Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

34 Replies - 1216 Views - Last Post: 27 February 2015 - 09:26 PM

#1 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 9899
  • View blog
  • Posts: 37,662
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 12:13 PM

In a stunning lurch the FCC made gains on the net neutrality topic today..

Quote

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.
[...]
The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.

http://arstechnica.c...s-and-title-ii/

Some caveats:

Quote

However, the proposal has certain restrictions to tamp down fears from internet service providers (ISPs). For example, the proposal does not give the FCC authority to regulate pricing of internet service like it could with phone service. The FCC had authority to regulate phone pricing because phone companies had a monopoly. The FCC's net neutrality proposal clearly doesn't view ISPs as monopolies.

http://www.businessi...proposal-2015-2

Still a long row to hoe:

Quote

It's not over. The telecom companies like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T are likely going to try and fight the FCC's proposal. In fact, AT&T has already started its case against the FCC. Congress will likely take action on net neutrality in the coming months. Meanwhile, the FCC will have to release the full proposal — which is reportedly over 300 pages — so people can look it over and submit comments.

http://www.businessi...2#ixzz3SsbR1fxu

Relevant side reading:
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
http://transition.fc...rts/1934new.pdf
https://en.wikipedia...ons_Act_of_1934

Telecommunications Act of 1996
http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html


This is definitely a positive movement today - especially when juxtaposed against the AM talkshow host yesterday trying to explain that net neutrality *REALLY* means Obama is going to look at website content of liberal and conservative sites.. and the conservative site has more readers a portion of those readers will be blocked (or directed to) the liberal site.. Something about net neutrality is content control, content spying, and pushing a liberal media agenda.

Is this what everyone was expecting four or five years ago when it started to crop up? Anyone not happy with the movement? Predictions on how this is going to pan out (as much as anything can be finalized in the government)?

Is This A Good Question/Topic? 1
  • +

Replies To: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

#2 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 8283
  • View blog
  • Posts: 14,282
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 12:25 PM

Interesting. I always wondered why the tech community ignored the positive use of prioritizing content - it seems to me that "net neutrality" is simply the claim that all bits should move at the speed of the slowest bits, meaning you need to have big enough pipes to move email at streaming video speeds. This seems wasteful to me.
I think I would actually prefer to have stuff that has to go fast be moved to the front of the queue, and if that means charging for that, I'm okay with NetFlix having to pay more to move their bits faster. (of course, this would mean that responsive sites have to pay extra as well, or get less responsive - but I'm totally okay with losing wiggly widgets on sites that don't need them, and I'm also totally okay with the people who use the resources more heavily having to pay more for that)

(oops, I think I just outed myself as a classical liberal... shit)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 9899
  • View blog
  • Posts: 37,662
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 12:38 PM

Verizon seems to have an issue with the net neutrality ruling..
Spoiler

http://publicpolicy....on-the-internet
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#4 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:00 PM

That's already done, though. Your bits travel at the speed your network is capable of delivering at. If I'm running a server on a 10 year old computer with a single 1.8ghz processor, 8gb of RAM, running Apache 2.2, I can't really be upset when my content delivery isn't nearly as fast as Netflix.

We already have speeds throttled on one side by ISPs - users are forced to pay for different bandwidth packages. If I want enough that everyone in my house can game reliably, not only do I have to build a network to handle it but I have to buy enough bandwidth for all devices to communicate simultaneously.

Think of it like a road, and the data as cars. Your speed limit is 10mph. You have to deliver 500 cars to buyers. Those buyers pay the cable companies to open the roads to them so they can receive your cars. Then you have to pay 10 cents per delivery or a flat rate of $200 a month, to deliver your cars. Want to deliver them faster so you can compete with other car sellers? Well, for an additional $25/mph you can deliver faster! If you want to buy the premium access package for $25,000 a month you can drive as fast as your cars can move! Of course, that's just for customers on THEIR road system. You want to be able to deliver to all road systems equally, so you have to buy comparable packages from every provider. And of course, they can do whatever they want to your bandwidth while you're negotiating, because it's theirs to control.

