OT: Goodbye Net Neutrality?
Quite OT, but I figured this would be of interest to a lot of readers since there seem to be a large number of EECS majors. Also, according to the latest surveys, everyone here is an Internet user.
Google and Verizon are reportedly close to having a deal to ensure Google traffic receives priority on Verizon networks. This is particularly disappointing to me since Google has been a key promoter of net neutrality but has apparently abandoned that approach and is now leading the way on taking advantage of a non-neutral future.
A lot of this is a result of a court ruling that the FCC, who tried to impose net neutrality, does not have jurisdiction over broadband Internet. So it wouldn't be surprising if this development pushed Congress to give the FCC that power, but if not it might move us in a direction where the idea of net neutrality is a thing of the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes
August 5th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
where I agree that it's bad, but it could already be happening, and really, how would we know? Unless we were inside the company, they could tell us whatever they wanted about our often slow service.
One of the big catalysts for Net Neutrality entering the news was Comcast automatically throttling BitTorrent traffic. They denied it, at first - but eventually they were caught, sued, and sanctioned by the FCC. And then the courts overturned the sanction.
If a company is violating net neutrality, it's usually fairly easy to detect and prove - in this case, Comcast's throttling affected the user's entire connection, slowing all internet traffic to a crawl until BitTorrent was closed. People found the correlation pretty quickly - and from there, it was trivial to verify the behavior by sending faked BitTorrent packets and monitoring the speed of other network traffic.
More insidious methods would selectively throttle certain packets, showing no speed difference in other web traffic - but even these should be fairly easy to detect by comparing the same types of traffic across different providers.
TL;DR - Some companies already do it, but when they try it, geeks the world over discover it pretty quickly. And then the government twiddles its thumbs.
I can see why high bandwidth users favor it, but why would anyone else care or advocate it? And in fact, what is wrong with a provider slowing down Bit Torrent (or similar streams) when 5% of the users are taking 80% of the bandwidth from everyone else? IMO, I see no problem whatsoever with charging high bandwidth users a higher price, or, if regulations don't allow that, slowing them down. It is a fact that bandwidth is not limitless, and as we all know from slowdowns, high bandwidth users do in fact impact the rest of us. It's simple to demonize the providers, but IMO the story is a bit more complicated than that. Or am I missing a key fact?
The lack of net neutrality is akin to having a special ROAD traffic lane that the road owner allows BMWs ("packet inspection" example) carrying ice cream from Meijer ("content provider ID" example) to use exclusively. It's outrageous, it's bullshit, and this cannot be allowed.
A slightly better version of my earlier analogy would be a toll road where going 5miles costs $5 in a BMW, but $15 in a Ford.
If ISPs want to charge based on AMOUNT of bandwidth used, fine. Just don't sell unlimited data plans that aren't really unlimited.
The ISPs sold unlimited data plans with rates like 12Mbps or whatever. Now they are crying because they sold more than their network could handle at peak, so they want to be able to solve the problem by punishing people for using the service per the terms of their contract, simply because of the content type/provider they are wishing to use the service for.
The ISPs are demonizing the greedy/selfish/bandwidth hogs as the rallying cry to solve their OWN oversold network problems and also gain revenue from big companies for priority. Don't fall for it.
charging more for 18 wheelers on toll roads than for BMW's--which in fact happens. All web traffic is not equal, and again, the fact is that bandwidth is limited and regardless of whether the ISP's screwed up their offer and structures (I agree with you there) the fact is that very few users impact everyone else. That doesn't change, and a solution is necessary, not simply saying it is their fault and we must treat all traffic equally--because IMO it is not. I do agree with you that rate plans should change to recognize the problem, and that ISP's have screwed up in the area.
