But point taken.

Rhetorical question: Have we all sold our souls for the sake of convenience and immediacy? Knowing that this is not a modern question (people said that about the coming of the railroads) but companies and governments still want their ever-stronger control and influence and thus, how much are willing to give up or to pay for that?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Or if Comcast decided to charge per connection to Steam (I know, I'm sure Bucc installed Civ V via 87 3.5" disks).

No, 9 boxes of punch cards.

But you do remember playing a lot of great games for many hours before 1994, didn't you? Game publishers will always want to sell games to the public as they always have - just the mechanism to do so have changed and will continue to change. If one option ceases to be viable, then another one will take its place.

[cuervo72]

I remember games that were near impossible to get patches for. I also remember having to go to the store (usually in a mall) to find games and take blind chances on ones I'd never heard of before (the games threads here alone give me so much more info on games than I had before).

I also remember things like...phone books! Video stores! Buying things via the Sears Catalog! Doing research via a 20-year-old World Book Encyclopedia!

[cuervo72]

Dola - I also remember games only being multiplayer if someone was over your house. Which is very convenient as a 41yo...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Doing research via a 20-year-old World Book Encyclopedia!

What do you mean Ceylon isn't a country? Next you'll tell me the Shah isn't the ruler of Iran anymore.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cartman

What do you mean Ceylon isn't a country? Next you'll tell me the Shah isn't the ruler of Iran anymore.

Hey, according to my books Floyd Patterson is the heavyweight champ.


I also remember having to go to a travel agency to arrange any sort of trip (plane tickets, accommodations). And the AAA TripTiks! (Ok, those were pretty cool, but I've always liked maps. Oh, for the days of a Rand McNally atlas.)

[Buccaneer]

Not saying the 'old days' were better, just pointing out how things have changed and will change. I just wonder out loud the cost of expectations.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

Sorry to keep belaboring the point but I get the impression that if you can't do it (like homework assignments) through the internet, then people will throw up their hands and say that there's no way it can then happen (like giving your daughter a homework assignment). We are all pretty adaptable and I'm sure there will be ways to give out a homework assignment if one cannot get it online.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sure but I am paying Verizon $50/month per phone (x4) even if I use no data. Don't recall ever paying that much in the old days even with long distance charges.

cell phones /= landlines

apples to oranges

[cuervo72]

Well, if I wanted to order a pizza from Domino's over the phone, I wouldn't expect my phone carrier to reroute the call to Papa John's. That wouldn't fly, would it? But we're living in a corporate world where there are official sponsors for everything, you have to pour Powerade into Gatorade cups if you want to drink it at certain events, you can't be seen wearing certain shoes or apparel or jackets...what's to say Comcast couldn't have an Official Pizza, and all traffic to other pizza sites is redirected to that site? Seems trivial and ridiculous, but don't think that they wouldn't or couldn't do it if they thought they could. Repeat that for however many other products and services.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sorry to keep belaboring the point but I get the impression that if you can't do it (like homework assignments) through the internet, then people will throw up their hands and say that there's no way it can then happen (like giving your daughter a homework assignment). We are all pretty adaptable and I'm sure there will be ways to give out a homework assignment if one cannot get it online.

I think you just grossly overestimated the average American.

[JPhillips]

Sure, they could give homework that doesn't require the internet, but right now some of the homework requires the internet. A single family without the internet in a culture that nearly requires it is a real problem that manifests in several ways.

[stevew]

I see these caps and it's always confusing cause they try to label an average user as X, but I'm often in the heavier user category. But it's not like I'm streaming Supernatural on netflix for 12 hours a day or feel like online gaming is my second job either. If they wanna do caps, it totally needs to be neutral cause you're paying for X amount of GB a month. If it's unmetered usage it gets a bit more fuzzy. I'd hate to see widespread caps as whenever I get on a binge fit a few weeks at a time I can chew some data up.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not saying the 'old days' were better, just pointing out how things have changed and will change. I just wonder out loud the cost of expectations.

But I think the important thing to consider in any equation like this is

Benefits of Old - Cost of Old
vs
Benefit of New - Cost of New - Cost of Change

I think too often, we minimize "Cost of Old" and over exaggerate "Cost of New" and "Cost of Change"

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, 9 boxes of punch cards.

SI

[SportsDino]

I am tempted to fire up some of my old code and monitor my own traffic to see how much bandwidth streaming netflix takes and how much traffic is wasted (assuming the metric is bytes sent over the wire). With all this talk of caps and prioritized traffic there may be a market for my old tech to maximize traffic flow (think transparent BitTorrent like layer underneath all internet traffic). I bet I could even start an arms race with the comcast packet routers to a degree with a little traffic shaping.

