FCC approves net neutrality in landmark decision, broadband to be reclassified as a public utility

[cliffordcooley]

It's their job to stock what they are selling. They sell bandwidth - they should ensure they have enough to satisfy their customers.

The perfect ending summary!

 

[cmbjive]

Wow. Now to take that systematically apart.
Internet != ISP. The internet is a network, and a telecom network, the same as a phone network for the purposes of expected provider behavior.
Wouldn't you start complaining if your phone company refused to let you call say....an AT&T number, because AT&T takes up the bulk of call time?

Except the internet is transferred across a) the telephone line; b) a cable line; c) a wireless network; c) satellite; and d) fiber optic cable. In other words, the services are provided by telecommunications companies who must use all of this infrastructure to provide the core service IN ADDITION TO providing a gateway for delivering internet content. No telco company has made it a policy to completely block you from being able to access the internet and the hypothetical that you have provided is simply that. You use exceptions in rare instances to justify the generalization of regulating the internet. If that isn't false logic I don't know what is.

Net, you assert that the internet 'as we know it' didn't have the FCC regulating it. That is a false statement. The FCC WAS regulating 'the internet' (ISP behavior), but under much weaker laws. When Verizon whooped them in court for not having the authority under the law applicable at the time, and continued their douchebaggery, the FCC reclassified them to have the legal teeth to force them to stop being douchebags.

It isn't a false statement. Did not the FCC vote yesterday to redefine the internet so that it could regulate it? And it seems you have some hostility towards the telcos - so this personal hostility you exhibit is now justification for regulating the internet? More false logic.

As for ISPs abusing online consumers, Netflix is the biggest example. You also have Verizon injecting supercookies, various ISPs injecting their own ads, throttling torrents (there are very legitimate uses of torrents), bandwidth shaping, throttling video streams, and all kinds of other shenanigans.

Netflix is the ONLY example you can provide, and as I mentioned, that is not abuse. That is your personal opinion. And as I mentioned, the ISP has a responsibility to manager the traffic to ensure that ALL users, not just internet users, to be able to use their infrastructure.
Them throttling the internet at intervals until they can discover the technology to adequately provide multiple services to millions of people is perfectly acceptable.

As for the bandwidth being used for the telcos 'core services' that is the problem. The telcos need to deliver the bandwidth they are selling to customers, value-added services included.
If I buy a 25 mbps package, that means 25 mbps to ANY destination on the internet that is capable of delivering that speed. 'The internet' does not mean 'the internet, except for Netflix and Hulu' or similar.

The telco's 'core service' is a problem, but not THE problem. The problem is that a bunch of spoiled internet users assume they should be able to have a direct connection to the internet and everyone else be damned. If you bothered to read your contract, you would know that you are never GUARANTEED an absolute connection you purchased. For the reasons stated above, the line you are using is being used to deliver your internet is being used to deliver another service that was in place before the internet was commonplace.

As for Netflix paying to increse downstream bandwidth, that's not the same as what you think. You seem to imply that Netflix needs to pay the ISP to deliver their traffic.....but the ISP is already being paid by it's own customers for that exact job.

The traffic is requested by the ISP's customers, not Netflix.

You are contradicting yourself. Above you stated that Netflix was the biggest example of the ISPs of "abusing online consumers". Now, you are making a distinction between Netflix and consumers. Which is it? I'll clear it up for you: The only way for Netflix's product to get online to consumers is to "piggyback" on the infrastructure that the telcos have established to deliver Netflix's content. Netflix's thousands of servers are utterly useless if they can't get that content to its consumers. YOU and I as consumers only pay to access to the internet, but that access does not include access to Netflix's service. That's why you pay an additional fee to Netflix to get their service. Netflix, in order to satisfy its customers, should incur the additional fee and then pass that additional fees onto ITS consumers, not force the telcos to pass Netflix's costs on to THEIR consumers.

As for the NFL analogy, nobody said that internet connections cost the same regardless of bandwidth; a 4m line will still cost less than a gigabit line.

To turn your restaurant analogy around, it's like the restaraunt advertised 'ten pancakes for five dollars! any flavor!' and then said they are low on blueberry pancakes, so they are rationing it out to three pancakes a head - charging the same as ten pancakes.

It's their job to stock what they are selling. They sell bandwidth - they should ensure they have enough to satisfy their customers.

Nobody says that directly, but that is the result you want: Large consumers of data and small consumers of data being treated (and charged) equally. Your analogy is a false one because no telco advertises that you are GUARANTEED to get the speed you purchased. That's why every advertisement for broadband always states UP TO X speed because there are so many variables that can impede the quality of your connection, the primary being that it is being used in conjunction with the core service provided, the second being that the internet must be available for everyone at any given moment.

And your last sentence says it all: Bandwidth is a finite resource, limited by the infrastructure and the capability of that infrastructure to provide it. If you think FCC will somehow make telcos improve or create more infrastructure when their means to charge it's most expensive consumers more to cover for that is being held down you're more naive than I thought.

