GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/gop-net-neutrality-bill-would-allow-paid-fast-lanes-and-preempt-state-laws/
155 comments
This is all I need to here. "SpaceX plans worldwide satellite Internet with low latency, gigabit speed.". We have to just bid our time and wipe out an entire class of cockroach enter prices.
That sounds great, but one expects FCC will be deployed to quash that as well. After all SpaceX would still use some portion of the over-regulated spectrum, and at those distances probably not wifi band.
If we had reasonable spectrum regulation, various terrestrial WISPs would have replaced all of these horrible companies a long time ago.
If we had reasonable spectrum regulation, various terrestrial WISPs would have replaced all of these horrible companies a long time ago.
If it allows paid fast lanes, then clearly it allows degradation.
Most of the time when somebody is selling "premium service" in IT, it doesn't mean "better service", but "regular service while we artificially make any other ones worst".
Regular customers will just see their quality drop for the same price. Web sites will have to pay for the bandwith their customer already paid for to their ISP.
It's going to suck.
Hope this never happens in France, but our leaders love to copy the worst decisions taken in the US so...
Regular customers will just see their quality drop for the same price. Web sites will have to pay for the bandwith their customer already paid for to their ISP.
It's going to suck.
Hope this never happens in France, but our leaders love to copy the worst decisions taken in the US so...
whats interesting is that nothing about the current net-neutrality discussions addresses concerns like these. They may or may not be substantiated concerns. The graphs don't show intent so, that much is assumed.
That's because NN proponents have no idea what they are talking about. Cure for SVitis is make everyone do a stint racking servers, running fiber and opening tickets with a telco to undo effects of grooming on your circuits.
Literally my concern with this.
Everyone gets the same coverage except premium customers. Then degrade that base degree of coverage. Boom.
Everyone gets the same coverage except premium customers. Then degrade that base degree of coverage. Boom.
Priorization and throtting aren’t exactly the same. Throttling implies rate limiting even if there is surplus bandwidth. Prioritization would only occur when bandwidth was limited.
Think of it as QoS based on a list of sites provided by the ISP.
Think of it as QoS based on a list of sites provided by the ISP.
But throttling is really hard to prove. They can always downsize some hardware to "prioritize" and "retarget their budget", but effectively they just throttle. Basically they can do whatever they want with the proper wording now.
Sabotaging their network just to throttle just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.
You call it "sabotaging", I call it "enhancing monetization powers". Either way, it's sabotaging the public's access.
> Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.
White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
If you had sane competition, maybe. But you don't, so they can do whatever they want and you'll pay for it unless you don't want internet at all.
...except for it already happening in other countries without protections.
"We don't have the factory capacities at the moment, therefore your car is missing the back seat" is no better an excuse than "It's cheaper for us to leave out some parts, therefore your car is missing the back seat".
There is no such thing as "surplus bandwidth". How much bandwidth there is is as much the decision of the ISP as what gets prioritized or throttled. If you make it illegal to throttle below available bandwidth, they will simply reduce available bandwidth (or even simpler, fail to increase available bandwidth).
If there is more than one way to achieve the exact same result at exactly the same cost, it's completely pointless to make one of the ways illegal.
There is no such thing as "surplus bandwidth". How much bandwidth there is is as much the decision of the ISP as what gets prioritized or throttled. If you make it illegal to throttle below available bandwidth, they will simply reduce available bandwidth (or even simpler, fail to increase available bandwidth).
If there is more than one way to achieve the exact same result at exactly the same cost, it's completely pointless to make one of the ways illegal.
The GOP didn't expect us plebs to see through that.
I dunno. Given their recent fondness for passing statute at GOP-held level N that preempts statute at non-GOP level N-1, they seem pretty brazen to me. Federalism is out the window, districts are gerrymandered, packing the courts, etc.
They're in charge. Their supporters will vote for them no matter what so long as the guns and abortion issues are untouched, because they get their news from a parallel system in which this is all presented as a good thing. They don't depend on floating voters because there aren't any.
The GOP most certainly depends on floating voters. There are many independent/non-affiliated voters in the US, more than either the registered Republican or Democrat voter base.
And there were plenty of people who voted for President Obama but voted for Trump. 13% of 2012 Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-h...
I strongly agree with the rest of your post.
And there were plenty of people who voted for President Obama but voted for Trump. 13% of 2012 Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-h...
I strongly agree with the rest of your post.
I don't know, the polls seem to suggest that 3 out of 4 Republicans polled support net neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...). I suppose it boils down to where in the priority list this falls for the average voter.
I think you could easily give supporters in this realm, that aren't quite aware of the worst case scenarios people fear about net neutrality repeal, food for thought using news as an example. Comcast for instance owns NBC Universal. If Comcast, often the de facto Internet provider in some areas, decides to favor vertical integration in news and "prioritize their outlets"... let's just say that the news outlets NBC Universal owns tend to be exactly opposite of the "parallel news system" outlets you are talking about. :)
I think you could easily give supporters in this realm, that aren't quite aware of the worst case scenarios people fear about net neutrality repeal, food for thought using news as an example. Comcast for instance owns NBC Universal. If Comcast, often the de facto Internet provider in some areas, decides to favor vertical integration in news and "prioritize their outlets"... let's just say that the news outlets NBC Universal owns tend to be exactly opposite of the "parallel news system" outlets you are talking about. :)
Is that definitely the case?
I interpreted this as meaning that although you pay for 10mb/s Internet, Comcast can offer a special package that allows you to stream Netflix in 4K.
I interpreted this as meaning that although you pay for 10mb/s Internet, Comcast can offer a special package that allows you to stream Netflix in 4K.
That is objectively false. Degrading the "slow" lanes is only one way to produce a fast lane. Direct peering arrangements and co-location of services are two ways to create "fast" lanes without having to degrade anything. They are also not free, so it makes sense that business-to-business deals would be made to establish them (aka paid fast lanes).
The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As things fan out to individual users you may have capacity for 100+mbps but no way to consume it because upstream there is a bottleneck. In many cases that bottleneck exists at the edge of an ISP or farther upstream of it. Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As things fan out to individual users you may have capacity for 100+mbps but no way to consume it because upstream there is a bottleneck. In many cases that bottleneck exists at the edge of an ISP or farther upstream of it. Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
You've missed the point. The very existence of fast lanes means that whatever's left is a degradation. This has been the point NN proponents have been making all along. Proposing to ban slow lanes but allow fast lanes effectively does nothing for NN proponents.
It doesn't have to be "actively" slowing down traffic to be degraded. If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation. One of many forms the degradation could come in is ISPs failing to build out faster networks until people are paying higher prices. Service can be allowed to degrade over time by simply not doing anything unless you pay more money.