The concept of a pay lane itself is great, as long as they do not sabotage traffic from a reasonable baseline. The problem is it is easier to screw up traffic than to add capacity, so losing a few packets here and there and advertising a fast lane which is pure artifice will be a likely gimmick.

In my opinion internet bandwidth should be decoupled from retail servicing and commoditized. It is easy to regulate at a low level and the big infrastructure guys still have a mint while competition at the retail level will be easier. It would be anti-oligopoly though so they would have massive incentives to kill it off.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by cartman

FTFY

I think the utility analogy is the best one to use. You flip a light switch, you expect the lights to come on. You turn on a faucet, you expect water to come out. You pick up a phone, you expect a dial tone. The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

But if you have a PUR filter on your faucet, and all of a sudden you could only run 0.1 gal/min through it when before you could run a gallon a minute, but the water company tells you if you buy brand X you'll get your 1/gal minute back, that would be an issue.

That's thing. You have good bandwidth now with FIOS, but without net neutrality, certain sites that you get to fine today (Netflix for example) might get put on the 'not preferred/not fast track' list, and you'd have to pony up to get back to the speed you were used to.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

This isn't South Korea.

It sure isn't. South Korea gets 3 times the download speeds, 12 times the upload speeds, all for a third of the price we pay.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area. It's so odd that I can only choose from Comcast and AT&T when other places have Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, and more. But strangely, everywhere I live, I have had, at most, 2 real choices.

Yet, if my suburb wanted to create a competing ISP, they could not because of state regulations that make no sense unless you're trying to curb any competition through legal means. Look, if the government sucks at the internet, then what competition does Comcast have to fear? Unless they know they've been sandbagging for years and our internet in this country is pathetic but with no competition, there's no incentive to change.

I know that I, for one, would hate to pay 1/10th as much money for 10x the speed:



Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually

SI

[Neon_Chaos]

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That is the primary concern I would say.

Increased speed due to increased competition is sort of a second or third-level benefit.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes. At least initially, it will be easier to profit by reducing speed and charging more rather than building new infrastructure.

[Buccaneer]

Another thing that amazes me is how such a large country such as US with its relatively low population density can be on par with my smaller and higher density countries. But then I know that there are parts of the US that has poor coverage/speed, which balances those that are exceptional.

My interest in all of this (which extends beyond net neutrality) is the infrastructure to 1) get more choices in metro areas and 2) get better coverage in rural areas. Those will come at a cost but as mobile usage has exponentially rose, the bandwidths (and available) has not kept up. What the ramifications of such cost are (esp. to ensure wider coverage), I don't know.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My interest in all of this (which extends beyond net neutrality) is the infrastructure to 1) get more choices in metro areas

This is the part that has me worried. If there was robust competition companies couldn't get away with reducing speeds, but when there's only one or two choices the fear of abuse is justified.

[Buccaneer]

To me, the most important factor is cost, not speed or content and thus, need better market competition.

[flere-imsaho]

One of my big issues with all of this is that the vast majority of the copper infrastructure was built with taxpayer money. Much of the fiber infrastructure is being built privately, but with significant taxpayer-funded incentives. So on top of re-selling a resource paid for by the taxpayer, these companies are reaping large profits and complaining that they need more money from the taxpayer/consumer. It's all just a bit much to take.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Another thing that amazes me is how such a large country such as US with its relatively low population density can be on par with my smaller and higher density countries.

The reason it can be is that while the overall population density of the US is low, we have a TON of areas with nearly 0 population density. About 80% of the US population lives in urban areas. Which is actually high compared to most other countries.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area.

And I can't think of anything I'd want less, there's no less capable or trustworthy entity for pretty much anything than local government, and that pretty much covers all of the ones I've lived under.

Better to turn the project over to 3 drunken chimps and a gecko.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sooner333

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

Originally Posted by dubb93

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is that I am paying my ISP for 250gb of data a month at X speed (in my case it's 50mbps.) However if I choose to use that data with Netflix, my ISP throttles my data and I end up getting a much slower speed....unless Netflix pays up. But what if Netflix doesn't pay up? Do I get a refund on speed? I definitely upgraded my speed twice.

Without Net Nuetrility this is legal and it is actually happening now. It doesn't matter which ISP I choose. Every one in my area (all two of them) are throttling Netflix. Even if I'm 200+Gb below my cap each month.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

Sooner actually asks an important question, which is NOT secondary in this discussion here. I tend to be on the (moderate) left sphere of things, but I can easily see why cable companies are worried about net neutrality under the current state of affairs. Netflix uses something like half of the bandwith in this country. However, it is the cable companies (mostly, fiber optic companies are coming along more and more quickly) that are under the hook for building the infrastructure to be able to support that. Netflix pays nothing for its taxing of the current infrastructure - which produces pressure on the cable companies to update said infrastructure.