 

[Satish Mallya]

Except the internet is transferred across a) the telephone line; b) a cable line; c) a wireless network; c) satellite; and d) fiber optic cable. In other words, the services are provided by telecommunications companies who must use all of this infrastructure to provide the core service IN ADDITION TO providing a gateway for delivering internet content. No telco company has made it a policy to completely block you from being able to access the internet and the hypothetical that you have provided is simply that. You use exceptions in rare instances to justify the generalization of regulating the internet. If that isn't false logic I don't know what is.

It has happened - and it needs to be stopped, for the customers of specific ISPs and ISPs in general.
It's about time ethical business practices wee enforced in this industry, like in every other industry.

It isn't a false statement. Did not the FCC vote yesterday to redefine the internet so that it could regulate it? And it seems you have some hostility towards the telcos - so this personal hostility you exhibit is now justification for regulating the internet? More false logic.

The FCC voted to regulate ISPs (not the Internet in toto) under title II - where they were preciously regulating under Title I - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)
I dislike dishonest and underhanded business practices. I dislike lack of competition, and the poor level of service it enables. Ergo, I dislike ISPs as they are today; Verizon and Comcast prime among them.

Netflix is the ONLY example you can provide, and as I mentioned, that is not abuse. That is your personal opinion. And as I mentioned, the ISP has a responsibility to manager the traffic to ensure that ALL users, not just internet users, to be able to use their infrastructure.

If they can't deliver the internet service they sold.....
When I sell you internet access, that means access to the whole internet.
When I sell you that access at a particular speed, it is my responsibility to ensure that you are capable of receiving ANY traffic you ask for at the speed you pay for.
The truth is Netflix alone is sufficient to make this case.
Wasn't there talk about 'fast lanes' developing from the Netflix deals? Where you'd have content provider paying ISPs to prioritize their traffic - by definition, to the detriment of other traffic, if you believe the ISPs when they say there isn't enough bandwidth to go around.

Them throttling the internet at intervals until they can discover the technology to adequately provide multiple services to millions of people is perfectly acceptable.

Technology that exists RIGHT NOW, and is inexpensive to boot. Check out L3's article on the subject.
http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

The telco's 'core service' is a problem, but not THE problem. The problem is that a bunch of spoiled internet users assume they should be able to have a direct connection to the internet and everyone else be damned.

Therein lies the crux. I believe I should get what I paid for. You believe that makes me 'spoiled'. I sense a fundamental difference in values here.
As for the contract, that's part of the problem. See, if that were true, I should see a slowdown ACROSS ALL SITES. But no. In fact, various people tunneled through VPNs - still using the internet, mind you - and managed to get far better Netflix traffic.
If it were Internet connectivity in general that was the issue, that shouldn't be possible.

You are contradicting yourself. Above you stated that Netflix was the biggest example of the ISPs of "abusing online consumers". Now, you are making a distinction between Netflix and consumers. Which is it?

Why not both? Both are being abused by the middleman - The consumer is denied the traffic they asked -and paid- for, and Netflix is denied passage to their customers, across a network designed to do exactly that.
See L3's article linked above for the Netflix side of it.

I'll clear it up for you: The only way for Netflix's product to get online to consumers is to "piggyback" on the infrastructure that the telcos have established to deliver Netflix's content. Netflix's thousands of servers are utterly useless if they can't get that content to its consumers. YOU and I as consumers only pay to access to the internet, but that access does not include access to Netflix's service. That's why you pay an additional fee to Netflix to get their service. Netflix, in order to satisfy its customers, should incur the additional fee and then pass that additional fees onto ITS consumers, not force the telcos to pass Netflix's costs on to THEIR consumers.

*ahem* Netflix is very much an Internet destination. I pay for an internet connection. Ergo, I have already paid for access to Netflix (not a subscription to Netflix, mind). I pay my ISP to use their infrastructure - that's what internet service means.
I want to use that infrastructure to access Netflix, which is -again- on the Internet.
Netflix uses L3 to distribute their data across multiple ISPs - they pay L3 to deliver that data to the ISP's doorstep.
The ISP is under an obligation to me, as a paying user of that service to deliver content from that point to me, since I have asked for it.
What actually happened is they let it languish at their doorstep (the border router) and demanded fees from netflix to transmit it across their network - something I have already paid them to do.
Do you see the problem now?

Nobody says that directly, but that is the result you want: Large consumers of data and small consumers of data being treated (and charged) equally.

Oh hell no. If you want a faster connection, you pay more. You seem to confuse backbone bandwidth with consumer bandwidth. What's coming in from the backbone is (mostly) what the ISP's customers asked for. The ISP's customers are still subject to bandwidth limits as per the speeds they pay for, and rightly so. What I object to is the ISP charging twice for the same traffic.

Your analogy is a false one because no telco advertises that you are GUARANTEED to get the speed you purchased. That's why every advertisement for broadband always states UP TO X speed because there are so many variables that can impede the quality of your connection, the primary being that it is being used in conjunction with the core service provided, the second being that the internet must be available for everyone at any given moment.

Fair enough, to an extent. Say I've paid for (up to)10 mbps. The network is congested, and I get 5 mbps. Fair enough.
BUT if I get the full 10 to another destination, but 5 to the one I want, there's a problem right there.
The implication is that my destination of choice is being throttled (or otherwise having service degraded)

And your last sentence says it all: Bandwidth is a finite resource, limited by the infrastructure and the capability of that infrastructure to provide it. If you think FCC will somehow make telcos improve or create more infrastructure when their means to charge it's most expensive consumers more to cover for that is being held down you're more naive than I thought.