It doesn't have to be "actively" slowing down traffic to be degraded. If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation. One of many forms the degradation could come in is ISPs failing to build out faster networks until people are paying higher prices. Service can be allowed to degrade over time by simply not doing anything unless you pay more money.
> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation.
You've missed my point. There are some ways an ISP can go faster that are not neutral AND not malicious/extortive. If google puts a GGC on your ISPs network, youtube now has an advantage over hulu. There is no equivalent internal-deployment that can give a truly neutral increase in capacity.
To conflate this with active degradation (throttling or blocking) means that you would have an ISP be unable to host any service until they can guarantee _all services_ equivalent access (presumably at the ISPs expense otherwise they would price out everyone but the big players).
Before you immediately chose "neutral hosting" realize that it is untenable for every random small website to be able to legally demand any ISPs host their services for free in order to guarantee a level playing field with Google and Netflix. The only tenable solution is to make it illegal to collocate services which will be a far worse hit to the experience you have on the web than any throttling or blocking has ever been.
This is not as simple as you would like it to be.
> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation
This is assuming intent and over-simplifying. Is a small regional ISP without the capital or credit necessary to expand now anti-NN by default? Are they extorting their customers by default? Not all ISPs are Comcast and Verizon. If you cannot escape your circumstance and see the bigger picture of how and what the internet is and who "ISPs" are then you are just being selfish.
You've missed my point. There are some ways an ISP can go faster that are not neutral AND not malicious/extortive. If google puts a GGC on your ISPs network, youtube now has an advantage over hulu. There is no equivalent internal-deployment that can give a truly neutral increase in capacity.
To conflate this with active degradation (throttling or blocking) means that you would have an ISP be unable to host any service until they can guarantee _all services_ equivalent access (presumably at the ISPs expense otherwise they would price out everyone but the big players).
Before you immediately chose "neutral hosting" realize that it is untenable for every random small website to be able to legally demand any ISPs host their services for free in order to guarantee a level playing field with Google and Netflix. The only tenable solution is to make it illegal to collocate services which will be a far worse hit to the experience you have on the web than any throttling or blocking has ever been.
This is not as simple as you would like it to be.
> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation
This is assuming intent and over-simplifying. Is a small regional ISP without the capital or credit necessary to expand now anti-NN by default? Are they extorting their customers by default? Not all ISPs are Comcast and Verizon. If you cannot escape your circumstance and see the bigger picture of how and what the internet is and who "ISPs" are then you are just being selfish.
> There are some ways an ISP can go faster that are not neutral AND not malicious/extortive. If google puts a GGC on your ISPs network, youtube now has an advantage over hulu. There is no equivalent internal-deployment that can give a truly neutral increase in capacity.
We need laws or regulations to address the fact that ISPs are actually forcing content providers to deploy in-network CDN nodes with the ISPs through extortive refusal to upgrade the links between the residential ISPs and the ISPs serving Netflix et al. Some deployment of local CDN nodes makes sense on its own and benefits both parties, but it's not like video streaming is actually latency-sensitive or anything.
We need laws or regulations to address the fact that ISPs are actually forcing content providers to deploy in-network CDN nodes with the ISPs through extortive refusal to upgrade the links between the residential ISPs and the ISPs serving Netflix et al. Some deployment of local CDN nodes makes sense on its own and benefits both parties, but it's not like video streaming is actually latency-sensitive or anything.
It is not.
If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone.
[Edit: Post more downvotes]
Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?
If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone.
[Edit: Post more downvotes]
Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?
> If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone.
Only under the assumption that Comcast makes no attempt to do their job properly and uphold their contractual obligations by implementing reasonable QoS measures and upgrading their capacity. You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault; that was just their abusive tactic to force Netflix to deal with Comcast directly on Comcast's terms. Verizon did the same thing.
Only under the assumption that Comcast makes no attempt to do their job properly and uphold their contractual obligations by implementing reasonable QoS measures and upgrading their capacity. You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault; that was just their abusive tactic to force Netflix to deal with Comcast directly on Comcast's terms. Verizon did the same thing.
notyourday(1)
> Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
This is a textbook lobbyist argument -- something which is technically true without doing the math.
A 10Gbps port on a switch is maybe $100. Say it can service a hundred customers, so $1/customer, and has a lifetime of two years. So $0.04/customer/month.
These are very conservative numbers. In reality it doesn't even cost that much.
The fact that the ports go to different places is irrelevant in the aggregate, because there is no need to add a port when the existing links to that peer aren't at capacity. And it's not as though the fact that Netflix and Google have separate ports would allow a 100Mbps customer to get 100Mbps from each of them at the same time.
Colocation is independent of this. If anyone with traffic could get peering at cost (i.e. ~free), they might still do it or might not, but then the ISP would have to charge market rates for space and power instead of monopoly prices because they're really charging for gatekeeper access to customers.
This is a textbook lobbyist argument -- something which is technically true without doing the math.
A 10Gbps port on a switch is maybe $100. Say it can service a hundred customers, so $1/customer, and has a lifetime of two years. So $0.04/customer/month.
These are very conservative numbers. In reality it doesn't even cost that much.
The fact that the ports go to different places is irrelevant in the aggregate, because there is no need to add a port when the existing links to that peer aren't at capacity. And it's not as though the fact that Netflix and Google have separate ports would allow a 100Mbps customer to get 100Mbps from each of them at the same time.
Colocation is independent of this. If anyone with traffic could get peering at cost (i.e. ~free), they might still do it or might not, but then the ISP would have to charge market rates for space and power instead of monopoly prices because they're really charging for gatekeeper access to customers.
you are over-simplifying. If we want to be pedantic,
and assume that the two edge routers are just switches
and we would use a consumer level 10gbps port
and that the switchers are already in the same rack in the same facility
and that that rack in that facility has direct access to our distribution PoP
and that there are no firewall rules that need to be in place on that port (they can be in the DMZ sure)
and that we don't need to monitor that connection
and that we don't need that connection to be redundant at all
and that we aren't going to use a routing protocol like BGP on that port (we will just hard code routes)
and that we don't want any guarantee that you and I will operate that link at any SLA
and that we don't want to guarantee that both parties will give notice in a timely manner before termination
and... and... and...
So, which textbook are you copying from? You put out something that is technically true without considering any of the practical realities.
(edited for readability)
and assume that the two edge routers are just switches
and we would use a consumer level 10gbps port
and that the switchers are already in the same rack in the same facility
and that that rack in that facility has direct access to our distribution PoP
and that there are no firewall rules that need to be in place on that port (they can be in the DMZ sure)
and that we don't need to monitor that connection
and that we don't need that connection to be redundant at all
and that we aren't going to use a routing protocol like BGP on that port (we will just hard code routes)
and that we don't want any guarantee that you and I will operate that link at any SLA
and that we don't want to guarantee that both parties will give notice in a timely manner before termination
and... and... and...