So the cable companies say, Netflix pay us for your huge use of bandwith or else we'll slow you down so you don't use as much. I actually don't see that as something horrible.

The alternative, of course, if all content providers can access as much bandwith as possible, the cost is going to be passed onto the consumers. Data caps will be strictly enforced, as the phone companies have already begun to do.

So that's the tradeoff question, really. Do we want content providers to pay based on their usage (and that can be done in other ways than creating a 'fast lane' - maybe a price based on bandwith used) or do we want the consumers to pay? Now, the most economically efficient usage would probably be to have consumers pay - but do we really want that?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I understand (except for the homework part), it has become yet another form of media. But we've become spoiled with expectation that none of this cost any money.

This x1000. This also manifests itself in torrenting Premium shows. In that people feel they have a right to watch certain TV programs without paying for it, or paying what they feel like they want to and the time they want to.

[Buccaneer]

My company has installed a fiber network (with redundancy) covering the whole city for our wan backbone. Since the beginning, we have always set aside a portion of the band with for commercial use, which we charge an arm and leg.

Also, 15 years ago, Adelphia invested in our city to put fiber backbones throughout all residential and commercial areas (200 sq miles?). Their exhorbant investment was justified by ensuring exclusivity as well as tax breaks or else they would not have done it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Also, 15 years ago, Adelphia invested in our city to put fiber backbones throughout all residential and commercial areas (200 sq miles?). Their exhorbant investment was justified by ensuring exclusivity as well as tax breaks or else they would not have done it.

How many years of exclusivity should they get for that though? I'd imagine they'd have recouped their costs + a degree of profit by now?

[cartman]

Netflix peaks at about 35% of Internet bandwidth used. But for ISPs to say they are being overloaded is a bit wrong. Overall available bandwidth used on the Internet (at least in the US for the major providers) rarely tops 25% of available bandwidth.

And that they pay nothing for bandwidth is a bit incorrect. Their infrastructure is hosted on Amazon's cloud, and they definitely pay for outgoing data. So the ISPs are getting paid.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

And that they pay nothing for bandwidth is a bit incorrect. Their infrastructure is hosted on Amazon's cloud, and they definitely pay for outgoing data. So the ISPs are getting paid.

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

In the case of Netflix, I've seen the phrase "an undisclosed amount" used this week.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

It would be whatever Amazon worked out with the various ISPs they use for their data centers. I know that from my experience with it, usually there is some sort of flat rate negotiated for traffic up to a certain point, then a per MB/GB/TB charge for outbound traffic that exceeds that amount.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I know Netflix is paying their OWN ISP who they use to upload their streams. But do they pay the ISPs that their streams are traveling upon?

I fear that saying they shouldn't have to do that amounts to basically Comcast/Time Warner, etc building roads for everyone to use and being prevented from taking tolls. Which doesn't particularly sit well with me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

It would be whatever Amazon worked out with the various ISPs they use for their data centers. I know that from my experience with it, usually there is some sort of flat rate negotiated for traffic up to a certain point, then a per MB/GB/TB charge for outbound traffic that exceeds that amount.

But that's just the ISPs for their data center, right?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED

FCC gets Comcast, Verizon to reveal Netflix’s paid peering deals | Ars Technica

Not sure if specific details are available on the deals.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED

FCC gets Comcast, Verizon to reveal Netflix’s paid peering deals | Ars Technica

Not sure if specific details are available on the deals.

Thanks! It looks like the Wired one is necessary reading. In that Netflix by paying more to Comcast simply was to make a direct connection to Comcast - which probably should require a greater cost.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I fear that saying they shouldn't have to do that amounts to basically Comcast/Time Warner, etc building roads for everyone to use and being prevented from taking tolls. Which doesn't particularly sit well with me.

That isn't a real fair comparison. The toll is being paid on the other end. You are arguing that Comcast gets to build a road and that your family should have to pay to use it...and then you should have to pay for them to use it too since they are coming to visit you.

You can't argue that the toll isn't getting paid. Comcast has never been accused of giving people internet for free.

[SteveMax58]

Apologies for the novel in advance.