Bandwidth is not as scarce - or as expensive - as you seem to think.
The demand for bandwidth is going up.
Paid prioritization is a plan to keep the total bandwidth constant, while juicing it for every last dime it's worth. Which is well and good, right up to the point that it gravely hurts the consumer and the innovator.
If this had happened ten years ago, without the FCC stepping in, you'd have MSN and Yahoo paying the ISPs to prioritize their content, Youtube would never have happened, etc.
The internet needs to remain a level playing field - it is arguably mankind's greatest creation, and needs to be kept competitive to continue to flourish.

 

[AnonymousSurfer]

You mentioned "legal monopolies"... I remember when Ma Bell was the only game in town. Guess who broke up THAT monopoly? Being under the Telecommunications Act as a utility is a good thing. One must remember that ALL the growth of the internet took place under a "free" internet. I see this action as a means to continue having an open internet available to all. I do agree that monopolies are much more of a danger than government regulation. The bank failures of a couple of years ago, though seemingly far from everyone's minds today, resulted from regulations written by that industry. The internet companies would have you believe they are better able to "self regulate" than have "government intrusion". Don't believe a word of it! The internet, and internet commerce, cannot grow without the knowledge that it is protected from corporate throttling and interference. Net Neutrality is a good thing.

I'm talking about when the government appoints "legal monopolies", not when companies form them themselves. Like electricity and water, there's only 1 company to buy from in majority of my county (excluding 1 town who provides their own) and there are over 500,000 people in my county. I'm not saying they will necessarily, I'm just saying I hope it doesn't happen. Of course companies will take more advantage of the consumer than the government will, but as someone said above, it is rare that the government regulates something because of a moral obligation they feel. There's usually some unknown reason behind it which we won't know until a few years down the line.

 

[cmbjive]

It has happened - and it needs to be stopped, for the customers of specific ISPs and ISPs in general.
It's about time ethical business practices wee enforced in this industry, like in every other industry.

Why is it unethical for telecos to throttle your internet connectivity? You are paying for a service, which they are not obligated to provide. That payment does not give you a carte blanche right to have uninterrupted service. In every other industry, outages occur and regulating of service is done by the provider of the service, with the pricing acting as the signal. What you want is for the telcos to be held to a stricter service because YOU value the internet, but don't want to pay the increased costs for that value.

The FCC voted to regulate ISPs (not the Internet in toto) under title II - where they were preciously regulating under Title I - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014
I dislike dishonest and underhanded business practices. I dislike lack of competition, and the poor level of service it enables. Ergo, I dislike ISPs as they are today; Verizon and Comcast prime among them.

And again, this is a distinction without a difference. FCC doesn't regulate telephone service, it only regulates the telephone companies. FCC doesn't regulate television, it only regulates the broadcasters. The FCC doesn't regulate service per se, but overall through its regulations of the providers of each of these services it is effectively regulating the service itself.

And simply because a company provides poor service and a "lack of competition" (which, again, is not the telco's problem and is only this way because of existing regulation) does not mean the internet needs to be regulated by the FCC.

If they can't deliver the internet service they sold.....
When I sell you internet access, that means access to the whole internet.
When I sell you that access at a particular speed, it is my responsibility to ensure that you are capable of receiving ANY traffic you ask for at the speed you pay for.
The truth is Netflix alone is sufficient to make this case.
Wasn't there talk about 'fast lanes' developing from the Netflix deals? Where you'd have content provider paying ISPs to prioritize their traffic - by definition, to the detriment of other traffic, if you believe the ISPs when they say there isn't enough bandwidth to go around.

No, you don't access to the whole internet. Some websites you can't access without paying an additional fee, or registering with the website. Again, you are only paying for the access to the INTERNET, and that is EXACTLY what the ISP has provided. Netflix alone is not sufficient to prove your point, especially when it was only Netflix in particular region dealing with AT&T and not other providers (although, I'm pretty sure they have now completed such a deal with other ISPs).

No, I don't need to believe the ISPs that bandwidth is finite. Logic dictates that bandwidth can only be as available as the infrastructure there is to provide it. To use another analogy, if there isn't enough highway to carry the traffic, the traffic will stall or be diverted to roads that can handle the traffic, albeit at a slower pace. That is the issue that is facing the ISPs, and the FCC regulating the ISPs (internet), will not change that.

Technology that exists RIGHT NOW, and is inexpensive to boot. Check out L3's article on the subject.
http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

Reading your article (which is coming from a biased sourced) does not change my view that the broadband is limited and that the costs to expand that broadband must be incurred by some entity. Your Level 3 article is wanting to push the costs back onto Verizon: Verizon is wanting Netflix and Level 3 to pick up the costs. That doesn't disprove the fact that broadband is limited. Also, what this points out is that as it stands, Verizon is able to meet the needs of its consumers with the existing technology or without adding additional capacity. It is Netflix that wants that additional capacity without paying the additional costs for it and it wants Verizon to bear that costs, even though its consumers are making no demand for that extra capacity. In what sane world is it ethical to charge consumers who don't consume for what other consumers to consume?

