FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility

[tunerX]

Awesome. Now we all get garbage service, but at least it will be equally garbage service with rural cities and townships affected the most.

None of this changes how the Internet is tiered along with IXPs and current infrastructure. This ruling does not increase bandwidth for content consumers or content providers. It just ensures that when an IXP interconnect is saturated the ISPs cannot throttle the source of the saturation.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Satellite internet is not a viable consumer option, certainly not for the mainstream user. It might be for the country guy who only checks his email once a month but satellite is most definitely not competing with DSL/Cable.

The vast majority of internet users use significantly less than 35GB/Month.

What people on tech websites need to realize is that they are not in the mainstream.

 

[Renzatic]

Awesome. Now we all get garbage service, but at least it will be equally garbage service with rural cities and townships affected the most.

None of this changes how the Internet is tiered along with IXPs and current infrastructure. This ruling does not increase bandwidth for content consumers or content providers. It just ensures that when an IXP interconnect is saturated the ISPs cannot throttle the source of the saturation.

It does nothing of the sort. ISPs can still throttle traffic if it's degrading service across the entire network. Net neutrality only prevents them from doing just 'cuz.

 

[bradl]

The vast majority of internet users use significantly less than 35GB/Month.

What people on tech websites need to realize is that they are not in the mainstream.

And just what, pray tell, is mainstream? Please be detailed in your description.

BL.

 

[KPOM]

I don't think anyone wanted to reclassify broadband as a utility until the ISPs decided they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Remember, at one point the FCC was enforcing net neutrality without any of the Title II restrictions to engender market growth and innovation.

They ended up getting sued for their efforts, lost, and watched as Comcast turned around and proved that they can't be trusted to provide a important service to the public without gaming the entire system to exclusively their own benefit. Verizon and AT&T followed soon after.

And now here we are.

Except who will ultimately benefit the most? Probably AT&T and Verizon. Companies fight regulations like crazy, but then once they are in place find ways to use them as barriers to entry. After all, both companies are already subject to Title II for their landline operations.

 

[tunerX]

It does nothing of the sort. ISPs can still throttle traffic if it's degrading service across the entire network. Net neutrality only prevents them from doing just 'cuz.

Throttling one valid service over another is exactly what this ruling stops.

 

[Renzatic]

The vast majority of internet users use significantly less than 35GB/Month.

What people on tech websites need to realize is that they are not in the mainstream.

Considering the popularity of Netflix, I'd say you're wrong. It streams at roughly 1GB per hour. If you were to watch a show on Netflix at least once a night, you'd reach that cap in a month easily.

----------

Throttling one valid service over another is exactly what this ruling stops.

...for arbitrary reasons. ISPs still have full capabilities to maintain their networks. They can still throttle everything during high congestion hours, or even curtail certain problematic streams of data that aren't offering them any alternatives.

They just can't do it because they feel like it. Like since Facebook is popular, they can't slow it down or curtail it entirely, and say "hey, pay us $10 a month for access to Facebook" just to make themselves a new, surefire revenue stream.

----------

Except who will ultimately benefit the most? Probably AT&T and Verizon. Companies fight regulations like crazy, but then once they are in place find ways to use them as barriers to entry. After all, both companies are already subject to Title II for their landline operations.

It's hard to tell what exactly is going to happen in the future. I see this move as being a way to maintain the internet as it's always been, and am thus are all for it. On the surface, it seems to be the consumers who will benefit the most. We pay for the bandwidth, and get whatever we want with it.

But Title II does come along with some caveats that might effect the market down the road. Will it slow broadband grade proliferation across the country? Will it cause some previously unforseen problem to arise in the near future? Who knows. All I can say is that, right at this moment, it's a good thing.

 

[tunerX]

Considering the popularity of Netflix, I'd say you're wrong. It streams at roughly 1GB per hour. If you were to watch a show on Netflix at least once a night, you'd reach that cap in a month easily.

----------



...for arbitrary reasons. ISPs still have full capabilities to maintain their networks. They can still throttle everything during high congestion hours, or even curtail certain problematic streams of data that aren't offering them any alternatives.

