Neat Net Neutrality News

[HVC]

The fact that ISP companies want to strike down net neutrality laws is evidence that they want to do what people fear, I would think. Why fight a regulation if you have no interest in doing what is currently illegal.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.

We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed.  Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?

[frunk]

The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.

Netflix Performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months

Graph of Netflix Traffic Speed after Paying Comcast

Verizon Throttles Netflix Traffic

[HVC]

I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.

We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed.  Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?

bell own the infrastructure, so another ISP provider rents access to resell. Bell was slowing down their access so that bell could claim faster speeds.

The problem with slowing down sites is that it inconveniences consumers and slows down progress.  Imagine if ask Jeeves had had the ability to pay for faster uploads then the upstart google. We'd still be stuck with crappy search engines.

[Berkut]

I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.

We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed.  Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?

Because the internet is based on the principal that data is not "owned" by those who are transmitting it, and hence there should not be any preference given to some data over others. The entire technical basis for the internet is that it is a shared, distributed network. It never would have had the success it has had if the moment it was created every player started screwing over the other players data packets in favor of their own. The reason it works is because the participants DO NOT play favorites with the data, they just send it along.

Now, of course, the internet is a rather different creature from where it started, but the technical underpinnings have not changed. It is a classic shared resource. It is like saying "Now that individual companies have bought out the rights to part of the interstate, why shouldn't they be allowed to force anyone they don't like to drive 15 MPH while their traffic is allowed to go 75...even when it actually makes no difference to them at all?"

It is a problem because the internet works BECAUSE it is a shared and equal mover of data. It requires a bunch of different entitites to move that data around in a transparent manner. When I press send on this messages, the "internet" is going to take the packets that make up that data and dump it into the bucket for delivery to the languish server. There is not actual "pipe", it just goes into the network, and each hop knows how to send it to the next, without knowing how it is going to get to its destination. This is how this technology works, and the key to it working is that nobody tries to play favorites based on what is written on the envelope. Once people do, the entire thing is going to become much less efficient at doing what it does, and that would only be in service of the internet becoming more efficient at making money for the giant players.

There is no upside to the end of net neutrality. The only winners will be the giant corporations ability to make more money by selling a shittier service.

[Jacob]

We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed.  Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?

Because a carrier can throttle the speed of a site when they want to introduce a competing site.

"Watch your movies on VeriFlix! Always streams smoothly, it doesn't stutter like Netflix."

[viper37]

Really?  Give me an example of an irreversible behavior the ISPs could undertake in the absence of these regulations.  Certainly the Bell Canada behavior appears to have easily been reversed, and by reports here the regulations were undertaken after the behavior. 

Why should the smaller firms wait for years and invest money in lawyers instead of technology?

Shouldn't the government act in a way to protect free market, even if that means having regulations?  I know, it looks silly when we say this, but sometimes, it is needed.

In fact, if you are correct, "Bell has to provide full service for its customers, all its customers."  That means they don't have any incentive to increase their access speeds, because they can't charge more for faster internet access, since such "full service" has to go to "all its customers."  That's over-regulation, IMO.

There are two kinds of customers:
- end users.  You and me.  We buy internet access, we use it for ourselves.
- resellers.  They buy internet access (or phone, or tv access for some), they buy a block, with a guaranteed speed.  Then they go around and ressell these internet blocks to end users, sometimes at better prices than the line owner, since they are often smaller and more efficient.


Now, what happens if lineowner starts to throttle the speed of its resellers to provide faster access to his own services?
Or what if Bell and Shaw decide that Netflix traffic has to be throttled down so their own CraveTV gets a boost?  And it did happen in the US with Netflix.  Hence the need for net neutrality, so that everyone can compete.  It's not like every company can build their network nowadays.  Even if it was technically feasible, I can't imagine having a dozen lines in every streets for each services.

[Eddie Teach]

How do you think Wifi works?

magic.

Travels over ley lines.

[grumbler]

they can and do charge more for faster access. What they can't do is limit the competitions speed to gain an advantage nor can they charge for one speed and ramp it down at their convenience. Something they did in the past, abd without regulation is in their best interest to do so.

I was pretty sure viper's description of what happened was wrong.  Not that I am saying that you are wrong as well, but this isn't something that has happened in the US and, if it does happen, is easily solved by specific regulation.  General ad hoc regulation "just in case" seems like overkill, if post hoc regulation is so effective.

[grumbler]

The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.

Netflix Performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months

Graph of Netflix Traffic Speed after Paying Comcast

Verizon Throttles Netflix Traffic

All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix.  As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).

[grumbler]

Why should the smaller firms wait for years and invest money in lawyers instead of technology?

Indeed. why should they?  That's exactly why regulation is a bad thing except when necessary; it requires lawyers, not technologists.

Shouldn't the government act in a way to protect free market, even if that means having regulations?  I know, it looks silly when we say this, but sometimes, it is needed.

I'm not sure how unnecessary regulations, and the resultant unnecessary time and expense in developing, promulgating, understanding, making new rules to ensure compliance, and then enforcement, serve to promote a "free market."  If it is needed, then we can regulate.  until it is needed, we should not.  What is so unreasonable about that position?  It's pretty much the same position most people have about public issues that they actually understand.

There are two kinds of customers:
- end users.  You and me.  We buy internet access, we use it for ourselves.
- resellers.  They buy internet access (or phone, or tv access for some), they buy a block, with a guaranteed speed.  Then they go around and ressell these internet blocks to end users, sometimes at better prices than the line owner, since they are often smaller and more efficient.

So "all the customers" includes all of these people?  And they all get the same "full service?"  Or did maybe you mis-speak?

Now, what happens if lineowner starts to throttle the speed of its resellers to provide faster access to his own services?
Or what if Bell and Shaw decide that Netflix traffic has to be throttled down so their own CraveTV gets a boost?  And it did happen in the US with Netflix.  Hence the need for net neutrality, so that everyone can compete.   

This didn't happen to Netflix.  All that happened was that bad ISPs like Verizon oversold their systems and speeds went down.  Not just for Netflix.  Some frothy sites claim that Netflix's problems were part of a big conspiracy, but none of the reputable sites do so.

A likely explanation for recent slowdowns is that Netflix usage went up, but peering and transit bandwidth didn't.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/

Now, if an ISP is using its monopoly position for unfair benefit to itself, then you need regulations appropriate to end such abuse.  But, until there is evidence of abuse, regulations are going to be scattershot and full of unintended consequences.

[grumbler]

How do you think Wifi works?

magic.

Travels over ley lines.

You realize that GF is likely to believe you guys, right? 

[frunk]

All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix.  As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).

What do you make of access fees Netflix paid to Comcast and Verizon in order to ensure that Comcast and Verizon customers could get better performance for their content?

[grumbler]

All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix.  As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).

What do you make of access fees Netflix paid to Comcast and Verizon in order to ensure that Comcast and Verizon customers could get better performance for their content?

I don't know enough about those fees to comment.

[Grey Fox]

How do you think Wifi works?

magic.

Travels over ley lines.

You realize that GF is likely to believe you guys, right?

Wifi is not a different network.