Therein lies the crux. I believe I should get what I paid for. You believe that makes me 'spoiled'. I sense a fundamental difference in values here.
As for the contract, that's part of the problem. See, if that were true, I should see a slowdown ACROSS ALL SITES. But no. In fact, various people tunneled through VPNs - still using the internet, mind you - and managed to get far better Netflix traffic.
If it were Internet connectivity in general that was the issue, that shouldn't be possible.

And you are correct: There is a fundamental difference in values. You believe you "should get what you pay for" whereas I am saying that you are getting what you paid for and you were not GUARANTEED uninterrupted access. And it is simply illogical to slowdown traffic across all sites. When we visit Techspot, we are not consuming as much bandwidth as we would while streaming Netflix.

Why not both? Both are being abused by the middleman - The consumer is denied the traffic they asked -and paid- for, and Netflix is denied passage to their customers, across a network designed to do exactly that.
See L3's article linked above for the Netflix side of it.

*ahem* Netflix is very much an Internet destination. I pay for an internet connection. Ergo, I have already paid for access to Netflix (not a subscription to Netflix, mind). I pay my ISP to use their infrastructure - that's what internet service means.
I want to use that infrastructure to access Netflix, which is -again- on the Internet.
Netflix uses L3 to distribute their data across multiple ISPs - they pay L3 to deliver that data to the ISP's doorstep.
The ISP is under an obligation to me, as a paying user of that service to deliver content from that point to me, since I have asked for it.
What actually happened is they let it languish at their doorstep (the border router) and demanded fees from netflix to transmit it across their network - something I have already paid them to do.
Do you see the problem now?

That's right, Netflix is an internet DESTINATION, but that's all it is. The telco did its job: it got you to your destination. However, if you want to view Netflix's content you must pay a fee to them. In turn, since Netflix owns absolutely ZERO internet delivery infrastructure it must pay cost to the telco to have its own internet content delivered.

The ISP is not under obligation to deliver content to you in any way, shape, or form. You pay for ACCESS, period. If there were no websites the ISP would have still fulfilled its obligation: You pay for ACCESS to the internet, that is exactly what you received.

Oh hell no. If you want a faster connection, you pay more. You seem to confuse backbone bandwidth with consumer bandwidth. What's coming in from the backbone is (mostly) what the ISP's customers asked for. The ISP's customers are still subject to bandwidth limits as per the speeds they pay for, and rightly so. What I object to is the ISP charging twice for the same traffic.

But the ISP isn't charging for the same traffic! All the ISP sees are internet consumers, one large and one small. It charges each for the use accordingly. To go back to the highway, the highway and city that manages it doesn't care what traffic gets on the highway, all must pay the same toll. When you order a package for UPS, UPS pays the toll. When you drive on the road, you pay a toll. What you are asking is that because you pay a toll, UPS shouldn't because you already paid the toll to get the package. In no way would a city agree to that. Why should an ISP, which must coordinate and regulate traffic across the internet?

Fair enough, to an extent. Say I've paid for (up to)10 mbps. The network is congested, and I get 5 mbps. Fair enough.
BUT if I get the full 10 to another destination, but 5 to the one I want, there's a problem right there.
The implication is that my destination of choice is being throttled (or otherwise having service degraded)

Bandwidth is not as scarce - or as expensive - as you seem to think.
The demand for bandwidth is going up.
Paid prioritization is a plan to keep the total bandwidth constant, while juicing it for every last dime it's worth. Which is well and good, right up to the point that it gravely hurts the consumer and the innovator.
If this had happened ten years ago, without the FCC stepping in, you'd have MSN and Yahoo paying the ISPs to prioritize their content, Youtube would never have happened, etc.
The internet needs to remain a level playing field - it is arguably mankind's greatest creation, and needs to be kept competitive to continue to flourish.

The fact that demand is increasing, but speeds are not increasing at the same rate should tell you that bandwidth is, indeed, limited. And paid prioritization is not the bogeyman you are making it out to be. Large consumers of data should pay more to have their content delivered and accessible by smaller consumers of their services. But the myth that somehow the internet is "free" and unlimited has been able to take hold when both are not true in the slightest. Many are coming to grips that the internet is not "free", but, judging from your comments here, many still think the internet is unlimited. Telcos especially helped foster this meme and for that they get no sympathy from me, but "free" websites like Google, Yahoo, and MSN helped promote it as well by making their websites, well, free without charging their end consumers to use their services. The FCC is not going to be able to change any of this and this "level playing field" that you are seeking is not going to be level at all. Remember, regulation was supposed to make banking and investing more simpler and fair for the little guy. No one remotely believes that. And what the Internet is going to wake up to is that the telcos are a much better player at FCC regulation than it is because they have been playing the game longer.

It's been fun and cordial. We have differing views, but it appears that we both a genuine respect for the other's side.

 

[wiyosaya]

Only time is going to tell us whether this is a good move or not.

The way that I see things is that until all people learn to treat all other people with dignity and respect and not as a host to which you permanently attach to so that you can suck the life out of them, I think government stepping in is a necessary evil.

