Author Topic: Net Neutrality 2.0  (Read 2095 times)

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 08:27:22 AM »
Is anyone here actually in favor of ISP's being allowed to throttle and/or pick and choose what content you get to see? This seems especially troublesome with the increasing overlap between ISPs and content producers (Comcast and NBC).

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2017, 08:55:01 AM »
I've never talked with anyone who (having an opinion at all) is in favor of that.

The only legit-sounding argument I've ever heard raised is a security one.  "I've identified a bad actor but am unable to just block them."  I don't know how credible that argument is, but even if it is, that seems something easy to sort out.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2017, 09:16:40 AM »
I'm not in favor of it, but I believe they have that right. Giving preference to content they source is trying to satisfy their customers. One of the big things people crabbed about was hurting bittorrent. Well, yeah, the primary channel for sharing illegal material, maybe its going to go a little slower.

Blocking is more problematic. However, I believe the blowback on this would be significant. As soon as you can't browse to somewhere you want, you are going to seek alternatives. This is why we didn't have this happening two or three years ago when it absolutely was allowed.

Tiering is another thing that might be good for consumers. If all you do is post pictures of your grandkids on facebook, shop on etsy, and look up cookie recipes, why on earth are you having to share the costs of Netflix, HBO, and Skype with high bandwidth users?

I could also see ISPs offering "kid-safe" packages that block anything not on a whitelist. This is something that you can do with a firewall, but most people lack the technical skill to make it work (and prevent their kids from bypassing the security). You might even be able to a-la-carte this, and manage whitelisting in the cloud. Net neutrality would, I believe, make those solutions impossible.

Imagine if cable TV were required to carry every content provider. Would TV neutrality result in better options for the consumer, or not?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2017, 09:18:32 AM »
Is anyone here actually in favor of ISP's being allowed to throttle and/or pick and choose what content you get to see? This seems especially troublesome with the increasing overlap between ISPs and content producers (Comcast and NBC).

I'm against outright content blocking without customer consent, and that consent must be clearly optional(no "excessive" (say 10%?)penalties for opting out).

What I do take exception to with a "Strict" Net Neutrality interpretation is it also prevents the ISPs and Backbone providers from providing "priority" service to customers who are willing to pay for said "priority" service. As that logically is a very effective market based method to encourage further build out of new internet backbones with more capacity, and possibly even establishing new routes.

Of course, that does leave open the issue of "all circuits are busy, if you wish for faster service, it can be provided for an additional fee" being used and actively abused. There probably should be some kind of audit process created to backstop such abuses. But the reality on this also is that some other new protocols would likely need to be introduced to make it work effectively, and should be subject to alteration on either end. IE If Google wants to pay for priority service on their content, that's well and good. But if I, as an end user, want to pay for "priority service" on content I'm using without regard to it's "Pay to Play" status, I should also be able to obtain it.

If it remains a one-sided model(content provider only), it will be problematic, and abused.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 09:36:10 AM »
What I do take exception to with a "Strict" Net Neutrality interpretation is it also prevents the ISPs and Backbone providers from providing "priority" service to customers who are willing to pay for said "priority" service. As that logically is a very effective market based method to encourage further build out of new internet backbones with more capacity, and possibly even establishing new routes.

This is already allowed, you can buy different speed bandwidth packages as it is. The ISP just doesn't get to prioritize which content actually comes through at the bandwidth speeds the customer is paying for. So for example if I'm paying for 50 Mbps the ISP doesn't get to decide Hulu gets the full 50 Mbps but Netflix gets throttled to 5 Mbps and ornery.org gets .05 Mbps. Eliminating net neutrality gives big ISPs the power to extort tech companies. "Pay up or your site won't load."

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2017, 09:48:43 AM »
Well, I amend my earlier reply.  I hadn't, until reading from people here, found anyone in support of the repeal.  :P

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2017, 10:34:41 AM »
I see it as a way to encourage internet providers to slow down the internet.

Consider an internet provider who is at capacity for his system.  Under net neutrality, the only way to continue to provide their traditional top speeds is to purchase more capacity.

Without net neutrality, they can charge more for their traditional top speed, thus reducing the demand and keeping it within their capacity.  They can still claim to provide their top speed (which now only the tier 1 customers get) without the expense of upgrading the system.

They get more income without any expense.  A big win for them.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2017, 10:53:21 AM »
"Net Neutrality" began in 2015. What changed since its implementation? Has anyone noticed a difference in the internet they use in the last 24 months? What problem was occurring that Net Neutrality fixed? Seriously, what was happening that was fixed?

The FCC released some 400 pages of regulations telling ISP's how they will run the internet. Is everybody cool with Trump controlling the internet? Why would state control of the internet be good now when it wasn't needed before?

I see wingnuts all over twitter today talking about how they will be forced to pay $2 per google search, twitter will cost per tweet or have monthly fees, Netflix users will be charged per movie by the ISP, etc, etc. This is insane bullshyt, just insane. Why they believe this imagined threat, when it's never happened nor is there any reason to believe it will is mind boggling. They are literally making things up to be afraid of so they can justify state control of the internet.