That is a much, much worse analogy. Why? Because BMW's and 18 wheelers are different types of traffic. Discriminating based on the type of traffic is quality of service (QoS), and I already provided a link further down detailing the differences between QoS and net neutrality (see: the post about lolcatz vs. bank transactions). Net neutrality covers discrimination against the same type of traffic based on the source of the packet, i.e. a BMW car vs. a Ford car.
but from you're comment here, this is a distinction without a difference. This isn't discrimination by user or source or anything else--it is ISP's trying to maintain speed for everyone using the network--a zero sum entity--by slowing down heavy traffic regardless of source. In fact, there is a strong argument to made that the providers are being far more democratic than your position, which reads to me like and elitist argument favoring a small minority to the detriment of the majority.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
I don't see any way this something like this can be stopped. People have always been able to pay extra to get better service, and when the internet begins to approach its capacity for speed, I have a hard time believing it will work any different. It works the same way with water. If we start to run out and someone is willing to pay through the nose to get all of it they want, someone will oblige.
Is that ideal? No. But what about the things that need (according to some) to be pushed through faster? Would it be OK for an ISP to prioritize transmission of digital MRIs over people downloading porn over Bittorrent? Where can you draw the line?
August 5th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
... it there. And by the way, what is this Bittorrent of which you speak?
I agree. Someone had to pay to build the network architecture, in this case Verizon. Why should they not be allowed to sell priority access? A lot of my work is web based and all of my Internet and Blackberry costs are a tax write off. For me it would be advantageous to pay extra for faster, dedicated service. I have absolutely no problem with this at all. If someone pays to build a network, they should be able to profit from it. If that means Google can edge out, say Apple's iPhone -- which by the way is a terrible bandwith steward, and its voracious use of bandwidth may end up being its undoing vis a vis a good bandwith steward like RIM -- by striking a deal with Verizon that causes iPhones to run like crap, all the more power to them. Competition is a bitch baby. Its how the big boys get on top and stay there.
Yep. I'd like to think that my ability to download pictures of lolcatz is as important as a bank sending transfers, but it's just not the case. At some point we're going to have to start deciding what gets through in a timely manner and what doesn't.
I have an article for you to read. It explains the difference between quality of service (which is what prioritizing bank transaction ahead of lolcatz would be, or prioritizing VOIP over email) and network neutrality (which concerns prioritizing bank transactions from one bank that paid a lot of money ahead of bank transactions from another bank).
August 5th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
So it wouldn't be surprising if this development pushed Congress to give the FCC that power
I think that's very unlikely. A certain political party has framed potential FCC regulations ensuring net neutrality as a "government takeover" of the internet. A certain "news" outlet has parroted this ad nauseum pretty much ensuring that net neutrality is now dead.
Yes, I probably crossed the no politics line, but to hell with it, this is BS.
Isn't so much "net neutrality", its simply government wading into a dynamic environment like the internet. Regulation - and keeping up with the changes - is a slow process, and applied to the internet, will not keep up with technology, standards, demand, etc. Worse, it is succeptible to lobbying, which guarantees that not only will "net neutrality" be an oxymoron, it will be codified into official U.S. policy, heavily influenced by PACs and other folks with an agenda. That's a recipe for bad news.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
While it's still not good, it appears that this does not affect the entire internet, just wireless traffic:
As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says.
I don't think providers should discriminate based on source, but at least there should be enough competition among cell phone providers so you can pick one that is neutral.
An additional comment by Eric Schmidt:
"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."
I know some people like discrimination on type, but at least that is justifiable. And Verizon is agreeing to to be source neutral on the landlines, where there is a lack of competition for users to pick a neutral provider.
So all in all, not good, but not the end of net neutrality.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
And then double posted trying to fix it
August 5th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
I'm not a law talking guy, but I don't understand how the government, which subsidizes via tax breaks or outright cash payment the construction and maintenance of the physical networks on which these utilities operate, lacks the authority to regulate them. Obviously I'd rather see Net Neutrality become institutionalized policy, but even playing Devil's advocate I don't understand how this makes any sense. How can the FCC lack the ability to regulate broadband internet?
August 5th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
I wonder that myself. Especially when you consider that there is a subsidized rural broadband push happening at the federal level currently. Obviously the court that made this ruling knows the law better than anyone here would, so I assume they are correct. Still seems odd though.
I wonder if the courts could take up net neutrality as a free speech issue?
August 5th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
How can the FCC lack the ability to regulate broadband internet?