 

[yRaz]

Again, I'm going to out on a limb and say your internet does not go out for about four hours everyday. Your internet works. You don't need hyperbole to state that every now and then, your internet slows down, but, ultimately, you still have your internet.

And you living in an area where Comcast is only available is not their fault. It's yours. I don't even understand how that line of thinking - where I live should be an excuse to regulate the internet - takes such hold over people. I chose to live where only APS is the sole provider of electricity, even though I traditionally had SRP (and they were the only company available where I lived because of rules established by the corporation commission). And the point is still relevant - you were compensated by Comcast for outages you may have suffered every now and then (and not about every four hours everyday) whereas the electric and water companies gave you absolutely nothing. They, too, are the only providers of your service, yet you still can't make the connection that more regulation does not lead to better service!

And yes, the internet is far more complicated than just Facebook and e-mail, which is further perplexing why net neuts such as yourself seem to think that slowing it through the bureaucratic morass of the FCC would make it better! You will STILL have "frequent outages" with the FCC regulating the internet because Comcast will still be managing the infrastructure that delivers you the content!

rather than argue with you, here are my router logs from last night. Where I live is none of your business, but I live on the river in a beautiful community that I grew up in. I will not give up my home because Comcast can't provide me with quality service. The very idea is ludicrous. It's their fault for not being able to provide me with the service they are selling in the first place

[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 02:16:06 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 02:16:03 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 02:15:46 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 02:15:42 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 02:04:26 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 02:04:24 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 01:37:01 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 01:37:00 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 01:03:04 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 01:03:02 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 00:45:06 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 00:45:02 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/27 00:16:22 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/27 00:16:20 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/26 23:55:41 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/26 23:55:40 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/26 23:15:26 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/26 23:15:25 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/26 22:56:47 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/26 22:56:46 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/26 22:38:46 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/26 22:38:43 Critical
[Docsis][525]: No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out 2015/2/26 21:15:26 Critical
[Docsis][525]: Unicast Ranging Received Abort Response - initializing MAC 2015/2/26 21:15:22 Critical

 

[cmbjive]

Docsis failing.

Okay, I will eat a crow's toe and say that you at least suffered an outage of fours hours last night.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/netgear...odem/4483016.p?id=1219098341552&skuId=4483016

Maybe that will help. I still don't see how having the FCC regulate the ISPs will solve your problem.

 

[yRaz]

Okay, I will eat a crow's toe and say that you at least suffered an outage of fours hours last night.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/netgear...odem/4483016.p?id=1219098341552&skuId=4483016

Maybe that will help. I still don't see how having the FCC regulate the ISPs will solve your problem.

I've replace the router 3 times and Comcast redid all my cable lines a few weeks ago. I've talked to other experts who don't work for Comcast and the general consensus is that Comcast has over sold their lines and caused everyone in the community connectivity issues. A few years ago Verizon laid fios lines down but a few weeks before their service launch, the municipality vote to not allow them to do business here. I'm sure Comcast paid them off to make the decision.

frankly, comcast has been doing illegal things for years. Paying off lobbyists to make it legal doesn't change the fact that we're getting shafted. Finally, after being given the stiff one, consumers have finally had a victory against the telecoms. They will be required by law to provide me with the service I am paying for or face millions in fines, which is how it should be. They are stealing form their consumers, nickle and dimeing them. If I steal, I go to jail. If Comcast steals, "they aren't required to provide me with the service".

I've been reading your posts and there really isn't anything anyone can say to you to see how this is a good thing for the vast majority of the 300,000,000 Americans, not a couple hundred Comcast executives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. hell, those few hundred exects don't have any "needs" at this point, they're multimillionaires. I'm tired of seeing telecoms posting record profits at our expensive. They are bleeding the economy dry. Hell, their prices might be justified if I actually got what I'm paying for, but I'm not.

 

[cmbjive]

I've replace the router 3 times and Comcast redid all my cable lines a few weeks ago. I've talked to other experts who don't work for Comcast and the general consensus is that Comcast has over sold their lines and caused everyone in the community connectivity issues. A few years ago Verizon laid fios lines down but a few weeks before their service launch, the municipality vote to not allow them to do business here. I'm sure Comcast paid them off to make the decision.

frankly, comcast has been doing illegal things for years. Paying off lobbyists to make it legal doesn't change the fact that we're getting shafted. Finally, after being given the stiff one, consumers have finally had a victory against the telecoms. They will be required by law to provide me with the service I am paying for or face millions in fines, which is how it should be. They are stealing form their consumers, nickle and dimeing them. If I steal, I go to jail. If Comcast steals, "they aren't required to provide me with the service".

I've been reading your posts and there really isn't anything anyone can say to you to see how this is a good thing for the vast majority of the 300,000,000 Americans, not a couple hundred Comcast executives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. hell, those few hundred exects don't have any "needs" at this point, they're multimillionaires. I'm tired of seeing telecoms posting record profits at our expensive. They are bleeding the economy dry. Hell, their prices might be justified if I actually got what I'm paying for, but I'm not.