I don't see the problem that was fixed and don't see a reason that some imagined problem will occur. Going back to the "dark times" of 2015 is not going to be the apocalyptic scenario you guys imagine.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2017, 11:03:37 AM »
What I do take exception to with a "Strict" Net Neutrality interpretation is it also prevents the ISPs and Backbone providers from providing "priority" service to customers who are willing to pay for said "priority" service. As that logically is a very effective market based method to encourage further build out of new internet backbones with more capacity, and possibly even establishing new routes.

This is already allowed, you can buy different speed bandwidth packages as it is. The ISP just doesn't get to prioritize which content actually comes through at the bandwidth speeds the customer is paying for. So for example if I'm paying for 50 Mbps the ISP doesn't get to decide Hulu gets the full 50 Mbps but Netflix gets throttled to 5 Mbps and ornery.org gets .05 Mbps. Eliminating net neutrality gives big ISPs the power to extort tech companies. "Pay up or your site won't load."

Not quite.

Net Neutrality is more about the backbones than it is about my personal "pipe" to the ISP. Although that also is part of the equation.

With Net Neutrality, WalMart for example only has the option of buying larger or smaller "data-pipes" for their stores (and website) operations, but they have limited options as to how that data is handled after it hits their ISP. Under Net Neutrality their option is to have their (VPN) Traffic treated like the data from everyone else's, or pay an excessive amount of money to have a dedicated data line built from their store to wherever they choose to aggregate their data.

With Net Neutrality removed, WalMart can now pay their ISP, and the various other ISP's in between those facilities, a nominal additional fee for "priority routing" of their data and enjoy all the benefits of having a dedicated data-line, without going through the extreme expense of actually having to build it. Which is how you end up with potential for new (data)backbone routes(to both reduce total distance traveled, and possibly lower total "extra costs for priority service" as you hit fewer routers in between), as well as larger backbones along some of the busier ones.

Just because certain groups emphasize what happens on the home-user side doesn't mean the rest of the system doesn't exist. The biggest part of the fight has really been over the "in between" part of the equation as those companies have had a hard time trying to recover their respective costs. Something that has become increasingly critical over time in the United States as most of those backbones were being maintained by Telephone companies, you know, those guys who offered "land line" phone service. The same ones who are losing telephone users to cellphones, and end-user data-services to Cable Companies and various "wireless" options who then in turn link back into their internet backbone services.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 11:05:43 AM by TheDeamon »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2017, 11:11:34 AM »
I'll use Netflix as an example of the problem with Net Neutrality regulations. In 2015, this one service accounted for over 36% of all internet traffic. Over the next few years, video providers like this are expected to double their internet usage. In Australia, it's already threatening their internet infrastructure:
Quote
Australia’s internet is at risk of collapse at peak hour as the public’s love of internet streaming outpaces the broadband network’s capacity to handle the traffic, an expert has warned.

“The network could effectively stop between 5pm to 9pm,” Mark Gregory, electronic and telecommunications associate professor at RMIT University, told The New Daily.

He said the unprecedented uptake of high definition (HD) online streaming services, such as Netflix, put Australia in danger of a network collapse during peak time despite the nation’s biggest-ever $49 billion infrastructure spend on the national broadband network (NBN).

So why isn't it reasonable to ask Netflix, and those that consume its service, to help with the cost of this or allow ISP's to manage it so the internet does not collapse? Under Net Neutrality (as I understand it, could be wrong here) there is no distinction between Netflix usage and Grandma's blog of all her cats.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2017, 11:13:36 AM »
Crunch, you aren't wrong about the wingnut doomsayers out there preaching the worst case scenarios.  While I am quite concerned as I honestly only have 2 options worth of "competition" here, a lot of these theoreticals would kill the consumer end of ISP's if they dared to attempt them.

But does that mean, "what problems did we have before?" is a defense for repealing Net Neutrality.  This was an amazing case of the government protecting consumers BEFORE they got screwed over.  If it's all unnecessary stuff preventing things that would never happen... Then no harm done!

If it's actually causing real problems, that solving would not exploit customers, then I've got no problem with revisions to the guidelines.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2017, 11:16:16 AM »
Quote
So why isn't it reasonable to ask Netflix, and those that consume its service, to help with the cost of this or allow ISP's to manage it so the internet does not collapse?
This one is so easy it always makes me wonder why it's asked.

Customers pay their ISP for X bandwidth.
Netflix pays their ISPs for X bandwidth.

Why should either pay again?

This is purely a case of ISP's selling X bandwidth then being all grumpy that people have the audacity of using most or all of that bandwidth constantly when they assumed it would be spike usage.

If the prices have to go up or they need to create more tiers with data caps or different thru-put rates, fine.  But I'm pretty insistent that I get what I pay for and they keep their hands off what I do with that data.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 11:19:54 AM by D.W. »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2017, 11:27:39 AM »
I'll use Netflix as an example of the problem with Net Neutrality regulations. In 2015, this one service accounted for over 36% of all internet traffic. Over the next few years, video providers like this are expected to double their internet usage. In Australia, it's already threatening their internet infrastructure:
Quote
Australia’s internet is at risk of collapse at peak hour as the public’s love of internet streaming outpaces the broadband network’s capacity to handle the traffic, an expert has warned.