Think that doesn't happen? Only a year ago Comcast put Netflix into a bandwidth chokehold to force them into paying for prioritized bandwidth. Netflix lost a lot of customers due to complaints of slow service as a consequence. Now other ISPs such as Verizon, are well aware that thy could get away with doing the same.

What about those of us who run our own websites? Why should we be penalized? I have thousands of dollars sunk into my servers, now I should pay out the ass to to provide post-dialup speeds to my 300 or so visitors a month?

And what about the users who want their email, but can't get it because Rupert Murdoch is paying off Comcast to block Google entirely? Cause that's not discrimination.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#5 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:05 PM

Think about what it would mean for DIC, which already has occasional issues managing. It's not a for profit site, so it's not like we'd be able to afford to have meaningful bandwidth, and maybe EarthLink customers couldn't get to the site as all.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#6 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 8283
  • View blog
  • Posts: 14,282
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:17 PM

The question is not how fast your servers can pump out packets, the question is how fast those packets can traverse the network. And right now, we've got an architecture that says "all packets are equally time-critical". Including, for example, an email (which is going to sit on the recipient's mail server until retrieved) and the next frame of BladeRunner being delivered to your machine, which is only useful at all if it arrives within the buffering window. Both of those factors get the same priority at every node of the network. This means the entire network has to be built to treat all packets as immediately urgent, life or death items.

Does that seem like good design to you? It seems idiotic to me.

View Postdepricated, on 26 February 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

Think about what it would mean for DIC, which already has occasional issues managing. It's not a for profit site, so it's not like we'd be able to afford to have meaningful bandwidth, and maybe EarthLink customers couldn't get to the site as all.


This would actually lower costs for people who are not looking to buy fast packets. DIC would do better without net neutrality.

Consider a real-world analogue: "postal neutrality". We have two companies, one shipping fresh flowers and the other shipping books. The orchids have to arrive within twelve hours or they're completely useless, the books can take two weeks and they're fine. Do you, as the bookseller, want to be required to pay for your books to arrive within twelve hours? No, of course you don't. But under "postal neutrality", you have to deliver all post at orchid speed - and that has to be paid for.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:23 PM

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 26 February 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

The question is not how fast your servers can pump out packets, the question is how fast those packets can traverse the network.

What I'm saying is that right now, that's how it is. The host and guest are responsible for the speed of delivery. Or rather, for providing for it. The user is already paying to prioritize their speed of delivery.

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 26 February 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

Does that seem like good design to you? It seems idiotic to me.
Yes, because it's non-discriminatory. Users pay for prioritization of their queue, hosts are responsible for providing. The providers shouldn't be able to step in and deprioritize or entirely block hosts for any arbitrary reason.

Who are you to say that my email, or my IM conversation, is less important than your frame of Get Smart or the next note of Skrillex?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 ArtificialSoldier  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 579
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,139
  • Joined: 15-January 14

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:29 PM

Quote

Does that seem like good design to you? It seems idiotic to me.

What's the alternative? Allowing packets to self-report how critical they are? Wouldn't that be like the priority flag in email, where certain of my clients decide that all of their emails are urgent and everyone else is normal? That sounds about as useful as RFC 3514.

Quote

Including, for example, an email (which is going to sit on the recipient's mail server until retrieved) and the next frame of BladeRunner being delivered to your machine

But my mail server can push mail to my client, so hopefully you're not too upset if your relaxation time gets a little hiccup because the network was busy trying to tell me that all of my servers just went offline.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#9 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:33 PM

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 26 February 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

This would actually lower costs for people who are not looking to buy fast packets. DIC would do better without net neutrality.
And I may have never gotten into programming, because the resources would have been unavailable when DIC had to choose one ISP to dedicate it's $250/mo to, so they went with Comcast|TWC for the most exposure, leaving us AT&T customers completely unaware of the site's existence. It's not just packets, they wouldn't be obliged to provide service to any connected device.