So, let me get this straight. The pols in your city voted to not allow Verizon to compete in the area and you blame Comcast? You have no proof that Comcast paid off the pols, but you blame them all the same because the pols voted no. Let me ask you: Did you organize to vote the pols out of office that limited competition in your area?

It is very possible for a telco to oversell their service, especially when there is a demand for it. There is a tradeoff there: Does Comcast not provide the service and get bad publicity, or does Comcast provide the service and get bad publicity?

I'm not really trying to defend Comcast here, but I fail to see how you think that things will change. If Comcast has been doing "illegal things for years" and they have been regulated by the FCC all this time, how do you think they're getting away with it with FCC regulation and how FCC regulation prevent them from doing it in the future?

And I'm not going to address your Occupy Wall Street bluster at the end because that's just what it is. But I will say this: I've yet to see increased regulation make the everyday man's life simpler or easier.

I hope your service gets better, especially if its recent, but you are naive if you think the FCC will make it better.

 

[yRaz]

So, let me get this straight. The pols in your city voted to not allow Verizon to compete in the area and you blame Comcast? You have no proof that Comcast paid off the pols, but you blame them all the same because the pols voted no. Let me ask you: Did you organize to vote the pols out of office that limited competition in your area?

It is very possible for a telco to oversell their service, especially when there is a demand for it. There is a tradeoff there: Does Comcast not provide the service and get bad publicity, or does Comcast provide the service and get bad publicity?

I'm not really trying to defend Comcast here, but I fail to see how you think that things will change. If Comcast has been doing "illegal things for years" and they have been regulated by the FCC all this time, how do you think they're getting away with it with FCC regulation and how FCC regulation prevent them from doing it in the future?

And I'm not going to address your Occupy Wall Street bluster at the end because that's just what it is. But I will say this: I've yet to see increased regulation make the everyday man's life simpler or easier.

I hope your service gets better, especially if its recent, but you are naive if you think the FCC will make it better.

I've really never seen someone try so hard. However, at this point, you're just getting to be annoying and I don't feel like arguing with you anymore. Your opinion is that of a tiny minority. I believe everyone has listened to what you've had to say about your subject but it seems like the consensus is that you're wrong. That said, this topic is dead. There is nothing further to "discuss" at this point as you aren't interested in a discussion. You just want to tell us we're wrong to feel entitled to get what we're paying for. I think everyone has tried fairly hard to explain the concepts of "fairness" to you, but you don't seem to understand them.

There's nothing left to talk about, have a nice day

 

[wiyosaya]

I think that this NN ruling is a first step in the right direction. I do believe that there are other changes that need to happen before we will see competition in most markets, and one of those is getting the non-tech savvy politicians out of office. As I see it, many areas of the country still suffer from politicians that have no clue as to what technology is all about, and decisions like those in the area mentioned above happen all the time. Unfortunately, at least as I see it, those types of decisions only enable monopolies rather than foster competition. As I understand the issue, there are laws from 100+ years ago that have enabled modern ISPs through abuse of those laws to create the monopolies that they have and stifle competition.

I also see Comcast's efforts to resolve the aforementioned difficulties as "an act of good will" on their part that they purposely undertake to make customers think they are actually doing something because otherwise, they risk losing customers. In my area, TW is likely to blame such troubles on the customer, and in fact, several years back when I had e-mail troubles, TWs reps blamed the trouble on my home network when they knew that they, TW, had an active, internal trouble ticket that said the problem was inside TW, and nowhere else.

In fact, I've called up to complain to TW and have had their reps, in essence, say, "so you love our $hitty service, we will be happy to sell you more $hitty service. Do you want to buy it now?" Honestly, I really cannot believe that they do such things, but it is through the fact that they currently have legal monopolies that embolden them to treat their customers like $hit.

I think many people who are in favor of NN may have also had the experience of (your hated ISP here) $hitting on them as I have. If there were a viable alternative in my area (one is slowly coming on line - https://greenlightnetworks.com I would drop TW in an instant. However, my area, like so many others, had legislation in place that enabled these monopolies. Why???

Yes, I do understand that there was a large investment in infrastructure, but I am willing to bet that it is pure profit for them at this point. It was about 30-years ago that TW built out that infrastructure, and the improvements in technology that they have made since them have not required new infrastructure. Fortunately, though, my state's public service commission had the sight to see that allowing competition is good for the public.

OK, so what has this NN got to do with the future? Perhaps it will embolden more people to speak out and educate their legislators on the issue, and demand that laws that enable monopolies be tossed into the $hit can.

 

[Satish Mallya]

Aw, but I was having fun. I'm going to respond anyway - this topic is important to me, perhaps someone else will take it up.

Why is it unethical for telecos to throttle your internet connectivity? You are paying for a service, which they are not obligated to provide.

That....is so wrong. If I'm paying for service, the service provider is obligated to provide it.

That payment does not give you a carte blanche right to have uninterrupted service. In every other industry, outages occur and regulating of service is done by the provider of the service, with the pricing acting as the signal. What you want is for the telcos to be held to a stricter service because YOU value the internet, but don't want to pay the increased costs for that value.