“The network could effectively stop between 5pm to 9pm,” Mark Gregory, electronic and telecommunications associate professor at RMIT University, told The New Daily.

He said the unprecedented uptake of high definition (HD) online streaming services, such as Netflix, put Australia in danger of a network collapse during peak time despite the nation’s biggest-ever $49 billion infrastructure spend on the national broadband network (NBN).

So why isn't it reasonable to ask Netflix, and those that consume its service, to help with the cost of this or allow ISP's to manage it so the internet does not collapse? Under Net Neutrality (as I understand it, could be wrong here) there is no distinction between Netflix usage and Grandma's blog of all her cats.

Which goes back to "this is about the backbones" not the end-user ISP.

ISP's oversell their bandwidth because they know most people won't use all of it. Or if they do use, they won't be likely to use it at the same time.

The exception obviously being they know there is a protracted "regional spike" that has been happening in the evening hours for almost 20 years now. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and YouTube accounting for a lot of it(and thus their reason to fight it is obvious, if they had to actually pay for the BackBone-tier service needed to support their services during those peak hours, their prices would need to increase, as it is they hide behind net neutrality, and get everyone else at those data centers(and elsewhere) to have to help pay for it too), Facebook and Skype also factor in as they have their own video services which gobble up data. Online gaming also accounts for another large chunk of data use during evening hours.

Although I will likewise admit that there are more than a few cases where such services have also likewise identified and subsequently paid to correct significant "internet bottlenecks" in the past as well, but then, the only outright example I'm aware of off-hand is Blizzard Entertainment doing so in order to address a significant routing issue that was negatively impacting gameplay on World of Warcraft back during its heyday. Except their fix wasn't to lay fiber, their fix was to pay to replace and upgrade an existing backbone router to newer tech.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 11:29:49 AM by TheDeamon »

Lloyd Perna

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2017, 11:30:03 AM »
Here's a pretty good article from WSJ with some arguments from both sides of the debate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-neutrality-for-and-against-1513195805


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2017, 11:36:03 AM »
The short form analogy on part of the anti-Net Neutrality argument would be to compare it a local road/highway congestion problem.

Where you happen to have a (common) highway that is used by a lot of people, but it has now become clogged with trucks from 6 companies in particular resulting in 4 hours of near-gridlock conditions every night. To the point where those 6 companies account for nearly 2/3rds of the traffic on that highway during those times.

Those 6 companies argue it is a public roadway, and they pay fuel taxes just like everyone else. So it "isn't their problem to fix."

How do you address it? Keep in mind, net-neutrality rules would prevent the option of a private-party coming and building a tollway. And as those 6 companies are content with the status quo, they're not going to pony up (much) cash to help directly.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2017, 11:40:32 AM »
Is anyone here actually in favor of ISP's being allowed to throttle and/or pick and choose what content you get to see? This seems especially troublesome with the increasing overlap between ISPs and content producers (Comcast and NBC).

I'm still in favor of ending net neutrality.  Blocking content should not be on the table, nor should extortionist throttling, however, general throttling of all non-preferred content without discrimination should be (and this is where existing laws would have landed us without the unnecessary new level of regulation).  You can pull up the old threads on this and see the economic reasons and explanations.  They still apply.

Though it's really simple, you can't get a service that costs more to provide than someone pays.  For a long time, the costs were split up among consumers because there was a big delta between advertised capacity and average usage.  New innovations like streaming HD video, have become so common place that the delta between average usage and advertised capacity is ever closing.  Someone has to pay for that.  Either consumers get ready for picking up the difference in multiples (if 10 users previously average x usage, but now 4 do, then we all end up paying something like  2.5X the old rate), or services like NetFlix have to include in their bills the costs of paying for the extra usage, which means average rates stay low, but Netflix has to raise their rates (from what less than $15 a month)?

It seems to me like the "counter argument" is some kind of "ISP's have too much money and they should just eat the cost."  It's not going to happen.  That means, to me, that the solution will be to force the consumer access charge up regardless of whether a particular consumer uses any of those services.  Kind of like the way cable tv is only provided in "packages" where you end up with a high bill and bunches of channels you don't want, rather than al la carte where you have a low bill and only the handful of channels you really want.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2017, 11:51:59 AM »
Those 6 companies argue it is a public roadway, and they pay fuel taxes just like everyone else. So it "isn't their problem to fix."

How do you address it?

It's a good example, I'd add that the 6 companies are hauling low margin wood and stone, they don't care how long it takes to get there so long as they don't pay any more.  A new company comes along and wants to ship perishable sea food, with a very high margin but absolute necessity for timely delivery.  In fact the margins are so good, the company is willing to pay to add a lane that anyone can use, with the caveat that the others have to get out of the way of the company's trucks when they are in the lane.  Net Neutrality bars that to our detriment. 

