Net Neutrality

[Spawl]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/technology/net_neutrality_FCC/index.htm?postversion=2009092114

First of all, I want to preface all of this by saying I am a fan of net neutrality in principle. I'm also a capitalist and I believe that government control can really stifle a market.

So, that said, get ready for changes in how you pay for internet service. Net neutrality does some things very well but what it doesn't do very well is allow companies to continue with their current service plans. In a competetive environment where many services oversubscribe just to make their revenue targets changing the policies to allow more traffic and basing the neutrality statements towards the service plans will cause the service providers to change to a bucket type system where you buy the amount of bits that you will be using. If you go over, you will end up paying overage charges similar to what you do with your cell phone. The all-you-can-eat variety of internet service base price will go up as companies will have to treat everything the same and the casual consumers will be treated just like the high end businesses that want the services as a dedicated backhaul.

For a dedicated T-1 in this area (1.5 Mbps up and down) the costs are around $450 per month. That guarantees that service level and you pay a premium for it. We are spoiled at home with speeds of 6+ Mbps and although it does fluctuate, we hardly notice. If everyone was capable of using servers and other devices that require constant connectivity the top end of the "up to" speeds will come down and depending on the oversubscription of the area you will see a degradation. People will be able to do more with their internet, but it will come at a cost.

I don't like government mandated rules in this area. I feel that there was a pretty good market niche that some companies have been able to take advantage of by not blocking or shaping content. Putting an official government policy about net neutrality into effect will be detrimental to the business environment and will end up changing how we pay for our broadband. If every packet needs to be treated the same then it will be the power users that will pay the higher prices and that will affect a lot of us here.

[Mutt]

I have a year free on a 25 Mbps connection and then its $45 per month (one of the advantages of living in a modern downtown condo).

That said, I can completely see a situation where peak hour bandwidth costs more than off hour bandwidth. Similar to cell phone plans where "free hours" is seen on some contracts

[Pfriar]

I see your points, and don't completely disagree. However, I don't see the argument from these big ISPs. The infrastructure depending on what you want is already in place. As in, I have a cable connection at home and pay close to $200 a month for 3 different services, Cable 30+ MB/sec (yes i know that if all my neighbors decided to use the internet I might not get that, the "common people" don't though), Cable TV with almost every channel option available except the monthly Adult options nor "The Movie Channel" options. But I do have Stars, HBO, Showtime, yadda yadda yadda. HDTV options and two DVRs, one for me and one for her. And phone service, cause my wife can't figure out how having Vontage or Magic Jack is as good as having a direct line.. But whatever....

So now the idea that I might have to pay more cause of use.. Wait.. I just did pay for use.. I paid my monthly charge for services rendered. The problem I see is these companies see others like Cell Phone providers, making hand over fist for their services and various charges, hell I pay Verizon $260 a month for 4 phones, two smart phones which I am required to have data plans, and then a third straight up cell phone, and then also my car has On-star and that can be linked to a Verizon Family plan setup. We also have 2100 minutes.

My point is, yes I understand that these companies are for profit companies. But at the same time I disagree with how they feel they are being slighted or over burdened by end-users. They have ways to detect if services are being misused by the end-user, does the end-user have servers up so on and so forth. A user I work with uses a DNS service that determines if his external IP address changes and if so to reconfigure the DNS settings for the site he hosts at home, and the exchange server he has up. Obviously he is miss-using a "home" service and should be paying a "business" service since "home" services shouldn't be running servers as per the use agreement of most Home ISP providers. These are the people that should be target for paying higher fees, not those using it in the correctly in the terms of service agreement. But these are the people they want to pay for those that don't use the services correctly.

As in the cell phone case, I know for a certain with my account from Verizon they are making hand over fist. Because I we never come close to hitting the 2100 minutes and I rarely use it to view websites or others, neither does my wife. Could I get rid of my "Smartphone" and use a dumber phone, yes. So I guess I've agreed to pay more because I'm too lazy to change my plan or get a new phone. But then again most people that have these services are in the same boat.