So, which textbook are you copying from? You put out something that is technically true without considering any of the practical realities.
(edited for readability)
You're just listing things that add small linear costs that are rounding errors in a ballpark estimate like this, and fixed costs that don't add anything because they're the same for two ports as twenty.
Do the actual math. Show me something with an aggregate cost of more than, say, $1/month/customer.
Especially using realistic numbers rather than the "10Gbps port for a hundred 100Mbps customers" ones I gave to make a point.
Do the actual math. Show me something with an aggregate cost of more than, say, $1/month/customer.
Especially using realistic numbers rather than the "10Gbps port for a hundred 100Mbps customers" ones I gave to make a point.
> Do the actual math.
You first. You made a claim which was woefully inaccurate, I called you out in an admittedly childish way and now the burden of proving you wrong is on me?
Here is my ballpark, Both sides will want redundant fiber connections between two edge routers at 10gbps. SFP+ 10g from cisco is ~60 bucks. We need at least 4 (2 on each side), plus a reserve of 4 for faster recovery from failure. In addition, lets assume that we amortize some cost of the _edge router_ for this service. A refurb 16 port SFP+ module for 10g fiber is around $6000 and we will need 2 of them in 2 separate chassis on EACH SIDE and lease Colo space for it but we will amortize it. So, $6k + $1k for the chassis + $800 for the supervisor card. to lease space for this: $1000k/month per chassis(5u at 200/u in a major market carrier hotel) / 16. We need cabling too but lets assume thats commodity.
up front costs so far:
$60 (sfp modules) * 8 = 480
$7800 edge router * 4 / 16 = 1950
so $2430 for equipement (amortized)
1k/month/chasis = 4k/month / 16 = 250/month recurring
100 customers over 2 years = 1950 + 6000 / 100 / 24 = $3.31/month/customer before we even talk about monitoring/maintenance/legal/etc
I have not even begun to dig into the practical costs, and I'm at 3x your target. Your move.
You first. You made a claim which was woefully inaccurate, I called you out in an admittedly childish way and now the burden of proving you wrong is on me?
Here is my ballpark, Both sides will want redundant fiber connections between two edge routers at 10gbps. SFP+ 10g from cisco is ~60 bucks. We need at least 4 (2 on each side), plus a reserve of 4 for faster recovery from failure. In addition, lets assume that we amortize some cost of the _edge router_ for this service. A refurb 16 port SFP+ module for 10g fiber is around $6000 and we will need 2 of them in 2 separate chassis on EACH SIDE and lease Colo space for it but we will amortize it. So, $6k + $1k for the chassis + $800 for the supervisor card. to lease space for this: $1000k/month per chassis(5u at 200/u in a major market carrier hotel) / 16. We need cabling too but lets assume thats commodity.
up front costs so far:
$60 (sfp modules) * 8 = 480
$7800 edge router * 4 / 16 = 1950
so $2430 for equipement (amortized)
1k/month/chasis = 4k/month / 16 = 250/month recurring
100 customers over 2 years = 1950 + 6000 / 100 / 24 = $3.31/month/customer before we even talk about monitoring/maintenance/legal/etc
I have not even begun to dig into the practical costs, and I'm at 3x your target. Your move.
The ISP doesn't have costs on each side, the other side is the peer's equipment. And you're just intentionally setting money on fire. You can get more than 16 ports into five rack units, which would result in less amortization on the chassis and less colo per port. And 5U worth of colo is not $1000/month almost anywhere, but that was >75% of your total cost.
Which is still using the numbers where equipment only lasts two years and you're expecting 100% continuous usage from all customers. And even using all these ridiculous numbers it's still only $3.31/month per customer. If we adopted a 10:1 oversubscription rate (which is still conservative) it would be $0.33/month even with you setting money on fire, having the ISP pay for both sides, and using full double redundancy rather than some kind of N+1 or N+M.
Peering is just not a major cost for ISPs.
Which is still using the numbers where equipment only lasts two years and you're expecting 100% continuous usage from all customers. And even using all these ridiculous numbers it's still only $3.31/month per customer. If we adopted a 10:1 oversubscription rate (which is still conservative) it would be $0.33/month even with you setting money on fire, having the ISP pay for both sides, and using full double redundancy rather than some kind of N+1 or N+M.
Peering is just not a major cost for ISPs.
You are moving the goal posts. I put my estimate in the same context you put your estimate in (no over subscription, 100% continuous usage etc).
The ISP doesn't pay both sides, but someone pays somewhere. So, if we are talking about the "cost of peering" it doesn't serve to talk about it from only one side.
You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
My initial objection was that you over-simplified. I feel pretty fine resting on my argument as is. You may have the last word. I cede all my remaining time to whomever wants it.
The ISP doesn't pay both sides, but someone pays somewhere. So, if we are talking about the "cost of peering" it doesn't serve to talk about it from only one side.
You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
My initial objection was that you over-simplified. I feel pretty fine resting on my argument as is. You may have the last word. I cede all my remaining time to whomever wants it.
> The ISP doesn't pay both sides, but someone pays somewhere. So, if we are talking about the "cost of peering" it doesn't serve to talk about it from only one side.
But we're talking about the cost of peering paid by the ISP, because the ISP doesn't have to cover costs paid by somebody else and no one else is objecting to paying their part of it.
> You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Juniper MX240 supports 80 10GbE ports in 5U. Cisco's product search is lame but I expect they have something similar too.
> Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
That isn't necessarily true either. Only the major transit providers and CDNs like Level 3 and Akamai and the major players like Google that are so big they're effectively their own transit provider/CDN have any interesting peering.
All the smaller players get connected through one of the transit providers, because Joe's Website only wants to hook up from wherever Joe's servers are, not at every carrier hotel in the world like Google does. So they pay a transit provider to handle that and the ISP only has to deal with the transit provider.
The problem comes when the ISPs want to charge major transit providers monopoly rents for peering (which they would have to pass on), or refuse to upgrade the links to them when they're saturated in order to force their big customers (like Netflix at one point) to pay monopoly rents for peering directly.
> My initial objection was that you over-simplified.
It's supposed to be a simplification. The point isn't to make a full accounting, it's to compare orders of magnitude. Even using your numbers with unrealistically conservative assumptions about everything, they're still a single digit percentage of the typical customer's bill.
But we're talking about the cost of peering paid by the ISP, because the ISP doesn't have to cover costs paid by somebody else and no one else is objecting to paying their part of it.