This, by the way, is very similar to how railroad tracks work now, with the owner of the track being required to let others use them, but able to prioritize it's own traffic and others who pay a premium.  It seems like people are able to make reasonable decisions about whether they want to pay for an Accella or take a regional, while the coal trains just chug on along at their own pace.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2017, 11:54:28 AM »
But doesn't the end of net neutrality mean that the highway owners (since they are privately owned) get to charge the 6 companies more, then devote a lane to just those 6 companies and make everyone else drive on the other two lanes?  Which doesn't help the gridlock situation any (since there are still the same number of cars driving at the same time), except for the 6 truck companies who now have a lane with fewer cars on it.

And if 6 more companies join in, then the highway owners can devote another lane to them and let everyone else drive on one lane.

Only after that would the owners have to think about adding new lanes if more people or companies wanted to drive.  But, of course, they would have less individual traffic, because everyone who previously had 3 lanes to drive on now only have 1, and a lot of them are taking side streets instead. :)

Or the owners could just decide to eliminate private cars and only allow premium-paying trucks on their highway.  Or just increase the charge to private cars, too, to help further reduce the demand of the private car lane.

With net neutrality, the only option to reduce the gridlock would be to add new lanes for everyone.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2017, 12:04:10 PM »
I just received a call from my ISP/cable company.  Presently I ONLY use internet, watching TV, streamed only rarely from something like AMC which comes with my cable tv package.   I do get HBO (for the streaming) but there is now an option for that without cable TV.  I "waste" money on TV because of the internet speeds I want.

There is no internet only option from them that doesn't cost more or is at a reduced transfer rate.

So, they want to get me into a new package to "help me out."  I first do the run around about the above issue.  "Nope, still the case.  Can't reduce your superfluous items and save you money."  Fine, expected.

"Oh, BTW, if you do nothing, your current package goes up $15 after the first of the year."  <sigh>

"For only $5 more from the current rate, I can get you more channels, 2 premium channels (one of which I had just canceled to save $15 bucks), and a phone line!" (that I'll never even plug in)

So I "saved" 10 bucks next year for this 1 year introductory rate, after which I have to remember to cancel pretty much everything or get shafted on a rate hike.

THIS.  This is why we need Net Neutrality.  These *censored*ers are not trustworthy.  They are predators.  We need consumer protection FROM them. 

I spend enough on my cell phone and internet/cable each month to feed a family of 4...  They can keep up their end of the deal for the bandwidth they sold me without trying to ding me again for more cash, thanks.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 12:09:20 PM by D.W. »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2017, 12:14:14 PM »
Okay, I'm going to lose my mind if people keep using bandwidth and speed interchangeably.

Speed is latency - how long does it take to get from point A to point B
Bandwidth is how much stuff you can get at any moment in time

Latency and QOS (Quality of service) can't be managed using bandwidth on your account

Gamers know this as "ping time".

I've got news for you, ISPs have been identifying streaming content for years and manipulating the system to give preference (QOS) to these packets and avoid the ("buffering, buffering, bbbbbbuffering") problem. People downloading the new OS update, however, well it doesn't really matter if it takes 15 minutes versus 20 minutes.

I've been wondering how this reconciles with net neutrality rules. It is quite possible that actual enforcement could degrade our experience (with the things most of us care about). Especially true, since ISPs use packet sniffing to sort out packet allocations (expedite this traffic). More and more traffic is being encrypted, so all the ISPs will have left to go on is the nature of the traffic and the originating IP.

Extreme net neutrality (one byte is one byte) would be ruinous to the expectations we have of the internet. And with no way to monetize, there's no reason why ISPs are going to double the backbone to make all traffic equally awesome - and even if they do it is horribly inefficient use of energy and capital.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2017, 01:06:19 PM »
But doesn't the end of net neutrality mean that the highway owners (since they are privately owned) get to charge the 6 companies more, then devote a lane to just those 6 companies and make everyone else drive on the other two lanes?  Which doesn't help the gridlock situation any (since there are still the same number of cars driving at the same time), except for the 6 truck companies who now have a lane with fewer cars on it.

And if 6 more companies join in, then the highway owners can devote another lane to them and let everyone else drive on one lane.

Only after that would the owners have to think about adding new lanes if more people or companies wanted to drive.  But, of course, they would have less individual traffic, because everyone who previously had 3 lanes to drive on now only have 1, and a lot of them are taking side streets instead. :)

Or the owners could just decide to eliminate private cars and only allow premium-paying trucks on their highway.  Or just increase the charge to private cars, too, to help further reduce the demand of the private car lane.

With net neutrality, the only option to reduce the gridlock would be to add new lanes for everyone.

Your final option would actually be the first choice in most cases, few businesses are going to turn away paying customers. Further, if they have a capacity problem, they can use that extra revenue to boost capacity. For most people, their "normal ISP" would likely pick up the tab for the first ___ amount of ("non-covered") data they use(if the provider already paid for ISP priority, the customer is clear). It is only after they cross that magic line that they either "pay more for quality" or be prepared to wait around for awhile.

You also ignore the matter that in the given scenario where net neutrality isn't limiting options, another party can come along and build a road of their own for that (toll) traffic to move across. As there now is a financial incentive and obvious need for that service if the existing highway maintainer refuses to increase capacity. And once there are two competing highways competing for traffic, price competition should, in theory, follow suit resulting in prices dropping. Unless of course the existing service provider decides to engage in anti-competitive practices which there are laws on the books for already.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2017, 01:13:01 PM »
It went through...

