US FCC Chairman states intent to maintain open internet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Feb 19, 2014.

  1. LizKat, Feb 19, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2014

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    Looks like Wheeler is not going to appeal the Verizon decision but he's going to hold providers' feet to the fire on keeping the net open. The option to reclassify providers as common carriers is supposedly the stick. What do you think?

    Here's an Ars Technica take on it

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ling-will-regulate-net-on-case-by-case-basis/

    And here's the commissioner's statement

    https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

    I stuck this thread in PRSI because I figured it would end up there. File under oh ye of little faith ;) But if the mods want to move it and everyone promises not to get all political, great (place yer bets, Ill hold the money).
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    IMO without classifying ISPs as what they are, common carriers, Net Neutrality is dead. Making a special case for ISPs a decade ago and trying to get them to act like common carriers w/o classifying them as such is why we are in this mess today.

    Lord, the only thing I miss from the dialup days is having a variety of ISPs to choose from and they were all totally separate entities from my phone company.
     
  3. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #3
    Yes I remember using a couple little dialup ISPs, andI kept one as a backup for awhile when I first got DSL because the DSL was initially so erratic. Some of them were resellers, and the (precursor of) the co that sells me the DSL eventually shut them down I think, by simply asking for more than they could meet and make anything on the resales.

    What happens with the pipes might depend on how the Senate views the Comcast-TWC merger. How many of them now have one or the other of those in their homes and DC hangouts and how many of them use Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime etc. The cablecos don't really want to poke a stick at a sleeping Congress on another telecommunications law revision if they have half a brain. They probably prefer to keep taking the FCC to court over new rule proposals, so Wheeler seems to be saying ok I get that but don't push the envelope here or we'll revisit common carrier designation.

    Re/code (the AllThingsDigital crew that left WSJ) has a piece on the FCC announcement too.

    http://recode.net/2014/02/19/net-neutrality-rules-are-out-new-twist-on-old-proposal/

    Their article bravely tacks onto the end its disclosure that "Comcast owns NBC, which is an investor in Re/code."

    "Just so you know," I guess they're saying. But the piece seems straightforward and somewhat skeptical of Wheeler's statement. I mean the guy came from cable, and Comcast came right out and called his proposal "a thoughtful approach." That alone should have the open net activists setting to work on statements for the public comments period.
     
  4. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    The average age of a Congressperson is about 60 so I doubt many of them are trend setting cord cutters. I'd say more are in the "I watch DVDs on my HDTV and think I'm watching HD" camp.;) And given that Comcast recently acquired NBC/Universal and now it looks like they are going to get the thumbs up to acquire TWC I think whatever kickbacks Congress gets greatly outweighs the off chance that one of them might notice that their Netflix is buffering more often.

    When SOPA got struck down it was only because of a major (relatively speaking) populous uprising online. Rallying to protest a bill is much easier than finding someone to champion new legislation and push it into law.

    So color me glass half empty on this issue.
     
  5. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #5

    the network peering agreements are decades old
    i pay for netflix, but they have no legal ground in the current fight with ISP's
    any time you send more data than you receive to a network you pay some of the costs of that data. netflix doesn't want to do it
     
  6. Curun macrumors 6502

    Curun

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #6
    It's probably more HD than the measly 5mbps iTunes HD.
     
  7. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #7
    netflix buffering is partly their fault
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    I agree that nobody's an angel in this game, but I feel like if Netflix's traffic was really abusing the peering system we'd see a more across the board decline in Netflix speeds but that's not the case.

    Netflix's ISP Speed Index Results Graph has Comcast and Verizon trending sharply down since the middle of last year where as most other providers either trended up or stayed about the same. Comcast and Verizon also have their own VOD & IPTV services which puts them at direct odds with Netflix (AT&T trends down as well but not as severely). Comcast and Netflix also have a history of data spats.

    Of course who's ultimately at fault here is a separate, though possibly related, issue to Net Neutrality. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to control data communication between parties anymore than telephone companies should be able to voice communications between parties. Both are just 'dumb pipes' that connect person A to person B.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    Agreed, if one company is using more bandwidth they should be charged for it, not throttled to a crawl. ISP's are dumb pipes and should serve what ever is called for not pick and choose.

    All Comcast is doing is trying to force you to their services and not Netflix.
     
  10. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #10
    comcast is NBC, so you can make an argument for that. but verizon is a straight up ISP that just happens to resell TV service as well.

    anyway, a few years ago Level 3 wanted to get into the CDN biz. they gave a sweetheart deal to netflix and then dumped the data via their peering connections to the ISP's. this agreement expired so now netflix has to pay real CDN fees and no one is willing to allow netflix to dump their data for free.

    this is how the internet has operated for years. you share the load and if you send more data than you receive then you pay for that. netflix doesn't want to pay.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    How is it Netflix fault? They are offering a legal service that people want.

    ----------

    I thought Netflix started their own CDN, the same that Apple is trying to do.

    As for Comcast, they are a provider, the NBC division is a broadcaster. They are supposed to be separate.
     