They just can't do it because they feel like it. Like since Facebook is popular, they can't slow it down or curtail it entirely, and say "hey, pay us $10 a month for access to Facebook" just to make themselves a new, surefire revenue stream.

That would require choosing one service over another. An ISP can add QoS for management and internet control traffic so their uplinks are never throttled or hampered. But they cannot throttle any consumer traffic.

All consumers get best effort.

 

[Renzatic]

That would require choosing one service over another. An ISP can add QoS for management and internet control traffic so their uplinks are never throttled or hampered. But they cannot throttle any consumer traffic.

All consumers get best effort.

You're taking it at its most literal interpretation. The internet is the internet, and it never runs perfectly. ISPs won't be punished for compensating for something they have no control over.

 

[tunerX]

You're taking it at its most literal interpretation. The internet is the internet, and it never runs perfectly. ISPs won't be punished for compensating for something they have no control over.

Actually this ruling says they will get punished. They cannot throttle content. Everyone gets equal access to any inter ISP or IXP links.

 

[Renzatic]

Actually this ruling says they will get punished. They cannot throttle content. Everyone gets equal access to any inter ISP or IXP links.

Under normal conditions. In problematic situations, they can still do what they've always done, and control traffic. Nothing has changed there.

 

[tunerX]

Under normal conditions. In problematic situations, they can still do what they've always done, and control traffic. Nothing has changed there.

So a problematic condition like netflix users complaining that they are getting constant buffering problems... Who do you throttle? Do you throttle youtube, amazon prime or hulu so netflix customers can all stream their videos?

Do you tell netflix they can install content systems into your ISP so the IXP links are no longer saturated and charge them for it?

This ruling was initiated by the above scenario. When netflix claimed that comcast, time warner, and verizon were throttling their connections. Which at the time Netflix did not use any of those ISPs as its ISP.

 

[Renzatic]

So a problematic condition like netflix users complaining that they are getting constant buffering problems... Who do you throttle? Do you throttle youtube, amazon prime or hulu so netflix customers can all stream their videos?

If it's Netflix's fault due to bad peering, then no one. If Netflix is causing problems across the entire network due to insufficient peering, leaving the ISP to handle the slack, then you throttle Netflix.

What you can't do is throttle Netflix when they're not causing any problems because you can hold your own customers for ransom to get them to pay up for a priority line to them.

Keep in mind Netflix wasn't initially throttled because they were eating up 80% of Comcast's bandwidth. They still had plenty to spare. The problem was, Netflix made up 80% of all the bandwidth in use, which means they were popular, which meant Comcast wanted to find a way to make a dime off them.

...and they did. And now, once again, here we are.

 

[tunerX]

If it's Netflix's fault due to bad peering, then no one. If Netflix is causing problems across the entire network due to insufficient peering, leaving the ISP to handle the slack, then you throttle Netflix.

What you can't do is throttle Netflix when they're not causing any problems because you can hold your own customers for ransom to get them to pay up for a priority line to them.

You are missing the whole point of the FCC ruling. They are not allowed to throttle consumer traffic ever. It was never a part of the ruling that they are not allowed to carve out QoS for their own network control traffic.

And Netflix is not peering with anyone. They are a subscriber to their ISPs services.

 

[Renzatic]

You are missing the whole point of the FCC ruling. They are not allowed to throttle consumer traffic ever. It was never a part of the ruling that they are not allowed to carve out QoS for their own network control traffic.

Okay. We're going in circles here. Show me where it says that ISPs aren't allowed to control traffic across their networks in order to maintain consistent speeds and access during peak hours or heavy usage.

And Netflix is not peering with anyone. They are a subscriber to their ISPs services.

Netflix is peering with tons of people. First of all, they had their Open Connect peering protocol, which was meant to alleviate bandwidth concerns for last mile providers. On top of that, they had deals worked out with other tier 1 and 2 providers like Cognent, Level3, and...er...other people, I think. It's been awhile since I've read about all this.

So yeah, they're peering with tons of companies. They spend millions doing so.

 

[tunerX]

Okay. We're going in circles here. Show me where it says that ISPs aren't allowed to control traffic across their networks in order to maintain consistency during peak hours or heavy usage.