I agree with you about outages. What I object to is the ISPs conflict of interest, being content providers themselves. When they act against other, competing, content providers, I cannot assume that they are doing it in good faith, with an aim to maintaining their network. what they are doing is punishing both subscribers of third party content providers and the third party content providers themselves, using their privileged positions as the gatekeepers of the last mile, due to the monopoly they hold. Whether this monopoly is legitimately due to market forces or has been coerced/bought is irrelevant to the power it confers them.

And again, this is a distinction without a difference. FCC doesn't regulate telephone service..... of the providers of each of these services it is effectively regulating the service itself.

It's not the same thing, though. The internet, unlike TV or radio is vastly too decentralized to regulate by regulating ISPs. The regulation of content is well out of the purview of Title II.
In fact, if they had actually implemented last mile unbundling instead of keeping that clause in limbo, it's make internet access batter, faster, and cheaper in a hurry.

And simply because a company provides poor service and a "lack of competition" (which, again, is not the telco's problem and is only this way because of existing regulation) does not mean the internet needs to be regulated by the FCC.

Regulation is a remedy for a market failure. The failure here is that ISPs are forming monopolies, and actively leveraging those monopolies to the detriment of the consumer.
Regulation is thus the appropriate response.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a 'If it ain't broke..' sort of person, but the last-mile business IS broken, and needs fixing.

No, you don't access to the whole internet. Some websites you can't access without paying an additional fee, or registering with the website.

Conflation. As long as the other end is willing to send traffic my way - whether paid (Netflix) or free (YouTube) - my ISPs job is to deliver it (as long as it's delivered to them)

Again, you are only paying for the access to the INTERNET, and that is EXACTLY what the ISP has provided. Netflix alone is not sufficient to prove your point, especially when it was only Netflix in particular region dealing with AT&T and not other providers (although, I'm pretty sure they have now completed such a deal with other ISPs).

Netflix struck deals with AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. Within a few days of signing those deals the 'congestion problems' disappeared. Now, either the ISPs laid hundreds of miles of fiber and state of the art networking equipment in a tearing hurry.....or they could have handled the traffic long ago, and chose not to. Which seems more likely to you?
Especially considering that Netflix is a competitor to their media business?

No, I don't need to believe the ISPs that bandwidth is finite. Logic dictates that bandwidth can only be as available as the infrastructure there is to provide it. To use another analogy, if there isn't enough highway to carry the traffic, the traffic will stall or be diverted to roads that can handle the traffic, albeit at a slower pace. That is the issue that is facing the ISPs, and the FCC regulating the ISPs (internet), will not change that.

I'll grant that bandwidth is not infinite - but at the chokepoints, it's cheap enough that it may as well be. In the L3 article, the author links to a Verizon article. The verizon article puts their network utilization at about 45-55%.
There's plenty on the ISP side of things, it's just the willingness to do what they are paid for that's missing.

Reading your article (which is coming from a biased sourced) does not change my view that the broadband is limited and that the costs to expand that broadband must be incurred by some entity. Your Level 3 article is wanting to push the costs back onto Verizon: Verizon is wanting Netflix and Level 3 to pick up the costs.

Level 3 publicly offered to pick up the few thousand dollars the equipment would cost. It's right there in the article. The cost is trivial; it's the control of the last mile that's being leveraged here.

Also, what this points out is that as it stands, Verizon is able to meet the needs of its consumers with the existing technology or without adding additional capacity. It is Netflix that wants that additional capacity without paying the additional costs for it and it wants Verizon to bear that costs, even though its consumers are making no demand for that extra capacity.

Except...y'know, by requesting Netflix traffic in the first place? Besides, L3 offered to pick up the extra interconnection cost.

In what sane world is it ethical to charge consumers who don't consume for what other consumers to consume?

It's not, and I never said or implied it.

And you are correct: There is a fundamental difference in values. You believe you "should get what you pay for" whereas I am saying that you are getting what you paid for and you were not GUARANTEED uninterrupted access. And it is simply illogical to slowdown traffic across all sites. When we visit Techspot, we are not consuming as much bandwidth as we would while streaming Netflix.

I...don't think you understand. If it's the last-mile network that is congested, everything should slow down. Say you have seven lanes of traffic (each with different colored cars, color representing traffic source) merging into three lanes. When traffic slows to a crawl on those three lanes, the red car moves just as slowly as the blue car.
The fact that red cars are moving faster than blue cars shows that the last mile is NOT congested, and there's something fishy going on.

That's right, Netflix is an internet DESTINATION, but that's all it is. The telco did its job: it got you to your destination.

Wait, I thought you said they weren't under any obligation...

However, if you want to view Netflix's content you must pay a fee to them. In turn, since Netflix owns absolutely ZERO internet delivery infrastructure it must pay cost to the telco to have its own internet content delivered.

As for subscription, yes. Netflix will not transmit data to me without me paying them.
But they shouldn't have to pay the telco because I ALREADY paid the telco to give me that content. Netflix got it to their door; now it's the telco's duty to get it to me because they accepted my money for that exact service.

The ISP is not under obligation to deliver content to you in any way, shape, or form. You pay for ACCESS, period. If there were no websites the ISP would have still fulfilled its obligation: You pay for ACCESS to the internet, that is exactly what you received.