This guy thinks that a page (facebook or twitter or google) giving priority or censoring is the same thing we are worried ISP's may do.  :(

I can decide to not go to those sites if it's a problem...  I can't necessarily "go elsewhere" for my internet connection.  :( 

I do like how he states that "tomorrow the internet will still be there and all these terrible things won't happen."  Without addressing the fact that they all COULD over time.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2017, 01:15:53 PM »
Okay, I'm going to lose my mind if people keep using bandwidth and speed interchangeably.

Speed is latency - how long does it take to get from point A to point B
Bandwidth is how much stuff you can get at any moment in time

Yes and no.

Bandwidth/Data rate ("pipe" -- The internet is a series of tubes after all) is a function of speed as well. I can have a 10ms ping on a 300 baud modem. It doesn't mean I'm going to be playing Call of Duty over it.

Data rate and ping are different things.

Ping is a response time, and is a function of latency. Speed is generally going to be a function of bandwidth. Depending on how congested that bandwidth is, the more(or less) latency there will be, which will result in higher(or lower) ping times.

Net Neutrality primarily focuses on the latency/ping side of things, as it involves prioritizing what gets to move through a congested internet connection.

The ability to charge or not charge for such prioritization directly has potential impacts on bandwidth in terms of availability(as higher priority content would always be allocated first), and in regards to third parties being able to raise funds in order to add more capacity(or reap profits for their shareholders).

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2017, 01:17:09 PM »
But doesn't the end of net neutrality mean that the highway owners (since they are privately owned) get to charge the 6 companies more, then devote a lane to just those 6 companies and make everyone else drive on the other two lanes?  Which doesn't help the gridlock situation any (since there are still the same number of cars driving at the same time), except for the 6 truck companies who now have a lane with fewer cars on it.

A lot of your issues are hung up on the fact that its a literal highway, which doesn't accurately parallel the situation online with respect to competition.  Would your scenario play out that way if there were multiple highways available that could get you to the point in the same amount of time?  If any one of them could add the lanes?  If anyone could quickly build a new highway?

If there are 15 different road providers that get me to point B the actual travel time experience they choose to provide will highly influence my route.  People respond today to the differences between toll roads and driving the long way round.

So while it's possible that someone would create a fast lane and slow down its existing traffic, its very unlikely that not one of the other 14 would see the benefit of slightly increasing its costs by adding a lane instead.

Quote
And if 6 more companies join in, then the highway owners can devote another lane to them and let everyone else drive on one lane.

Under net neutrality, they just slow everyone down whether speed matters to them or not.

Quote
Or the owners could just decide to eliminate private cars and only allow premium-paying trucks on their highway.  Or just increase the charge to private cars, too, to help further reduce the demand of the private car lane.

See my first comment.  Content blocks and discriminatory slow downs (rather than neutrally applied ones) are already anti-competitive and actionable under the prior laws.  We don't need a complicated and expensive regulatory regime stifling innovation to stop those actions.

Quote
With net neutrality, the only option to reduce the gridlock would be to add new lanes for everyone.

So in practice, the ISPs will only add a lane when forced to do so, whereas without net neutrality there'd be incentives to add lanes when there is a benefit to do so.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2017, 01:22:50 PM »
But doesn't the end of net neutrality mean that the highway owners (since they are privately owned) get to charge the 6 companies more, then devote a lane to just those 6 companies and make everyone else drive on the other two lanes?  Which doesn't help the gridlock situation any (since there are still the same number of cars driving at the same time), except for the 6 truck companies who now have a lane with fewer cars on it.

A lot of your issues are hung up on the fact that its a literal highway, which doesn't accurately parallel the situation online with respect to competition.  Would your scenario play out that way if there were multiple highways available that could get you to the point in the same amount of time?  If any one of them could add the lanes?  If anyone could quickly build a new highway?

If there are 15 different road providers that get me to point B the actual travel time experience they choose to provide will highly influence my route.  People respond today to the differences between toll roads and driving the long way round.

So while it's possible that someone would create a fast lane and slow down its existing traffic, its very unlikely that not one of the other 14 would see the benefit of slightly increasing its costs by adding a lane instead.

It should be added that unlike in reality where location matters, and distance likewise is a major factor(tied to location). For Online services, as that data moves at the speed of light, that "alternate" route doesn't even need a slightly comparable "right of way" in order to merit you routing your traffic over it. As your data is moving at near the speed of light, even a 600 mile detour is positively trivial. For a real world equivalent, it's probably equivalent to moving an inch to one side or the other.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2017, 01:26:31 PM »
But does that mean, "what problems did we have before?" is a defense for repealing Net Neutrality.  This was an amazing case of the government protecting consumers BEFORE they got screwed over.  If it's all unnecessary stuff preventing things that would never happen... Then no harm done!

OK, so it was actually a solution in search of a problem then. I figured there was no problem being resolved by the NN rules. And no harm done? I've never seen federal regulation of an industry not place some kind of burden on that industry.  At a minimum, there is always the cost of compliance and with over 400 pages of regulation that will almost certainly increase over time, it would have gotten more costly.