> You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Juniper MX240 supports 80 10GbE ports in 5U. Cisco's product search is lame but I expect they have something similar too.
> Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
That isn't necessarily true either. Only the major transit providers and CDNs like Level 3 and Akamai and the major players like Google that are so big they're effectively their own transit provider/CDN have any interesting peering.
All the smaller players get connected through one of the transit providers, because Joe's Website only wants to hook up from wherever Joe's servers are, not at every carrier hotel in the world like Google does. So they pay a transit provider to handle that and the ISP only has to deal with the transit provider.
The problem comes when the ISPs want to charge major transit providers monopoly rents for peering (which they would have to pass on), or refuse to upgrade the links to them when they're saturated in order to force their big customers (like Netflix at one point) to pay monopoly rents for peering directly.
> My initial objection was that you over-simplified.
It's supposed to be a simplification. The point isn't to make a full accounting, it's to compare orders of magnitude. Even using your numbers with unrealistically conservative assumptions about everything, they're still a single digit percentage of the typical customer's bill.
[deleted]
How is this different from me paying for more for faster internet?
Because the last mile is (sometimes) truly bandwidth limited. But the trunk lines aren't. Now they just get to extort money from us or artificially throttle us. Worse, they'll likely (as they have everywhere else) extort money for websites they have no connection to (like Facebook or Twitter) just because they can. Like an entrepreneurial thug standing outside a club and extracting an extra fee to let folks in. Or paying protection money to the mob. Like that.
It was a question of genuine curiosity. Thanks. How do the regulations or whatever it is that was repealed stop them from doing so?
I actually have no idea what was repealed.
I actually have no idea what was repealed.
Exactly opposite. Last line is not bandwidth limited - FTTH exists. FIOS and even comcast do that.
100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers.
[Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid]
1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartments would require $50,000 a month in IP transit costs. This does not include costs of the long distance fiber, locations for PNI and gear that can do 48x 100Gbit/sec ports. So your Interwebz is going to cost you either > $600 a month or you get congestion and that congestion would be coming from the core, not from the edge
100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers.
[Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid]
1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartments would require $50,000 a month in IP transit costs. This does not include costs of the long distance fiber, locations for PNI and gear that can do 48x 100Gbit/sec ports. So your Interwebz is going to cost you either > $600 a month or you get congestion and that congestion would be coming from the core, not from the edge
Sure the last mile is arguable - not for me, as I live in the country and DSL is what I get. But we could invest and do better there too.
Still its nothing compared to the extortion racket, holding websites hostage .
Still its nothing compared to the extortion racket, holding websites hostage .
You're replying to a comment about the current state of existing infrastructure by talking about the theoretical possibility of new infrastructure that could be deployed with today's technology, but largely isn't being deployed.
That's something that you should bring up with your local government. It is your local government that is blocking roll outs of FTTH.
Even at 10Mbit/sec congestion will be at the core. Comcast currently claims to have 22.3 million internet customers. At 10 Mbit/sec it means 223.3 MILLION megabit per second that needed to be handed off to transit. It is not possible.
Even at 10Mbit/sec congestion will be at the core. Comcast currently claims to have 22.3 million internet customers. At 10 Mbit/sec it means 223.3 MILLION megabit per second that needed to be handed off to transit. It is not possible.
> That's something that you should bring up with your local government. It is your local government that is blocking roll outs of FTTH.
That's definitely not true in my specific case, and probably isn't true all that often in the general case. Deploying FTTH to existing paying customers who already have halfway decent infrastructure doesn't have a very compelling short-term return on investment even when the local government is doing everything they can to encourage it.
That's definitely not true in my specific case, and probably isn't true all that often in the general case. Deploying FTTH to existing paying customers who already have halfway decent infrastructure doesn't have a very compelling short-term return on investment even when the local government is doing everything they can to encourage it.
They are blocking competitors from installing fiber via franchise agreements or requirement that entire municipality is wired.
By doing that your municipality is preventing price competition on the physical last mile which means that Comcast has no need to upgrade service.
By doing that your municipality is preventing price competition on the physical last mile which means that Comcast has no need to upgrade service.
It hurts entrepreneurs a lot more than the end user. With tiered internet comes tiered pricing and tiered access. 'Basic' internet will get you google.com, facebook, etc. If you get the 'sports' package then you get espn.com. If you get the 'DIY' package you get some howto sites, craftsy, maybe thingiverse.
But what if you come up with a brand new DIY site that you wish to host ads, have logins and accounts with monthly fees, etc. How will anybody ever see your site with tiered internet? Your new site is not be in any of the predetermined packages. You would have to go to the ISP and beg/pay them to get your site added to the 'DIY' package just to even get any traffic at all, let alone users. It totally destroys innovation and tilts the playing field towards the existing incumbents.
But what if you come up with a brand new DIY site that you wish to host ads, have logins and accounts with monthly fees, etc. How will anybody ever see your site with tiered internet? Your new site is not be in any of the predetermined packages. You would have to go to the ISP and beg/pay them to get your site added to the 'DIY' package just to even get any traffic at all, let alone users. It totally destroys innovation and tilts the playing field towards the existing incumbents.
It's funny how they always vehemently advocate for states rights unless these states rights get in the way of their agenda.
“States Rights”, since just before the Civil War, has consistently been a political code for protecting discrimination (including, originally, demanding other states be bound to treat escaped slaves as property not people through federal law.)
It has never meant what the words taken together would naively seem to mean.
It has never meant what the words taken together would naively seem to mean.
Came here to say this. It shows the GOP doesn't really stand for anything. They just say what they need to say, in the moment, to get what they want.
If Clinton were POTUS and Russian ties like had been found to the Trump administration, she would have been impeached already. But it's their man, so let's look the other way. Same with State's rights.
If Clinton were POTUS and Russian ties like had been found to the Trump administration, she would have been impeached already. But it's their man, so let's look the other way. Same with State's rights.
This! "They just say what they need to say, in the moment, to get what they want"
And Trump is the magnification of the GOP.
We need to hold them accountable!!!
And Trump is the magnification of the GOP.
We need to hold them accountable!!!
OMG you're serious. Partisans are so cute.
Yes I am serious. And how is this partisanship when pointing out the need to hold politicians accountable for what they say vs what they do? Care to explain your comment? Why is accountability a sign of partisanship?
I agree with the sentiment that there's nothing to choose between the parties when it comes to favoring intellectual and moral consistency in governance over whatever will keep a given party's officials, appointees, and elected representatives in their jobs. But cheap, contemptuous condescension adds nothing to the conversation. The temptation is strong at times, I know. But please try not to succumb to it.
Y_Y(2)
Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states.