So all I see is ISP and others making these services more complicated not because the government wants to regulate this, but because they see a bigger dollar at the end of the tunnel. People will overbuy what they feel they need because people inherently can't say no, especially if they think they are losing services they already have. So to me it's just greed fostering more greed. Not an ISP truly wanting to offer better services but currently feel stifled because of this particular bill.

[Spawl]

Well, if the government tells them they can't manage their networks using shaping and other protocols that they are currently using to prevent congesting other applications then yeah, that is one less tool they have in their bag to prevent issues for consumers.

The focus of my discussion is more towards the small providers that are trying to gain marketplace. They don't really have a leg to stand on. Their revenues are low and they don't have the capital of the big companies. They try to differentiate themselves by offering services with no shaping or limitations as a way to compete and now this standard will come out and ruin part of their competitive advantage for them. There are a couple of small providers in Oregon that would take a hit to their business if this changed. That is the impact I'm more worried about. This appears to be better for the companies that have the room to breathe. For the companies trying to build, this will be difficult.

[Diraker]

"Internet providers argue that they should be free to block or manage content that taxes their networks"

or content they don't like, for example, porn, atheism sites (richarddawkins.net is banned in Turkey) , anti-corporation sites, violence (say MMA or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), political sites (for example MSN blocking World Net Daily), [insert whatever here], etc

Anyway this really isn't my topic but I do not 'fear' government regulation of industry. I'm more 'afraid' of an ISP providers censoring a site because it 'offends' Muslims or someshit.

[Konrad]

So you're not afraid of government control which allows them to form and maintain monopolies with lethal force, but you are afraid of private companies who can ask you to use their product, but can in no way stop you from choosing another company?

[Mutt]

ISPs need to stick to providing access to the internet be it tiered service, service contracts, etc whatever.

They are not and should not be regulating based on content.

Nor should the government.

[Mourne]

ISPs need to stick to providing access to the internet be it tiered service, service contracts, etc whatever.

They are not and should not be regulating based on content.

Nor should the government.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Aradorn]

The problem is that there is only so much bandwidth... So unless the phone companies start building more infrastructure we are going to continue to hear about their "burden".

[Drekor]

Well considering I work for Rogers(one of the big Telco's here in Canada), this is obviously something I hear a lot of.

Personally I am a huge supporter of net neutrality. As Mutt said there should be no regulation based on the content being viewed by the end user. However other things will need to be done; as an example going from unlimited plans to usage based billing which is something already in place in most parts here. Essentially meaning you pay X amount and get up to Y amount of usage. If you go over Y you pay extra. Depending on providers some give you 60GB included some give you up to 200GB included. Overages are usually somewhat inexpensive and usually have a cap as well(BELL caps overage at $30).

Network management to me does not entail blocking or slowing sites X, Y and C while letting sites A, B and C run full speed. However all the ISPs in canada are doing it(some not by choice), things have gotten so bad there is even a petition to dissolve the CRTC(equivalent to the FCC) which has gotten several thousand signatures(including my own).

The problem is that there is only so much bandwidth... So unless the phone companies start building more infrastructure we are going to continue to hear about their "burden".
Any company that isn't constantly expanding will fail and collapse anyways so I'd say that point is moot.

One major point most telco's will make though is that they will pass the extra costs on to the customers, nobody really believed they would do it... then I got an email and this website is up now(this had me in tears from laughing so hard when I saw it):
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/grrf?cm_mmc=Redirects-_-Consumer_Wireless_Eng-_-regulatory%20fee-_-regulatoryfee
Increased regulations will see an increase in similar fees or in base pricing.

[Diraker]

So you're not afraid of government control which allows them to form and maintain monopolies with lethal force, but you are afraid of private companies who can ask you to use their product, but can in no way stop you from choosing another company?

In the same way that I am not 'afraid' of the FDA and their regulation of (say) the food industry, I am not 'afraid' of the government regulating ISP's.

And in the same way that I do 'fear' the food industry taking short cuts (to maximize profits) and letting poison slip in, I do 'fear' unliked or harder to maintain content being censored by ISP's.

Anyway government regulation isn't the same as government controlled. I certainly do not want anyone having monopolies, government or a particular company.

[Konrad]

In the same way that I am not 'afraid' of the FDA and their regulation of (say) the food industry, I am not 'afraid' of the government regulating ISP's.