If we're going to use imaginary threats, what wouldn't we see the government take over?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2017, 01:27:22 PM »
Listen, prices are going up regardless.  We simply put use more internet now and will use even more in the future.  We NEED more infrastructure. 

The only difference is in how this is "sold" to the customers.  Net Neutrality didn't stop the price from going up.  It stopped the service from going down in ways you are not meant to notice.  Then, it is going to go up for those who DO notice and want those "premiums" back.

Either way, you'll be paying more for what you have now.  (If that's even an option.)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2017, 01:33:19 PM »
Listen, prices are going up regardless.  We simply put use more internet now and will use even more in the future.  We NEED more infrastructure. 

The only difference is in how this is "sold" to the customers.  Net Neutrality didn't stop the price from going up.  It stopped the service from going down in ways you are not meant to notice.  Then, it is going to go up for those who DO notice and want those "premiums" back.

Either way, you'll be paying more for what you have now.  (If that's even an option.)
One of the new rules is about transparency in charges - so you know exactly what you're paying for and what you should get for it.

We got Amazon, Google, Twitter, YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, and more before the government took control and things were perfectly fine. I don't see a problem to fix yet.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2017, 01:38:00 PM »
Another example I came upon was the situation at large gatherings like SXSW. Every year the bandwidth at that event is notoriously bad, unusable in many cases. The vast majority of that traffic is to a handful of places like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, the usual suspects. Why is it wrong for ISP's servicing that area to balance the load so that those sites get priority and the majority of people be able to communicate effectively rather than the odd, one offs, getting the same priority?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2017, 01:42:15 PM »
But does that mean, "what problems did we have before?" is a defense for repealing Net Neutrality.  This was an amazing case of the government protecting consumers BEFORE they got screwed over.  If it's all unnecessary stuff preventing things that would never happen... Then no harm done!

OK, so it was actually a solution in search of a problem then. I figured there was no problem being resolved by the NN rules. And no harm done? I've never seen federal regulation of an industry not place some kind of burden on that industry.  At a minimum, there is always the cost of compliance and with over 400 pages of regulation that will almost certainly increase over time, it would have gotten more costly.

If we're going to use imaginary threats, what wouldn't we see the government take over?

It wasn't entirely imaginary. About 15 years ago ISPs were "traffic shaping" and specifically trying to identify and throttle bittorrent users specifically because they were among the highest bandwidth users at the time. In particular, the Cable Companies were going after BitTorrents with extreme gusto because of it's ability to saturate entire "loops" on the CableModem internet service. Go go gadget community bandwidth. (Where each "loop" consisted of multiple homes, if not entire neighborhoods, or even more in some cases)

But the legal fix to that was that they were told they couldn't target content, but they could "throttle" the over-all connection of the offending party(s).

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2017, 01:50:10 PM »
BitTorrent is a tough example. So much of what was done with BitTorrent was piracy and cracking down on illegal use is not really a good example. I think comparing 2002 era bandwidth with 2017 is a bit erroneous, many were still on 56K modems back then so every bit was much more significant in terms of load.  In the end, BitTorrent is a prime example of why NN as it was implemented is the problem.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2017, 01:58:26 PM »
Well lets look at Torrenting.  A lot of games use this method now to distribute patch content.  If ISP's flag all torrenting, then false positives are gonna pop up.

Also, with NN in place, there was no reason to sniff out "abusers" and determine if what they are doing is illegal or not.  Something ISP's would want to do because putting an end to illegal activity makes them the good guy, not the selfish juggernaut stamping out someone exceeding their data ration (that we all have, but not really).

It incentives them invading our privacy even more.  More data mining is done because they can not only see where they could attempt to cut in on popular turf, but they can then sabotage those existing services/content as well giving them an even bigger edge.

Sure, this will improve innovation and content creation.  By the ISP's.  Others are going to have their hard work stolen from underneath them.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2017, 02:02:49 PM »
I feel a lot of the anti NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge the near or literal monopoly of Internet service that exists in so many places.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2017, 02:12:58 PM »
I feel a lot of the anti NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge the near or literal monopoly of Internet service that exists in so many places.
And I feel a lot of the pro NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge that none of the problems it was designed to address never existed.  ;)

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2017, 02:15:12 PM »
Think of it like the 2nd amendment for the internet. 

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2017, 02:16:17 PM »
I feel a lot of the anti NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge the near or literal monopoly of Internet service that exists in so many places.
And I feel a lot of the pro NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge that none of the problems it was designed to address never existed.  ;)

Comcast was throttling netflix in 2014.

https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/

Now that there is more overlap in the ISPs and content providers I think we can expect more of this.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2017, 02:16:39 PM »
I feel a lot of the anti NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge the near or literal monopoly of Internet service that exists in so many places.

Can you walk me through this?  The idea behind NN virtually guarantees regional monopolies will be the way internet will be provided in the future (much like historical cable and phone models).  I don't see how the "anti-NN" arguments fall apart, when they are expressly supportive of breaking those monopolies and designed to provide a benefit and an incentive to doing so.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2017, 02:19:50 PM »
Quote
I don't see how the "anti-NN" arguments fall apart, when they are expressly supportive of breaking those monopolies and designed to provide a benefit and an incentive to doing so.
I think most of us got caught up in the "save the internet" by tieing the hands of these monopolies and missed this part.