  12. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #12
    no one is throttling netflix. since the level 3 agreement is probably over they are now relying on peering connections to send their traffic instead of level 3 CDN. those connections aren't designed to handle this much traffic which is why CDN's have been around for almost 20 years now

    ----------


    true, but they are sending so much data and its growing so fast its impossible to keep up. in the past 20 some years you paid the receiving network to handle the load you send. netflix doesn't want to pay.
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    Comcast has been proven to be throttling Netflix in favor of their own services.
     
  14. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #14
    Something like 38% of all peak Internet traffic in the US is from Netflix.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    And I assume they have to be paying for that somewhere to push all of that bandwidth.
     
  16. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #16

    no they haven't. some of the ports between the different network operators are overloaded and there is an argument who pays to upgrade them. traditionally the person who sends the most data pays that cost. seems that netflix and anyone associated with them don't want to do that and want the receiver to pay

    ----------

    instead of being on a CDN, a lot of it is going through cogent and the ports are full

    netflix is screwed because they are paying too much money to the content owners, apple and other marketing fees and nothing is left to pay the network operators to deliver their traffic
     
  17. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #17
    FCC Chairman Wheeler is nothing more than a corporate shill who rode the revolving door in D.C.

    Anyone with even the slightest hopes that this man has the consumers' best interests in mind would be sorely mistaken.


     
  18. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    Verizon partnered with Redbox on a new streaming service called Redbox Instant which is a direct competitor to Netflix. Yes, Verizon is reselling TV service via IP and I'm sure they'd much rather people pay for that service in order to watch Walking Dead or Sons of Anarchy rather than use Netflix.

    Before Comcast was NBC they had their own VOD which would already put them at odds with Netflix but their taking over of NBC does put them in a more powerful position (as will their take over of TWC if that's approved).

    ISPs that also have first party content delivery services is a big conflict of interest which is all the more reason for Net Neutrality and ISPs being classified as common carriers.

    For example, both both Comcast and TWC have polices in place that exclude their IPTV services from customers data caps. So, for example, customers could stream an unlimited amount of TV/movie content directly from Comcast or TWC services but the moment a customer watched the content via Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc., that data counted against their monthly cap.

    Because the back end of the Internet is a convoluted mess held together by little more than handshake agreements to not be a dick.

    Ars did a good story on it a while back Why YouTube buffers: The secret deals that make—and break—online video

    Netflix is rolling out it's own CDN called OpenConnect. Guess which ISPs aren't on board with it. ;)



    I'm not an expert about the tech side of this stuff by any means but I do find it interesting.
     
  19. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #19
    last i read netflix doesn't want to pay the ISP's the fees that every other CDN pays them for receiving data like they have paid them for years.

    and the reason the cable company IPTV services are excluded is because its all on servers inside their network with dedicated circuits that they paid money to build out
     
  20. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #20
    Something like that...

    [​IMG]
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    As I understand it Netflix wants to put its own servers there too (which would reduce network congestion and improve performance for paying customers) but big ISPs don't want it because it means that can't charge Netflix for transporting their data (and in the case of ISPs that offer VOD/IPTV it also eliminates a competitive advantage).

    Which comes back to the dire need for Net Neutrality and for all data to be treated equally. There's too much at stake to allow ISPs to be the gatekeepers of global information and communication. I pay an ISP to connect me to the Internet. I don't pay an ISP to connect me to their version of the Internet.
     
  22. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #22
    Cdn companies still pay isp's for their connections even though they have caching servers
    And the caching servers will only reduce the load at the peering points. They will probably increase load on the network

    How is netflix not treated equally now? Apple pays akamai to stage itunes content for faster download
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    Why the assumption Netflix isn't paying? I'm sure they pay Amazon Web Services, I'm sure they pay for their own hardware for OpenConnect and I'm sure they pay their ISP bills. The question, which there is no public answer to, is what do Verizon, Comcast, etc., want to charge Netflix and is it a reasonable price? Is Netflix being a scrooge or are the ISPs being greedy?

    We only have access to circumstantial and anecdotal evidence but it seems to point to the ISPs being the dicks, not Netflix.


    • Verizon, Comcast, and ATT streams of Netflix have been declining for months while other ISPs have stayed basically the same or have gone up (if Netflix was the core of the problem I feel like the drop off would be across the board).

    • Comcast and TWC treat first party data differently than third party data.

    • Comcast throttled bit torrent bandwidth a few years ago.


    We've also been ignoring the consumers in this. We pay ISPs for access to the Internet. We pay for fast connection speeds, I mean "up to" fast connection speeds, for things like streaming Netflix. These companies are taking our money and then throttling back the services (some of which are paid services like Netflix) they are supposed to deliver. And it's not like ISPs are working with razor thin margins as the markup on bandwidth is insane.

    Normally when a company bites the hand that feeds it consumers could vote with their wallets and move to a competitor but, at least in the US, we've all been carved up into local monopolies in order to eliminate choice. Cable companies rarely go head-to-head in the same area, Verizon stopped expanding FiOS years ago... They aren't even trying to compete with each other any more.


    Even though this is an example of the problem we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture, which is should ISPs have free reign to be gatekeepers in an age where all forms of media and communication are being funneled through a single pipe?
     
  24. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
  25. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25

Share This Page