Netflix is peering with tons of people. First of all, they had their Open Connect peering protocol, which was meant to alleviate bandwidth concerns for last mile providers. On top of that, they had deals worked out with other tier 1 and 2 providers like Cognent, Level3, and...er...other people, I think. It's been awhile since I've read about all this.

So yeah, they're peering with tons of companies. They spend millions doing so.

You tell me where the FCC ruling says they are allowed to throttle consumer traffic. They are not allowed to throttle consumer traffic ever.

Those aren't actual ISP/IXP peerings. It is a BGP peering without transit-networking. Those are the same content delivery peerings that any enterprise with money can utilize.

Basically all their open connect is doing is establishing a content delivery network with cached videos inside an IXP network with BGP peering... no true ISP/IXP peering is involved.

 

[Rocketman]

Today on CNBC Mark Cuban gave a cogent counterpoint to the obviously political vote at FCC today. One FCC commissioner gave a very persuasive objection to the vote.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102458909

http://recode.net/2015/02/26/fcc-ap...tbrainamp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=general

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102459578

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000357618

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000357605

Rocketman

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000357620

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Today on CNBC Mark Cuban gave a cogent counterpoint to the obviously political vote at FCC today. One FCC commissioner gave a very persuasive objection to the vote.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102458909


http://recode.net/2015/02/26/fcc-ap...tbrainamp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=general

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102459578

Rocketman

Reading the thread throughout reduces redundant post links.

 

[Renzatic]

You tell me where the FCC ruling says they are allowed to throttle consumer traffic. They are not allowed to throttle consumer traffic ever.

You made the initial assertion. It's up to you to bring the proof and rub it in my face, showing me how wrong and ignorant I am.

Because from what I've read, I've seen nothing in the Net Neutrality rules that prevent an ISP from maintaining its own networks.

Basically all their open connect is doing is establishing a content delivery network with cached videos inside an IXP network with BGP peering... no true ISP/IXP peering is involved.

Ultimately, that's an academic distinction, because regardless of how it's done, it's end purpose is to provide bandwidth to ISPs, alleviating the strain on last mile networks. It also entirely ignores what have they've been doing with Cognent, Akami, Level3, and the rest, who's entire business is, obviously, peering.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

If it's Netflix's fault due to bad peering, then no one. If Netflix is causing problems across the entire network due to insufficient peering, leaving the ISP to handle the slack, then you throttle Netflix.

That is the exact scenario that got Netflix's panties in a bunch to begin with.

 

[Renzatic]

That is the exact scenario that got Netflix's panties in a bunch to begin with.

No. Because they had sufficient peering set up to relax bandwidth requirements on ISPs, which were provided free of charge to any and all who wanted to use it.

The problem was, Comcast didn't want to use it. They throttled their bandwidth down by almost half, and demanded they pay them for direct access to their network instead. With all the people complaining about Netflix suddenly sucking, they caved pretty quick.

This is the very thing net neutrality is meant to combat. Comcast and co. would lose nothing by hopping on Open Connect, except the extra revenue they'd get from blackmailing a 3rd party service people are already paying for to access to their customer base.

 

[Waxhead138]

One side fears government control and abusing this.

Other side fears businesses having unchecked greed.

Truth? Somewhere in the middle....... Businesses unchecked will screw people over. Especially when ISP's closely mirror each others practices( same goes for the wireless carriers). So while there is competition, the grass is not necessary greener on the other side. But overregulation can screw people over too.

While the current FCC states all this will do in Title II is keep everything the same. No charging Netflix( who would pass the cost onto consumers) for fast lanes, etc which is a good thing for consumers. Though if things change and apply the rest of the Title II to the internet, then the government can screw us over.

This whole debate is based on the fear of what the government will do in the future due to this or I think a naive belief that allowing a company to screw over consumers, the free market will take care of that bad company. But like I said, ISP companies closely mirror each other. So the free market can't take care of anything. That is where regulation comes into play.

It is all about balance. Which no one seems to want to find. Some think any regulation is harmful while others want to over regulate.