The telco is under an obligation to deliver the traffic that I request. Whether it's a techspot page, their own Xfiniverse, or a documentary off of Netflix; as long as the other party is willing to send it to them, they must convey it to me. Access IS delivery - in this context.

But the ISP isn't charging for the same traffic! All the ISP sees are internet consumers, one large and one small. It charges each for the use accordingly. To go back to the highway, the highway and city that manages it doesn't care what traffic gets on the highway, all must pay the same toll. When you order a package for UPS, UPS pays the toll. When you drive on the road, you pay a toll. What you are asking is that because you pay a toll, UPS shouldn't because you already paid the toll to get the package. In no way would a city agree to that. Why should an ISP, which must coordinate and regulate traffic across the internet?

That's an interesting analogy, but inaccurate.
Something closer might be: I live in an apartment building. Me and the other residents hired a guy on contract to deliver our mail to us from the lobby; we each pay different amounts, based on the weight of our packages (analogous to bandwidth, say all packages for a particular resident weigh the same).
Now, this guy starts demanding money from Amazon because a courier who dropped off a heavy package bought off Amazon (even though it's within that resident's weight limit).
His reasoning is that Amazon needs to pay him for delivering it's packages to the resident, because that utilizes his services.

The fact that demand is increasing, but speeds are not increasing at the same rate should tell you that bandwidth is, indeed, limited. And paid prioritization is not the bogeyman you are making it out to be.

That's because paid prioritization was on the cards. Why would a telco invest in better infrastructure while they could squeeze more money out of existing infrastructure? The actual cost of the infrastructure is immaterial - as long as it costs *something*, the easier, more profitable option is to leverage market position and old equipment.

Large consumers of data should pay more to have their content delivered and accessible by smaller consumers of their services.

The flaw in that argument is that there is only one consumer. Netflix (to go back to our example) hasn't asked the ISP to do anything at all. In fact, they are already paying l3 to take the data right up to the consumer ISP. It's the subscriber who asked for the netflix traffic, so he could watch...whatever it is he's watching.

But the myth that somehow the internet is "free" and unlimited has been able to take hold when both are not true in the slightest. Many are coming to grips that the internet is not "free", but, judging from your comments here, many still think the internet is unlimited.

It's neither free nor unlimited, but it is so cheap that it might as well be. Note that I'm talking about large pipes;

Telcos especially helped foster this meme and for that they get no sympathy from me, but "free" websites like Google, Yahoo, and MSN helped promote it as well by making their websites, well, free without charging their end consumers to use their services. The FCC is not going to be able to change any of this and this "level playing field" that you are seeking is not going to be level at all. Remember, regulation was supposed to make banking and investing more simpler and fair for the little guy. No one remotely believes that. And what the Internet is going to wake up to is that the telcos are a much better player at FCC regulation than it is because they have been playing the game longer.

It's been fun and cordial. We have differing views, but it appears that we both a genuine respect for the other's side.

Well, we will we, I suppose. Its been a pleasure, perhaps we can have a more direct conversation at some point in time.

 

[Wendig0]

If they were really interested in Net Neutrality, no further legislation (even though the FCC isn't an elected bureaucracy, the seem to be able to make their own laws outside of congress) would have been required. They already have anti monopoly laws, and antitrust laws on the books, yet they've allowed the cable companies to become mega monopolies and control their own territories like the mafia. If they simply enforced the current laws, the FCC wouldn't be involved at all, it would be the FTC.

I don't see this as a win at all. I'm worried what is coming. I got the same feeling when Homeland Security said they were going to "make us safe". Everything the government touches turns to s**t.

 

[Satish Mallya]

If they were really interested in Net Neutrality, no further legislation (even though the FCC isn't an elected bureaucracy, the seem to be able to make their own laws outside of congress) would have been required. They already have anti monopoly laws, and antitrust laws on the books, yet they've allowed the cable companies to become mega monopolies and control their own territories like the mafia. If they simply enforced the current laws, the FCC wouldn't be involved at all, it would be the FTC.

I don't see this as a win at all. I'm worried what is coming. I got the same feeling when Homeland Security said they were going to "make us safe". Everything the government touches turns to s**t.

The FCC does not make laws outside congress; their authority IS granted by Congress. Its just that they are choosing to flex that authority now.
That said, you're not wrong about it being the FTCs duty to have broken up monopolies, and current laws applying.
My stance is that you're right; current laws should be enforced to fix the mess, but for whatever reason, they haven't been enforced. I'd rather have SOMETHING done than nothing.
The FCC has both the authority and mandate to do what they are doing; I say let them do their jobs.

 

[Guest]

Why do we need this being a utility? Greed can keep itself in check right? The markets have never needed govt intervention before! A completely free unregulated market would never promote bad business tactics! It would never simply follow the fastest/quickest profits and screw over mass amounts of people! Why? Because freedom! and MURICA!

Too much water or vitamins can kill a person. Too much regulation or deregulation can kill an economy. I think we can all agree capitalism and less regulation is usually the side we should lean on, but if this were always true WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

When it comes to the internet, more regulation on the way the internet itself is SOLD and not USED I believe would be good in this case. WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THESE INTERNET COMPANIES TO REGULATE THEMSELVES? It's not like they have so far.