The FCC thought they had the ability, but the courts said they don't.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
I understand that part, but I didn't understand on what basis the court rendered this decision. I do now; that article has a nice explanation:
Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I expect the FCC to seek the enaction of laws to grant them this authority, so ISPs are certainly not out of the woods when it comes to throttling.
It goes something like this:
If the FCC wants to next regulate the rampant pooping in ice coolers in columbus, it wouldn't have the authority to do so....even though it would be a great idea. The FCC needs to get the legal authority first from congress (which they will soon enough, thank god).
Those are the checks and balances that keep us different from North Korea.
EDIT: Just to be clear. I am PRO- net-neutrality and PRO-FCC. Just trying to explain that the court was right in what they decided.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Maybe this is a sly move by google to shock the public into outrage about this issue? Surprisingly few people even know what net neutrality is or what it means. Either way, Google profits.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
So much for "Don't be evil"...
August 5th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
I've never been as outraged by net neutrality as others, provided the preferred service does not needlessly hamstring the general data flow on the Internet. As the article noted, people have been paying tiered pricing for "better" cable channels for years, and various content providers have historically charged different fees for moe or better access (I remember NYT tried that a couple of years ago by placing their columnists behind paywalls).
I've always had a bigger problem with data limits (especially selective ones) because, with few exceptions, most people do not use a disproportionate amount of bandwith on a per-month basis. Yes, streaming videos through Netflix is more bandwidth-heavy than checking your e-mail, but my sense is that most users of cable and FiOS are in the same ballpark of usage. But even if there are some users who consume more bandwidth than the average, unless they are abusing it (such as running a major server/hub), the cable provider shouldn't limit how they use the resource they are paying for. Maybe that means less "data-intensive" users are given priority in transfer rates when usage is highest, but a cap on the amount of data seems unfair.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
As the article noted, people have been paying tiered pricing for "better" cable channels for years
This is why I'm such a huge proponent of net neutrality. The last thing I want is for the internet to become as much of a mess as cable TV has become.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
But as a counter-point, when peope started paying for cable services, the overal quality of the product increased. Before you had HBO and Showtime en masse, cable was basically a couple of news networks, ESPN/local sports channel, and some special-interest channels. Now, you have the likes of AMC, FX, USA, Comedy Central, Discovery, etc. putting out great products. When it became clear that people would pay more for different types of content, the overall quality improved as more parties tried to appeal to this market.
I'm not saying it will play out the same way with the Internet, but if people are willing to pay more for faster connections to popular content (and by its nature and prominence, most people will want this content), much-needed investments in infrastructure and security may appear more palpable, and such improvements will likely improve everyone's access.
I definitely see the potential for abuse here, but I guess I'm willing to give it some time to see what the consequences of this tiered system might be.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
Correlation is not causality. Here's what actually happened. Once paid cable bundles came into existence, those channels proliferated because they are profit centers for the big networks. Viacom owns the Comedy Central channel. So boom, Viacom gets CC placed on basic cable and gets $0.70 a month per cable subscriber. That's instantly passed on to the consumer, whether they want the channel or not if it's in their channel bundle.
So you're subsidizing Comedy Central whether you watch it or not. No big deal right? Now expand that to hundreds of channels like WE, Lifetime, Spike, BTN, G4, foreign language channels you can't understand. The reason "quality" increased (debatable anyway) is because the money to finance that was essentially extracted at knifepoint from people that have no interest in it. The internet should not turn into the same thing.
Isn't this what made the Big 10 Network such a hot property?
Yes, because it's extortion by majority of the minority that doesn't want it at all.
I don't deny that the cable networks passed those costs onto the consumer, and that the content providers and the major networks forced that burden upon users somewhat. But this wasn't necessarily forced upon others a "knifepoint," unless you expected a la carte programming to take off (which it has not, despite some worthwhile attempts).
At some point (and not to get into a political debate), everyone has to pay for services they won't use. You finance the fire department that will never come to your house or office, you pay for roads that you may never drive on, you pay for credit card fraud even when you card is not compromised, and the list goes on and on.