The sway of ideologies should be balanced with a willingness to judge issues on their own merit.
Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them), there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.
The sway of ideologies should be balanced with a willingness to judge issues on their own merit.
Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them), there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.
It's always burdensome to have different laws in different states. Different sales tax in different states is a major PITA for example. I don't think this is different from other laws.
Which is why criticism of Republicans for this on the basis of the law not meshing with one of their supposed foundational ideologies is stupid.
We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.
We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.
There is, I think most will agree, a difference between being an ideologue and being consistent.
Inconsistency in the application of one's proclaimed first principles should be criticized unless and until the inconsistency is justified with reason and evidence.
Inconsistency in the application of one's proclaimed first principles should be criticized unless and until the inconsistency is justified with reason and evidence.
They are endlessly repeating their ideology for everything else. I would have had more respect for them if they had said that it's up to the states whether they want net neutrality or not. The same way they are advocating with health care, environmental rules and everything else.
> incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them)
Not all of them. Just the ones that want to lay cable in that particular state. Most internet companies are only concerned with deploying physical infrastructure to a handful of data centers, and leaving the rest of the connectivity up to their ISPs. ISPs providing major backbone links would be subject to the hassle of different state regulations, but ISPs providing last-mile service only need to care about the laws of the states their particular customers reside in.
Not all of them. Just the ones that want to lay cable in that particular state. Most internet companies are only concerned with deploying physical infrastructure to a handful of data centers, and leaving the rest of the connectivity up to their ISPs. ISPs providing major backbone links would be subject to the hassle of different state regulations, but ISPs providing last-mile service only need to care about the laws of the states their particular customers reside in.
This isn't very charitable. You should be happy that the GOP doesn't rotely apply their 'principles' even when it's idiotic to do so. Federal laws that create 'maximums' like this always come with preemption. Otherwise a different states are going to enact different versions of NN to score political points accomplishing one of two things: a rule that tries to simplify the regulatory environment will actually make it more complicated because now there's 50 separate policies, or ISPs will be forced to follow the rules of the state with the strictest rules which more-or-less invalidates the federal rule.
I don't think the FCC did, nor can they, create a new "federal law" though, right? The FCC removed a regulation. Do states not have the right to regulate in the absence of any federal regulation?
>I don't think the FCC did, nor can they, create a new "federal law" though, right?
That's a tricky question. At a high school civics class level, no they cannot create new law because only Congress can. But the reality of the modern regulatory state is that Congress has delegated much of its law making powers to specialized experts in executive branch agencies, including independent agencies like the FCC. So they can adopt regulations that have the force of law but are not statutory, though only to the extent that Congress has authorized them to do so.
Those regulations are for all intents and purposes laws. However, a federal agency's regulations cannot preempt state law on their own; they can only preempt to the same extent that Congress preempted state law in the statute delegating authority to the agency.
And yes, states can regulate where their laws don't conflict with federal laws or regulations. But there's a limit. Congress can enact laws which implicitly preempt state regulation because the federal regulatory scheme is so complete that it "fully occupies the field" leaving no room for supplemental state regulation. In which case, states cannot regulate.
I would be surprised if a court held that the feds have field preempted internet regulation, given how much it ties into areas of traditional state primacy such as property law. But who knows these days.
That's a tricky question. At a high school civics class level, no they cannot create new law because only Congress can. But the reality of the modern regulatory state is that Congress has delegated much of its law making powers to specialized experts in executive branch agencies, including independent agencies like the FCC. So they can adopt regulations that have the force of law but are not statutory, though only to the extent that Congress has authorized them to do so.
Those regulations are for all intents and purposes laws. However, a federal agency's regulations cannot preempt state law on their own; they can only preempt to the same extent that Congress preempted state law in the statute delegating authority to the agency.
And yes, states can regulate where their laws don't conflict with federal laws or regulations. But there's a limit. Congress can enact laws which implicitly preempt state regulation because the federal regulatory scheme is so complete that it "fully occupies the field" leaving no room for supplemental state regulation. In which case, states cannot regulate.
I would be surprised if a court held that the feds have field preempted internet regulation, given how much it ties into areas of traditional state primacy such as property law. But who knows these days.
> I don't think the FCC did, nor can they, create a new "federal law" though, right? The FCC removed a regulation.
The FCC being able to pass and remove regulations in an area means Congress has created federal law governing that area and assigned to the FCC regulatory authority in that area.
Further, even with no federal law, dormant commerce clause concerns come into play.
The FCC being able to pass and remove regulations in an area means Congress has created federal law governing that area and assigned to the FCC regulatory authority in that area.
Further, even with no federal law, dormant commerce clause concerns come into play.
The FCC, both under Wheeler and Pai, have had trouble preempting state laws but Congress has no such trouble. The FCC wields delegated congressional power, much like the FDA, and should have authority to preempt state laws as their rules carry the same force of law as bills in congress but the courts have given them a harder time then one might expect. The most notable case was when the courts blocked Wheeler from preventing states from blocking municipal broadband.
States in fact do not have that right if the federal law implicitly or explicitly preempts them. It's a corollary of the supremacy clause.
States in fact do not have that right if the federal law implicitly or explicitly preempts them. It's a corollary of the supremacy clause.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we always had paid fast lanes available? At least for VOIP this stuff hasn’t seemed very uncommon.
Not in the sense of:
Dear Netflix, if you want to service our customers you need to pay us a $10 million dollars a year.
Dear Customer with 30mbps service, Netflix takes a lot of bandwidth and we're just a poor multi-billion dollar ISP and can't afford to shoulder the burden. But if you pay an additional $9.99 a month we can probably scrape up the bandwidth to let you watch Netflix in HD ($29.99 for 4k)
Also see our other premium options. Have the freedom to pick which services are right for you! Hulu: $9.99 Amazon Video: $9.99 Apple Music: $5.99 YouTube: $7.99
Dear Netflix, if you want to service our customers you need to pay us a $10 million dollars a year.
Dear Customer with 30mbps service, Netflix takes a lot of bandwidth and we're just a poor multi-billion dollar ISP and can't afford to shoulder the burden. But if you pay an additional $9.99 a month we can probably scrape up the bandwidth to let you watch Netflix in HD ($29.99 for 4k)
Also see our other premium options. Have the freedom to pick which services are right for you! Hulu: $9.99 Amazon Video: $9.99 Apple Music: $5.99 YouTube: $7.99
How would this actually work in the somewhat competitive and very low-margin ISP market?
What you’re describing just sounds like suicide.
What you’re describing just sounds like suicide.
Same reason why ISPs pushed out data caps despite it being a 'somewhat competitive' market and people coming out hard against it.