And in the same way that I do 'fear' the food industry taking short cuts (to maximize profits) and letting poison slip in, I do 'fear' unliked or harder to maintain content being censored by ISP's.

Anyway government regulation isn't the same as government controlled. I certainly do not want anyone having monopolies, government or a particular company.

Funny you should bring up the FDA, as it is routinely cited by proponents of local and natural food advocates as being the chief destroyer of local and organic produce, and its history shows massive collusion with big industry to destroy competition and create large (and for the most part unhealthy) food monopolies. I would even go so far as to say that the FDA is one of the more fascistic organizations in the U.S. today.

I am not against all regulation. The government needs to set rules and make sure those rules are followed, but too often regulatory bureaucracies become arbitrary actors within the the industries that they are "regulating" and start picking winners and losers, giving more power to established players and stifling competition...and eventually creating the conditions that they are supposed to be "regulating" against.

[Diraker]

I used 'quotes' becasue it's not like I'm a big fan of the FDA or anything.

But for the most part I agree, Konrad.

edited to add: Just want to be clear..."The government needs to set rules and make sure those rules are followed". The rule that most interests me is the rule to not block access to particular sites because of their content. For me, it's a free speech thing. I'm sure prety much everyone would agree with that; and I'm glad Spawl brought up the topic and pointed out some of the issues that might arise. So even though net neutrality isn't 'my' issue I am glad it's an issue that others take up.

[Konrad]

Free Speech = :smile_ok:

Huge government bureaucracy determining what is worthy of free speech =:monkdan:

[Aradorn]

Any company that isn't constantly expanding will fail and collapse anyways so I'd say that point is moot.

but the US which is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology has failed to provide decent broadband to the masses. hell the phone companies are even petitioning the government to reduce the qualifications of broadband so they can do as little as possible for stimulus money.

Companies will do whatever possible to maximize profits and that includes spending as little as needed on infrastructure.

[Mutt]

but the US which is supposed to be the pinnacle of technologyuh... since when?

[Aradorn]

two words Silicon Valley (hell throw in Boston, Boulder, Seattle, and NYC) ... To not consider the US as one of the top if not the top technology leading countries in the world would be foolish. The only place that I can think that would come close is Japan. Tech startups flock the US for our VC and Angel investments and for years we have been importing workers from outside the US to fill the demand for tech jobs.

[Soushia]

but the US which is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology has failed to provide decent broadband to the masses. hell the phone companies are even petitioning the government to reduce the qualifications of broadband so they can do as little as possible for stimulus money.


Keep in mind that no one at the FCC has a clue about anything. The FCC used to allocate "bandwidth" and "frequency licenses" many many moons ago when everything was shortwave. For the last 30 years all they have done is shuffle paperwork and fine people for saying shit on radio and flashing a nipple on TV.

In most instances, technology will always be a step or two ahead or regulations and controls. But in the case of the FCC, they are light years behind the technology.

[Mutt]

two words Silicon Valley (hell throw in Boston, Boulder, Seattle, and NYC) ... To not consider the US as one of the top if not the top technology leading countries in the world would be foolish. The only place that I can think that would come close is Japan. Tech startups flock the US for our VC and Angel investments and for years we have been importing workers from outside the US to fill the demand for tech jobs.
Yes the US is a leader but not the pinnacle or be all when it comes to technology.

[Aradorn]

Keep in mind that no one at the FCC has a clue about anything. The FCC used to allocate "bandwidth" and "frequency licenses" many many moons ago when everything was shortwave. For the last 30 years all they have done is shuffle paperwork and fine people for saying shit on radio and flashing a nipple on TV.

In most instances, technology will always be a step or two ahead or regulations and controls. But in the case of the FCC, they are light years behind the technology.


http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/14/guess-why-the-big-isps-have-refused-broadband-stimulus-money/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/04/mg-explains-why-isps-want-to-lower-the-definition-of-broadband/

[Konrad]

Also keep in mind the population density of the United States vs Europe or developed Asian countries. To "broadband" the nation is a significant challenge compared to doing the same in Korea or Luxembourg. The transcontinental railroad was a milestone feat in the United States, but the same type of railroad meant diddly squat in Britain.