When I pay $30+ dollars for Internet usage, I'm not visiting "all" of the Internet equally. Like most users, I go to the big sites - Youtube, Facebook, CNN, NYTimes, Yahoo, ESPN, MGoBlog - disproportionately compared to, say, www.lemonparty.com. If you look at the top sites visited by traffic (at places like Alexa - and yes, I know these are imperfect metrics), the vast majority of traffic is limited to a handful of sites. Sure, the long tail of Internet usage means a random blog on cookies in Cleveland will receive a small-but-consistent traffic stream, but most users visit the same sites, just like there are a couple of cable stations that draw the vast majority of eyes. I mean, ESPN and TNT pull in monster numbers compared to WE or the Speed network, but because we were "forced" to pay for these high-profile networks those more niche programs are made available to a much larger market than they would if left to fend for themselves independently.
Now, I know the Internet was designed so that everyone has a voice equally, that the little guy won't be silenced by the big corporations. And I totally respect that and will chmapion that freedom forever. And yes, I don't want Youtube or NYTimes to be blocked because I won't pay exorbinant fees for it. But at the same time, those sites bear a large burden to provide those services, and so shouldn't they be able to seek out "premium" position on the Internet provided they do not cut off access completely to everyone?
It costs real money to host the billions of hours of videos on Youtube, and the only real way they can ever hope to recoup those costs is through increased revenue from ads and the like. And there are users out there who would be more than willing to pay a little extra if it means the content is streamed quicker (with ads attached). Now, if people think this is crazy or too pricey, they will vote with their wallets and seek out another ISP provider (now, if ISP competition is stunted or eliminated then that creates anti-trust and anti-competition issues that would need to be addressed), but as of now, let's see if the market will sort it out before declaring limited preference on the Internet a bad thing.
For the most part I hear you, and I have a quick note:
But at the same time, those sites bear a large burden to provide those services, and so shouldn't they be able to seek out "premium" position on the Internet provided they do not cut off access completely to everyone?
It costs real money to host the billions of hours of videos on Youtube, and the only real way they can ever hope to recoup those costs is through increased revenue from ads and the like. And there are users out there who would be more than willing to pay a little extra if it means the content is streamed quicker (with ads attached).
They CHOSE to provide those services in exchange to try and profit off it. The way they drive the profit shouldn't be by spreading the cost burden to people that don't want the service, or by creating an environment where people that don't use that service or use a competitor's service are forced to change ISPs (if possible, and it rarely is) are penalized as a result.
As for your comparison about visiting certain sites vs watching cable channels, the difference is when you pay Comcast for cable they give money to ESPN, Comedy Central, etc. When you pay Comcast for Internet Access they don't give money to Facebook, Google, Microsoft, l3monparty, etc.
Part 1: If I paid for a 10mbps connection (or w/e), I didn't pay for a 10mbps connection for text, a 5mbps connection for video, and a 2mbps connection for everything else.
Part 2: Further, on that connection I paid for, I don't want the speed with which i can access videos to be 5mbps from Youtube because google paid Comcast, and 2mbps from VIMEO because they didn't.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased.
Collusion, plain and simple. Total horseshit.
Net neutrality is enforced by ONE simple rule: ISPs are NOT allowed to inspect packets, or apply QoS based upon ID of content provider.
The lack of net neutrality is akin to having a special ROAD traffic lane that the road owner allows BMWs ("packet inspection" example) carrying ice cream from Meijer ("content provider ID" example) to use exclusively. It's outrageous, it's bullshit, and this cannot be allowed.
The only people possibly against net neutrality are either very poorly informed, paid shills, or people with enough money they'll always have the priority/preferred levels of service.
Let's say ISPs can't inspect packets. ISPs couldn't then manage their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service attacks, viruses or worms. That would be a HUGE problem.
It may also restrict ISPs ability to provide managed IP services, like IPTV.
Any net neutrality rules (unlikely at this point) will provide for reasonable network management, which is basically what's going on now.
Ok, no deep packet inspection.
Also, according to the latest surveys, everyone here is an Internet user.
I don't know where you get your information but it's invalid. I don't use the internet.
Truth be told, it uses me.