Because it's not competitive at all.
Because it's not competitive at all.
No, you're right. The FCC's Net Neutrality rules excluded private offerings such as MPLS circuits.
GOP (“Grand Old Party”) == US Republican Party in case it wasn’t obvious from the apparent shortsightedness of the proposed law.
Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
The issue is more complex than just a bigger pipe.
As a site owner, you pay a service provider (or cloud hosting service or whatever) to offer you a certain amount of bandwidth to host your site.
The problem comes when other ISP's implement their fast lanes and traffic from your site doesn't get equal priority to traffic from another site who has paid that specific ISP to prioritise their traffic when serving their customers.
So you end up having to pay multiple ISP's to prioritise your traffic on their networks. Your site could appear slow even if you've paid your own service provider for a high bandwidth.
As a site owner, you pay a service provider (or cloud hosting service or whatever) to offer you a certain amount of bandwidth to host your site.
The problem comes when other ISP's implement their fast lanes and traffic from your site doesn't get equal priority to traffic from another site who has paid that specific ISP to prioritise their traffic when serving their customers.
So you end up having to pay multiple ISP's to prioritise your traffic on their networks. Your site could appear slow even if you've paid your own service provider for a high bandwidth.
That's also not correct. If you, as the site owner, are still talking about ISPs or cloud hosting you are someone who is riding a bicycle on a shoulder of I-95 next to semis doing 80mph in 65 zones. You are, frankly, irrelevant. Also you do want to make sure that those semis use <blah>-bypass instead of clogging your highway.
The real issue is that we allow those ISPs to determine which semis are allowed to use a bypass. Public's ( even technologically advanced public's ) mixing of the two issues is why NN fight would continue to be lost.
The real issue is that we allow those ISPs to determine which semis are allowed to use a bypass. Public's ( even technologically advanced public's ) mixing of the two issues is why NN fight would continue to be lost.
So, I guess, my question still stands, right? I'm assuming this bypass costs money for the ISPs to provide. Why is it evil for them to charge people to use it?
I was responding to my parent, not your comment.
To address your point, I do not see an issue for ISPs charging for PNIs as long as those charges are uniform. If I, JoesFlix, have 100Gbit/sec traffic to Comcast and Comcast says "In order to access EP-Bypass, traffic has to come from AS that has more than 90Gbit/sec traffic to us" then Comcast should not be allowed to prevent me from accessing EP-Bypass. Congestion is bad for business. Sane PNI rules are easy:
0. there's some access fee ( typically it is actually - you must show up in X places - how you get there is your cost )
1. we get even number of PNIs.
2. i order and pay for half
3. you order and pay for half
To address your point, I do not see an issue for ISPs charging for PNIs as long as those charges are uniform. If I, JoesFlix, have 100Gbit/sec traffic to Comcast and Comcast says "In order to access EP-Bypass, traffic has to come from AS that has more than 90Gbit/sec traffic to us" then Comcast should not be allowed to prevent me from accessing EP-Bypass. Congestion is bad for business. Sane PNI rules are easy:
0. there's some access fee ( typically it is actually - you must show up in X places - how you get there is your cost )
1. we get even number of PNIs.
2. i order and pay for half
3. you order and pay for half
Thank you for explaining your concerns in a civil way. So this is a hypothetical problem or something that's manifested in the past but regulation then stopped?
As a customer you're already paying the ISP to access the Internet. The websites you're paying your ISP to access already pay for bandwidth and whatnot from their providers. But now they need to also pay your ISP to ensure you get optimal performance.
So you've got 30mbps internet? Sorry, Netflix is in the 256k lane so your speed doesn't matter. And this is Netflix's fault because they haven't paid us. Also Netflix costs $19.99 a month to cover the costs of paying your ISP. And now maybe your ISP wants to also charge you a premium on to of your normal bill to view Netflix.
It won't be a bigger pipe, this won't create a fast lane. It's just going to create a slow lane.
So you've got 30mbps internet? Sorry, Netflix is in the 256k lane so your speed doesn't matter. And this is Netflix's fault because they haven't paid us. Also Netflix costs $19.99 a month to cover the costs of paying your ISP. And now maybe your ISP wants to also charge you a premium on to of your normal bill to view Netflix.
It won't be a bigger pipe, this won't create a fast lane. It's just going to create a slow lane.
It's evil because the cost of the actual service you're paying the ISP for (data transmission) has gone down and continues to get cheaper every year.
These companies are able to flaunt the laws of the marketplace by forcing consumers to pay more for a product despite the "physical good" becoming cheaper and cheaper every year for the ISP to produce.
https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/
These companies are able to flaunt the laws of the marketplace by forcing consumers to pay more for a product despite the "physical good" becoming cheaper and cheaper every year for the ISP to produce.
https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/
Should the power company charge you more based on what appliances you plug in at home, block appliances that it doesn't like, or slow down power to appliances it doesn't like on a whim?
That's basically what the ISPs want to do.
That's basically what the ISPs want to do.
The issue is who they are trying to charge. Supply and demand is great...when it is between the right parties.
To keep things simple, imagine an ISP with only one plan: 1 TB of data/month at 100 Mb/second for $50/month.
Note that at 100 Mb/second it would only take 22 hours to use all your allotted data for the month. Because of this they do not have to build their network out to where it can handle everyone doing 100 Mb/second all the time. In fact, building it out to where it could do 100 Mb/second all the time would be prohibitively expensive.
So they just build their network out to where most of the time, most people get their 100 Mb/second, but during some peak times there may be congestion and things may slow down.
Imagine now that it is during one of those congested times. I am trying to watch a video lecture at a free MOOC. You are trying to watch, say, Netflix. Bob is trying to download a video game he just bought. Alice is trying to do a major OS and XCode update on her Mac.
You, me, Bob, and Alice all bought the same service from our ISP at the same price, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect that we would be treated the same. We should share the effects of congestion equally.
If the ISP wants to bring supply and demand into this, they could offer service level agreements for an extra cost. You pay a certain amount per month and they guarantee, say, 90% of rated speed even during congestion. I think this would be allowed under net neutrality.
What they want to do with paid prioritization, though, so go to the MOOC I'm trying to use, Netflix, the place where Bob got the video game, and Apple and say "Hey...if you pay us $X per month, when our network is congested we will prioritize the traffic for our customers of yours".
There are two bad things with this:
1. Suppose that Netflix buys paid prioritization, and nobody else does. That means that during times of congestion you get good service, and the service for the rest of us gets even worse. Even though we are paying our ISP for the exact same service, you are now getting preferential treatment because a company that has no relationship with the ISP other than they and the ISP have some common customers was able to pay to give you preferential service and degrade ours.