Care to elaborate Seriati?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2017, 02:40:28 PM »
I feel a lot of the anti NN arguments fall apart when you acknowledge the near or literal monopoly of Internet service that exists in so many places.

Can you walk me through this?  The idea behind NN virtually guarantees regional monopolies will be the way internet will be provided in the future (much like historical cable and phone models).  I don't see how the "anti-NN" arguments fall apart, when they are expressly supportive of breaking those monopolies and designed to provide a benefit and an incentive to doing so.

When this goes through, if my local provider (which already massively overcharges me because they have no competition) decides to throttle my access to Netflix unless Netflix or I or both pay a fee, there's no way out. There's no competition to offer a lower fee.

This becomes even worse if the company responsible for the ISP is also slanging a service in competition to Netflix. They can flat out refuse.

The pro NN arguments have their place, but not in the current US environment. They won't work when you only have one or maybe two choices for the internet.

I've seen people laugh at arguments that the internet is a public utility and should be treated like electricity. But in the early 20th you'd have seen a lot of people in a lot of places saying electricity isn't necessary to get by, it's a luxury.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2017, 03:26:07 PM »

Comcast was throttling netflix in 2014.

https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/

Now that there is more overlap in the ISPs and content providers I think we can expect more of this.

I think that's not precisely accurate.

Quote
Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs.

Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of.

So they didn't slow them down so much as refuse to accelerate them.

article

And from the same article:

Quote
As we’ve pointed out before, the issue of peering was not covered by the recently gutted net neutrality rules. Those guidelines only dealt with whether an ISP deliberately blocked/throttled or unfairly prioritized traffic to a website. The congestion at peering ports occurs further upstream and is a matter of capacity.

So, that rule wouldn't even have stopped the thing you are citing as something it prevents.  ???

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2017, 03:39:19 PM »
I'll throw this out there.

Should internet access be looked upon as a public utility? Why or why not?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2017, 03:53:02 PM »
I'll throw this out there.

Should internet access be looked upon as a public utility? Why or why not?
No.  They should BE public utilities.  Not looked upon as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

Down side?  Inviting Big Brother to come on in and stay awhile.  :)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 03:56:29 PM by D.W. »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2017, 04:04:00 PM »
Quote
I don't see how the "anti-NN" arguments fall apart, when they are expressly supportive of breaking those monopolies and designed to provide a benefit and an incentive to doing so.
I think most of us got caught up in the "save the internet" by tieing the hands of these monopolies and missed this part.

Care to elaborate Seriati?

Thing here is there are ISP's("Last mile") and then there are Internet Service Providers("the backbone"). In the case of the larger ISP's, that can be one and the same thing, as is the case with Comcast, Verizon, and a number of others, but that also isn't entirely the case.

As an example from 10 years ago, my parent's ISP was a local operation, whose "backbone" service was actually provided by a state-funded initiative here in Idaho called SyringaNet. From there it ultimately traveled from Eastern Idaho over to Boise, where it then went through BGP once more and transitioned to Qwest's(CenturyLink) Internet Backbone infrastructure, as a lot of that is legacy from when most of the Internet Backbones were utilizing "Baby Bell" and Long Distance telephone company(AT&T, Sprint) infrastructure. From there traceroute would then tell me most of my internet Traffic then traveled over to Seattle, Washington(from Eastern Idaho) where it would once more go through BGP and then find its way to either Sprint, Level3, or Comcast depending on what sites I was trying to access with routing through a selection of San Francisco/LA, Salt Lake City, Denver, Milwaukee, or Chicago and then points beyond.

So as of 10 years ago, when surfing the Net, my "typical experience" was to actually traverse my way across my local "last mile" ISP(which actually was CenturyLink/Qwest--just routed through a 3rd party), SyringaNet, CenturyLink/QWest(again), and then at least 1 or 2 more different ISP's before ultimately reaching my final destination.

Now DataCenters, and ("Last Mile") ISP's with better connectivity options can do one better. It isn't uncommon for high-level DataCenters to be directly tied in at least 2 "internet backbones" so that they both have redundancy and to help provide improved latencys(as fewer jumps between different ISPs should be needed).

But this goes back to "net neutrality" isn't entirely about what Comcast may or may not be doing to traffic headed to your house specifically. It is about what all of those other ISP's who may be between you, your personal ISP, and the content you're accessing(and their ISP respectively).

I certainly have no objection towards consumer protections regarding abuse by the "last mile" providers. But at the same time, I do think it is reasonable that those people operating the "points between" be given a means to recover costs incurred by other parties over-saturating their network capacity.

And Google(YouTube)/Netflix/Facebook/etc can't exactly plead poverty on this count, they can afford to pay, but obviously they'd rather create a regulatory environment that forces others to help pay those costs for them, and they're doing so by playing up how the system can be(and has been) abused if left unregulated, with their obvious preference being "Net Neutrality."