Quote

Consider a real-world analogue: "postal neutrality". We have two companies, one shipping fresh flowers and the other shipping books. The orchids have to arrive within twelve hours or they're completely useless, the books can take two weeks and they're fine. Do you, as the bookseller, want to be required to pay for your books to arrive within twelve hours? No, of course you don't. But under "postal neutrality", you have to deliver all post at orchid speed - and that has to be paid for.

Almost sounds like a reason to construct an alternative delivery network built to handle your specific need for 12 hour deliveries. Something like couriers, DHL, FedEx, UPS? But you're suffering from analogy backfire here, too. Hosts already have to pay more to handle the speed and volume they're delivering. I pay next to nothing to host my sites. Compare that with Blizzard who pays through the nose for bandwidth to deliver to all their customers. This is one of those cases where the John Galt Free Market approach is clearly not going to work: that price isn't going to go down for me, it's just going to go up for me as I start having to pay a fee to every ISP to deliver on their network. Blizzard will get hit even harder. Sure, cable companies love it - it's almost like printing money, getting to triple charge your data transfers that you're already double charging for.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:40 PM

That may not have been clear, what I was trying to say.

I, as a user, have to buy bandwidth already.

I, as a host, have to buy enough bandwidth to reliably carry my output.

I should not, as a host, then also have to pay to prioritize my output, when I already pay to prioritize my output as a host by defining the speed of the line I buy.


It's not USPS saying to Bookseller: "you have to pay for 12 hour delivery on all packages." it's USPS saying to Bookseller: "Even though you already pay for 5-7 day delivery on all packages, we're going to reduce you to 14-21 day delivery unless you pay an additional $5 per package"
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#11 ArtificialSoldier  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 579
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,139
  • Joined: 15-January 14

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:47 PM

Quote

Consider a real-world analogue

There already is one. Phone systems. A city's water distribution system. The electrical grid.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#12 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 9899
  • View blog
  • Posts: 37,662
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:48 PM

@jon - back to your post #2 - the general feel I get is that "current speed" is the fast lane, and non-prio content would be dumped to a slower speed. Much like certain cellphone carriers that have "unlimited" but throttle after some amount of usage. The ISPs would clamor - pay us more to remove the throttle block for streaming sites, usenet browsing, or online video game playing.

The long held concern is ISPs would start to package site groupings much like how cable companies do it with channels.

Also I do not think this means prioritizing content to have "responsive sites [...] losing wiggly widgets". Content inspect would be kicked to the curb and all things treated on an even field. Remember the ISP subscribers are typically the ones to be punished by the resources they use.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#13 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1024
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,319
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:57 PM

Yea I'd completely forgotten about the bundling thing.

Posted Image
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 8283
  • View blog
  • Posts: 14,282
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 02:45 PM

View PostArtificialSoldier, on 26 February 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Quote

Consider a real-world analogue

There already is one. Phone systems. A city's water distribution system. The electrical grid.


Yes, there are many. Some of them, it makes sense to prioritize, some of them it doesn't. So you're telling me you think the postal service would be more efficient if all packages were sent first-class mail? I don't like that very much.

View Postmodi123_1, on 26 February 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

@jon - back to your post #2 - the general feel I get is that "current speed" is the fast lane, and non-prio content would be dumped to a slower speed.


Right. And right now, we've designed a system that requires that all users pay for premium rates, all the time, even if they don't want it. This seems less than ideal.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 ArtificialSoldier  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 579
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,139
  • Joined: 15-January 14

Re: Movement on the Net Neutrality topic..

Posted 26 February 2015 - 02:50 PM

Quote

So you're telling me you think the postal service would be more efficient if all packages were sent first-class mail? I don't like that very much.

No. I'm not talking about the postal service, I'm talking about network traffic. I think it should be treated equally because there isn't an unbiased way to prioritize things. I don't like the idea of my network traffic getting shoved to the bottom of the stack because I don't have the super ultra mega plan from Comcast.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3