2. It may discourage the ISP from building out more network capacity as demand grows. They may instead focus on getting paid prioritization agreements from the most popular internet services. That could mean that those who use smaller services that even if they wanted to could not afford to make prioritization deals with every ISP, might be doomed to perpetual terrible performance, as the ISPs only need to build out their networks enough to provide good service to those who use services that have paid prioritization deals with the ISP.
Essentially ISPs want to reverse their role. Right now, their role is to sell to us (the end users) access to the internet. They want to turn that around, and make their role be to sell the internet access to us. And they still want to charge us while doing that...basically they want to be the pimps of the net, with us as the prostitutes and the websites as the johns.
To keep things simple, imagine an ISP with only one plan: 1 TB of data/month at 100 Mb/second for $50/month.
Note that at 100 Mb/second it would only take 22 hours to use all your allotted data for the month. Because of this they do not have to build their network out to where it can handle everyone doing 100 Mb/second all the time. In fact, building it out to where it could do 100 Mb/second all the time would be prohibitively expensive.
So they just build their network out to where most of the time, most people get their 100 Mb/second, but during some peak times there may be congestion and things may slow down.
Imagine now that it is during one of those congested times. I am trying to watch a video lecture at a free MOOC. You are trying to watch, say, Netflix. Bob is trying to download a video game he just bought. Alice is trying to do a major OS and XCode update on her Mac.
You, me, Bob, and Alice all bought the same service from our ISP at the same price, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect that we would be treated the same. We should share the effects of congestion equally.
If the ISP wants to bring supply and demand into this, they could offer service level agreements for an extra cost. You pay a certain amount per month and they guarantee, say, 90% of rated speed even during congestion. I think this would be allowed under net neutrality.
What they want to do with paid prioritization, though, so go to the MOOC I'm trying to use, Netflix, the place where Bob got the video game, and Apple and say "Hey...if you pay us $X per month, when our network is congested we will prioritize the traffic for our customers of yours".
There are two bad things with this:
1. Suppose that Netflix buys paid prioritization, and nobody else does. That means that during times of congestion you get good service, and the service for the rest of us gets even worse. Even though we are paying our ISP for the exact same service, you are now getting preferential treatment because a company that has no relationship with the ISP other than they and the ISP have some common customers was able to pay to give you preferential service and degrade ours.
2. It may discourage the ISP from building out more network capacity as demand grows. They may instead focus on getting paid prioritization agreements from the most popular internet services. That could mean that those who use smaller services that even if they wanted to could not afford to make prioritization deals with every ISP, might be doomed to perpetual terrible performance, as the ISPs only need to build out their networks enough to provide good service to those who use services that have paid prioritization deals with the ISP.
Essentially ISPs want to reverse their role. Right now, their role is to sell to us (the end users) access to the internet. They want to turn that around, and make their role be to sell the internet access to us. And they still want to charge us while doing that...basically they want to be the pimps of the net, with us as the prostitutes and the websites as the johns.
djschnei(4)
Breaking news Law proposed which would allow EvilCorp to charge more money for the services which cost more to provide.
Yes, those fast lanes are called PNIs between content providers and eyeball networks. They have been in existence since the time Excite@Home went to the exchanges.
Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to.
>“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it?
>“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services.
>“(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section.
Ah those might be a problem...
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682...
>“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it?
>“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services.
>“(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section.
Ah those might be a problem...
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682...
Normally a lurker, but I created an account specifically to reply to you.
> “(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
look at the very end.
"subject to reasonable network management"
I think that is an extremely broad term to be put in place; recalling the argument ISP had for throttling was to maintain network quality.
> “(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
look at the very end.
"subject to reasonable network management"
I think that is an extremely broad term to be put in place; recalling the argument ISP had for throttling was to maintain network quality.
The "reasonable network management" bit is a gaping loophole carried over from previous net neutrality regulations. So far, no serious attempt has been made to determine what technological measures are actually justifiable DDoS protections and which ones are impermissible preferential treatment.
I was going to ask if anyone had actually read the proposed bill. It isn't very long, and I didn't see anything about "paid" prioritization, though that might be considered a "specialized" service. From what I can tell, this bill puts give a lot of power to the FCC to determine what types of specialized services would "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section".
So the FCC could still potentially prevent prioritization that would degrade broadband internet service.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
So the FCC could still potentially prevent prioritization that would degrade broadband internet service.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
And neither am I, but I could see how the paid prioritization may be considered a "specialized" service. I am leaning towards reading it as double-speak.
But even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section"
So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.
So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.
> the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details
The bill explicitly prohibits the FCC from writing rules fleshing out the details, and restricts the FCC to adjudicating specific cases (such adjudications are subject individually to review by the courts, so inasmuch as someone is empowered to define general standards, it's the course through case law, not the FCC, whose adjudications do not create binding precedent.)
The FCC is that of essentially a trial court, not a rulemakers, under this bill.
The bill explicitly prohibits the FCC from writing rules fleshing out the details, and restricts the FCC to adjudicating specific cases (such adjudications are subject individually to review by the courts, so inasmuch as someone is empowered to define general standards, it's the course through case law, not the FCC, whose adjudications do not create binding precedent.)
The FCC is that of essentially a trial court, not a rulemakers, under this bill.
The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations. It does specify that the FCC has authority to adjudicate complaints. I don't know if that prevents them from publishing guidelines ahead of time, or if that will evolve from adjudication. And, as you point out, the courts will ultimately have oversight over the adjudication- so I suppose in the end, the Supreme Court may end up writing the rules... Of course, this is an early proposal, maybe the final bill will provide the FCC/courts with more guidance.
Why don't we provide feedback to our representatives and work with them on how the Bill can be improved by providing more guidance on rules and penalties?
Why don't we provide feedback to our representatives and work with them on how the Bill can be improved by providing more guidance on rules and penalties?
> The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations
Any rule which restricted anything not restricted by the bare law would expand obligations, and is thereby prohibited.
Any rule which restricted anything not restricted by the bare law would expand obligations, and is thereby prohibited.
I'd rather the FCC not be able to have leeway over it at this point, with the ability to alter their enforcement at whim every 4-8 years...
> Seems like ...
No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.
No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.
I figured as much but since no one was talking about the actual text of the bill I thought this was a good starting point :)
The article linked talked about the actual text of the bill. It might not have linked it, but their interpretations and the interpretations of experts interviewed are correct. It already was a good starting point.
> "in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service"
"availability" here does not cover performance. Specialized services will likely subtract from the performance of communication with the rest of the internet, but this clause only cares if the impact would be a more thorough loss of connectivity. As long as the ISP continues to offer a neutral tier of service at some level of performance and price, they can devote the bulk of their bandwidth to providing non-neutral service.