But "Net Neutrality" isn't the only way to approach this, it isn't an all or nothing proposition. Targeting data use is not the same thing as targeting content, and they're deliberately trying to confuse the issue, because their (primarily video) content happens to consume a LOT of data.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2017, 04:14:10 PM »
It's worth mentioning this isn't JUST about data either.  Comcast isn't overly concerned with data when they hit me with 4x 5 commercial stops over the course of an "hour" long episode of something when I stream a TV show. 

It's that when I use Netflix I'm not being advertised to.  I'm not a source of additional money paid to them (by the advertisers) on top of the monthly rate I pay Comcast.

So it's not just that "those Netflix users should pay more because they use more."  It's also "those Netflix users should pay more because we aren't making as much money off them."

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2017, 04:22:24 PM »
I'll interrupt to note that living in the UK, I pay about $28 a month for Internet service. (And a landline phone!) The speed is more then enough for streaming or pirating or whatever I might want.

How much do you all pay? Like, seriously. Tell us all. What's your opinion on why you pay more then I do?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2017, 04:24:28 PM »
Think of it like the 2nd amendment for the internet.
Still trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist. The NN rules were a few guys, working in secret, suddenly launching regulations to control the internet for fear that dystopian reality of 2015 internet would never end. I’m more comfortable with private control if the internet than government control. Trump running the internet and deciding what’s “fair” sounds dangerous and, frankly, stupid. The internet of 2017 is pretty much the same as 2015, no noticeable improvement.  Why does the government need to control it?

Does anyone else catch that disconnect around the only way to be free is through government control? Orwellian as hell ain’t it?  :o

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2017, 04:35:39 PM »
Quote
Does anyone else catch that disconnect around the only way to be free is through government control? Orwellian as hell ain’t it?
Agreed.  And it does bother me.  However, I've long considered "big business" rather than "the man" as the true threat and puppet master.  It's a collaboration sure, but what can ya do?

Quote
How much do you all pay?
$130
Middle of the road TV channel line up, with a free year of 3 premium channels as a promotion.
High end on speed for the internet.
Now with bonus land line I'm not using.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2017, 04:45:59 PM »
I'll interrupt to note that living in the UK, I pay about $28 a month for Internet service. (And a landline phone!) The speed is more then enough for streaming or pirating or whatever I might want.

How much do you all pay? Like, seriously. Tell us all. What's your opinion on why you pay more then I do?

There are about 20 service providers in my area with tiers like 6 Mbps for $20 and 12 Mbps for $25, just saw one provider offering 100 Mbps for $40 as I researched this post. There’s a variety of packages that include TV service and phone lines, some for no extra charges some have extra fees. There’s a hell of a lot of choice. My preferred provider had choices ranging from $40/month for 50 Mbps to $65/month for 1 Gbps (at least one middle tier was available).

I took the 1 Gb plan because my family streams a lot to multiple devices and I often work remotely (lots of video conferencing and screen sharing). I may pay more than you so I can work/video conference/screen share while 2 movies streaming for the kids, wife surfing her stuff, and it’s all nearly instant with no buffering ever (actually, I think I did see it buffer once about a year ago, seems like I recall that). Not sure what load you’re putting on it but mine is pretty demanding and worth it to me.

I’ll add, ping times are 1-3 ms. Pretty solid for my gaming.  8)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 04:50:51 PM by Crunch »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2017, 07:08:14 PM »
When this goes through, if my local provider (which already massively overcharges me because they have no competition) decides to throttle my access to Netflix unless Netflix or I or both pay a fee, there's no way out. There's no competition to offer a lower fee.

Throttling a specific company is extortion.  It's already illegal and doesn't need a regulatory regime to prevent.  What's legal is providing preferred providers priority.  If Netflix degrades it means they have refused to pay the costs of the priority (which they would pass along to you), and so many other services did think it was worth it to pay for acceleration that Netflix got slowed down (along with a bunch of others). 

Netflix is complaining because they know priority will be tied to traffic and it'll be a big bill for them.  But I can't think of a good reason that those streaming video shouldn't bear their portion of the costs of the system based on usage.

And you missed the biggest solution.  If Netflix is mad about the ISP rates they can buy an ISP or found their own, or come out with a new way to get you their movies.  Meanwhile, I would not object in the least to two tier Netflix, where you can stream for one fee and download and watch at your leisure for another.  How is that unfair to anyone to tie convenience and instant gratification to the price you pay for it?

Quote
This becomes even worse if the company responsible for the ISP is also slanging a service in competition to Netflix. They can flat out refuse.

Then tweak for that point - even assuming you are correct that they can do this under current law.

Quote
The pro NN arguments have their place, but not in the current US environment. They won't work when you only have one or maybe two choices for the internet.

Except that's already not the case.  That's old school when you can stream over a mobile device.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2017, 07:49:19 PM »
5G is going to be a game changer for ISP potential. 10Gb speed over wireless, not requiring the $1000 considered typical to lay fiber.

Part of the US challenge is the sheer distances involved that have to get plumbed, I would imagine. I also suspect that the costs we see directly are charged indirectly in the UK.

I can't research these suspicions because my internet is too slow in my impoverished nation.