Yes the wired article is a very good overview and the diagram in the article is also very illustrative. One additional point I'd add is that the "internet backbone" depiction is (obviously & necessarily) high level but picture anywhere from 5-20 more "hands" (or providers if you will) in that little box where each of those 5 to 20 have individual connections with individual arrangements and throughput. Its really a completely different setup than what most people seem to believe based on the Netflix arguments, which to be perfectly frank, are intentionally clouding the issue of net neutrality.

A couple of thoughts while reading thru the thread (and seeing the general reactions elsewhere).

First point....People commonly say things like "if I purchase 50 Mbps internet access, I should get 50 Mbps to Netflix, or Microsoft, or whoever". When you purchase 50 Mbps (or whatever connection you have) to the internet (via your ISP, or "Access Provider" such as Comcast or Verizon), you are getting 50 Mbps to that ISP's handoff point(s), in principle. You are not (and I will say should not reasonably expect to be) getting 50 Mbps to ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET.

Think about what that would really mean....that would mean every access connection needs to have guaranteed bandwidth to EVERY OTHER ACCESS CONNECTION ON THE INTERNET. It isn't even fathomable how much backbone bandwidth that would require but suffice it to say, the world cannot do that. Hence why the argument that Netflix puts forth publicly is disingenuous at best.

If Netflix wants you to have 50 Mbps (or 10, or 20, whatever) direct to them available, then they should be reserving that much bandwidth on THEIR interconnects for each customer. That would of course not be viable for them to remain in business and thats why they don't do it. The alternative is to have a reasonably big pipe direct to ISPs and then cache content strategically within ISPs, to lower the aggregate throughput needed. So when you stream a movie, the contents of that movie are cached so that others within your same footprint also want to watch it, it will not cost them 2x the throughput. It does however cost the ISP twice the delivery bandwidth to you (not that anybody is complaining, but just being illustrative).


Second point....there are legitimate concerns that can be debated in regards to Title II classification. Yes, its true that technology has gotten to a very scary place in terms of what can be done by a (relatively) few hands with regards to the internet. Using the preferred pizza partner example mentioned before, while not impossible to redirect pages, the more likely scenario (due to public outrage, if for no other reason), is that the preferred partner will pay for advertising for customers that are "looking for pizza". So yeah you'll basically get annoying ads (on certain browsers but thats not any different than what the Googles of the world want to do with your Chrome browser, your connected home automation, or anything else. Its called monetizing and the least expensive direct cost to the consumer (i.e. you aren't paying per site visited, just the access charge). But I do concede that just because something isn't done today, doesn't mean it couldn't be more enticing at some point in the future. Hence the need for honest and informed debate on the subject.


Third point....it seems to be a meme that cable/telco ISPs are just sitting around content to not get their infrastructure capable of offering higher & higher speeds. I can tell you with absolute certainty that most ISPs have at minimum doubled and triple their individual data links (to end customers) and aggregate data links (to other providers) EVERY year for the past 8 years (and sometimes doubled twice in the same year, like in 2011). Now some of that is technology based (i.e. legacy HFC for cable, legacy twisted pair for telco), and not making technology leaps as soon as they could have, but thats what you get with large & bloated companies sometimes...little incentive to innovate. Couple that with the leaps coinciding with the Great Recession, and probably more hesitation than you'd want. Not a good excuse, but just pointing it out.

It also may not seem like it, may not be universally true in every corner of the country, and may be less common in rural markets where there is less competition....but increased speed is the absolute focus of a lot of people & companies.


Fourth point....On competition, the fact that the 3rd entrant to most major markets had to be Google should give some indication of the level of cost involved with digging up cities/suburbs & burying new fiber (i.e. look how long its taken them to build out KC with no ROI...who else could afford to that?). And the fact that Google had cities compete by showing they were capable of removing the red tape should also indicate how difficult it is for new entrants.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Fourth point....On competition, the fact that the 3rd entrant to most major markets had to be Google should give some indication of the level of cost involved with digging up cities/suburbs & burying new fiber (i.e. look how long its taken them to build out KC with no ROI...who else could afford to that?). And the fact that Google had cities compete by showing they were capable of removing the red tape should also indicate how difficult it is for new entrants.

Isn't the latter point somewhat disingenuous as it's typically the major ISPs lobbying to erect said red tape?

Again, the fact that it's illegal to have municipal or state ISPs practically everywhere is a joke. It's akin to the argument against a public option for health insurance: either the government is so incompetent that the product is worthless so what do these companies have to fear? Or, the government is so efficient that with a profit motive, a profitable company has no way to compete (however that should be balanced with the needs of a society: if it can be offered as cost neutral but benefits society, shouldn't we do it?)

Instead, we end up with this mish-mash of "the government is so incompetent and they offer it too cheaply for us to complete", which is a logical impossibility.

SI