"availability" here does not cover performance. Specialized services will likely subtract from the performance of communication with the rest of the internet, but this clause only cares if the impact would be a more thorough loss of connectivity. As long as the ISP continues to offer a neutral tier of service at some level of performance and price, they can devote the bulk of their bandwidth to providing non-neutral service.
I think it will depend on how it ends up being interpreted, and maybe we can work with legislators to provide more guidance there in the final Bill.
To me, if I am paying for a 50mpbs Internet access, and I am only getting 25 or 30, because the rest is devoted to "specialized services", then they are threatening the meaningful availability of the service I am paying for.
If however I am paying for 50 mbps, and getting 50-55 mbps, and my ISP is offering an over priced Voip package, I don't think it is interfering in a meaningful way (obviously this ignores latency, which is also an important factor, for simplicity of the example).
To me, if I am paying for a 50mpbs Internet access, and I am only getting 25 or 30, because the rest is devoted to "specialized services", then they are threatening the meaningful availability of the service I am paying for.
If however I am paying for 50 mbps, and getting 50-55 mbps, and my ISP is offering an over priced Voip package, I don't think it is interfering in a meaningful way (obviously this ignores latency, which is also an important factor, for simplicity of the example).
“(3) SPECIALIZED SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized services’ means services other than broadband internet access service that are offered over the same network as, and that may share network capacity with, broadband internet access service.”.
So, fast lanes/bundled packages?
So, fast lanes/bundled packages?
As long as they don't interfere with meaningful broadband internet, I think so. It appears to be aimed primarily at Voip and IPTV services and that type of offering, but it may be possible for them to sell access over a "fast lane" service.
Isn't one of the issues the increasingly close relationship between ISPs and media owners? I mean they are literally the same in some cases.
From now, until the day I die, I will never vote or donate to the republican party again. This last year was the straw that broke the camel's back.
This isn't the party of small businesses and tax cuts any more. This bill is a handout to large ISPs at the expense of the economy, and the tax bill last night raises my taxes so people making 100k+ more than me can see a tax cut. I'm done with them.
This isn't the party of small businesses and tax cuts any more. This bill is a handout to large ISPs at the expense of the economy, and the tax bill last night raises my taxes so people making 100k+ more than me can see a tax cut. I'm done with them.
“We’re the party of small businesses” has been a guise for decades.
It's the party of “The party of small businesses”™ not the party of small businesses. It's been a trademark in the same way McDonalds uses "Grade A"™ beef.
Good thing you will likely be districted in a way that prevents your vote from mattering for the rest of your life, and your donations are paltry in comparison to corporate ones.
> and prohibit state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws.
So much for "States' rights", huh? Fucking hypocrites.
A man is known by the company he keeps, as the old adage goes. Anyone who supports Republicans in any shape and form is also a fucking hypocrite and a liar.
So much for "States' rights", huh? Fucking hypocrites.
A man is known by the company he keeps, as the old adage goes. Anyone who supports Republicans in any shape and form is also a fucking hypocrite and a liar.
Take a deep breath, you're being extreme.
Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states.
Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses, there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.
Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states.
Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses, there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.
Take a deep breath, you're rationalizing away hypocrisy.
"States' rights" is a racist dog whistle. Nothing more.
Republicans broke "State's rights" a long time ago when they abolished slavery.
Democrats are not traditionally states' rights proponents. And yet they will wrap themselves in the banner of states' rights when it suits their agenda (gay marriage, drug laws, etc.). It is run of the mill political expediency- no more, no less.
[deleted]
It'll just be rewritten in five or ten years or whenever the other team is in power. I'm not sure why anyone gets worked up about this stuff anymore.
Because it's not a pendulum.
Net neutrality was how the internet worked de facto from its inception through approximately the end of the dial-up days. It wasn't necessary to impose net neutrality de jure until home broadband was widespread and capable of eating into traditional cable TV revenue. It wasn't necessary to regulate net neutrality for DSL carriers back when local loop unbundling applied to them. But between 2000 and 2010, the net neutrality situation got worse than it ever had been, the regulatory efforts from 2010 to 2015 were half-assed at best, and the 2015 regulations weren't in place long enough to even establish enough judicial precedent to tell whether they could work long-term.
Partisan control of Congress definitely swings back and forth semi-regularly, but that's not what the history of net neutrality looks like.
Net neutrality was how the internet worked de facto from its inception through approximately the end of the dial-up days. It wasn't necessary to impose net neutrality de jure until home broadband was widespread and capable of eating into traditional cable TV revenue. It wasn't necessary to regulate net neutrality for DSL carriers back when local loop unbundling applied to them. But between 2000 and 2010, the net neutrality situation got worse than it ever had been, the regulatory efforts from 2010 to 2015 were half-assed at best, and the 2015 regulations weren't in place long enough to even establish enough judicial precedent to tell whether they could work long-term.
Partisan control of Congress definitely swings back and forth semi-regularly, but that's not what the history of net neutrality looks like.
In regards to preempting state laws, did Congress forget about the 10th Amendment? I know they tend to skirt around it in law school according to my colleagues who are all attorneys.
Regulating Internet Service Providers ranks pretty low on the list of ways in which the Commerce Clause has been stretched.
As far I'm concerned, I've never had "net neutrality"...
If I wanted to run a server (web/smtp/etc.) on my consumer level broadband account, I was not allowed to per TOS. For me, real "net neutrality" would've let me do this, but it's never been the case. I have to jump up to "Business" level account.
This situation is what ISP and corporates want... to get you to pay more for a problem you don't have. And them the power to shut you down and force you to higher tier level of "support".
Comcast pushed one step too far against Bittorrent (and was caught), but this is exactly the power that the big boys want and Title II weakens their argument that what they provide is a managed service not a pipe.
If I wanted to run a server (web/smtp/etc.) on my consumer level broadband account, I was not allowed to per TOS. For me, real "net neutrality" would've let me do this, but it's never been the case. I have to jump up to "Business" level account.
This situation is what ISP and corporates want... to get you to pay more for a problem you don't have. And them the power to shut you down and force you to higher tier level of "support".
Comcast pushed one step too far against Bittorrent (and was caught), but this is exactly the power that the big boys want and Title II weakens their argument that what they provide is a managed service not a pipe.
They are basically tempering with everyone's liberty to start a business on internet. Damaging US citizen capacity to create new internet opportunities and be able to compete with their favorites pets.
Why the f* are you talking about slow and fast lanes ? It is true, but most importantly is this passes on. Any service that would like to be taken seriously would have to pay his way in.
Why everybody has so gentle titles ? Fast / Slow lanes is very abstract.