Thank you thank you thank you for this post. It maintains some perspective and doesn't really politicize the issue. The words communist and / or Obama didn't appear even once. I'm impressed lol.

Seriously though....all of the doomsayers on this topic, no matter which version of doom they are preaching.....are very much trying to predict the future, when none of us know. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this decision may prove to be the beginning of a slippery slope...or it could be just what was needed to begin preventing future abuses of power from the ISPs. Only time will tell and none of us can predict it. And yes, it's about balance. Hopefully this decision helps to maintain it.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

If I like my plan I can keep my plan. If I like my doctor I can keep my doctor. Oh wait..........that was a lie in almost every case.

Except just about everybody kept their doctor. And the plans people had to dump wouldn't cover a stubbed toe, except for it happening on the third Thursday, on a day of the full moon, on an even numbered year, when the toe was stubbed on a piece of furniture that was 'Made In America' by a man that had a pronounced limp in his left leg...

Yeah, the ACA wasn't the best we deserve, but considering the political headwind, the whining whiners, and the low spark of high heeled lobbyists, it was a start. Single payer would have been better, but the chances of that happening in today's political climate is about as likely as Fox News providing thirty minutes of independently verified facts in one continuous spasm in their 'Prime Time'.

And with that, I'm clear...

But, do have fun...

 

[kds1]

Get ready for your Internet service fees to go through the roof (FCC "fees"), your privacy to be invaded ("regulated") and monitored by government at all times and your free speech rights to go completely out the window in favor of concepts like "You can't yell FIRE on the Internet!" and your "real identity" must be used at ALL times or you will fined into oblivion.

You see all this crap is under the pretense of a reasonable idea (i.e. net neutrality), but in REALITY, it means they will now go FAR FAR beyond just that one issue and eventually regulate every aspect of your online life. It may actually be a good time for someone to roll out a "private" alternative to the Internet that is NOT connected to it. It would also be easier to control in terms of hacking since you could not just get access anywhere on the planet.



"We" didn't win anything. People who think they got something here have no idea the Pandora Box they opened. They will be able to regulate content and as Mark said, "decency standards". They can make porn sites 100% illegal. They can make Showtime and HBO illegal. They could require everything to be sanitized like over-the-air TV. They could make it so you can't get high-speed Internet because everyone has to have "equal" speeds. Everyone stuck at the lowest common denominator. It could be like the Communist Russia of Internet.

The above hysteria is crazy and laughable. Maybe you should hide out in your survival shelter for awhile until you feel better?

Chicken Little is alive and well....

 

[kage207]

No, the government cannot regulate content on the internet?

Like it doesn't on radio or television.

Remember, the progressive (like Obama) would like nothing more (and have tried) to bring back the 'fairness doctrine' which is the definition of regulation of free speech.

You must be crack-baby high to think that content regulations and additional taxes are not on their way. After all, that is what progressives do.

The reason it won't happen is because they won't be able to regulate content. Think about the massive amount of things on the Internet, do you really think they have all th power to regulate it? Do you think they have the means to stop us from using software to get around their schemes? I think anyone or anything attempting to do this will in fact go bankrupt.

The Internet is blind to the bytes it passes through it and anyone attempting to regulate that will lose. The reason they will lose because of the sheer amount of data, time, energy, manpower and hardware is just unwieldy. There's a reason why there is a consortium that runs the web.

This regulation is to stop ISPs from giving priority to companies who pay them off as the Internet is not built this way and will only increase costs to everyone. Not only that but it will create an intranet by the ISPs. Do you understand time sharing? How the Internet passes packets of information? This is what the ISPs want to control.

I'm pretty sure TV is not a utility. Same with the radio. Both are regulated by the FCC. Hm... still doesn't make them utilities.

Sorry but the regulations of the fear mongers have put into will never happen because guess what? There are a lot of smart people out there. There's a ton of layers to the Internet. You can't watch them all.

Sorry but the Net Neutrality didn't go far enough. It needs to unbundle the ISPs and create more competition. Maybe that's what the FCC should've done because then I can move away from the ISPs that are trying to prioritize our Internet experience.