Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th

«‹›17 »

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

The internet has had fast lanes for nearly 20 years - it's direct transit arrangements that cut out transit networks and means large companies get the best speeds and latency.

# ? May 4, 2014 23:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 11:33

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Install Windows posted:

The internet has had fast lanes for nearly 20 years - it's direct transit arrangements that cut out transit networks and means large companies get the best speeds and latency.

Also, paying ISPs to mirror your content on their edge servers. Net neutrality is about not putting artificial restriction between a subscriber and a website. It says nothing about a website paying more to be hosted everywhere.

# ? May 4, 2014 23:10

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Relevant to the (idiotic) discussion about why the revolving door is good and the juvenile belief that officials are un-bribable:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/23155418121/elected-officials-get-average-1452-salary-increase-when-they-take-lobbying-job.shtml

quote:

Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job

...

For example, former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to bring greater transparency to the derivatives marketplace. Almost as soon as he left office, he joined the board of a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs. Risky derivative trading exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008, yet we�re stuck under the laws written in part by Gregg. How much has he made from the deal? Were his actions in office influenced by relationships with his future employers?

...

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2010. Tauzin retired from Congress in 2005, shortly after leading the passage of President Bush�s prescription drug expansion. He was recruited to lead PhRMA, a lobbying association for Pfizer, Bayer, and other top drug companies. During the health reform debate, the former congressman helped his association block a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, a major concession that extended the policies enacted in Tauzin�s original Medicare drug-purchasing scheme. Tauzin left PhRMA in late 2010. He was paid over $11 million in his last year at the trade group. Comparing Tauzin�s salary during his last year as congressman and his last year as head of PhRMA, his salary went up 7110%.

...

Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) makes approximately $1.5 million a year as the chief lobbyist for the movie industry. Dodd, who retired from the Senate after 2010, was hired by the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying association that represents major studios like Warner Bros. and Universal Studios. Although the MPAA would not confirm with Republic Report Dodd�s exact salary, media accounts point to $1.5 million, a slightly higher figure than the previous MPAA head, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Dodd received about a 762% raise after moving from public office to lobbying.

...

Former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK) has made at least $8,815,741 over the years as a lobbyist for a coalition of cell phone companies and related wireless industry interests. Republic Report analyzed disclosures from CTIA-The Wireless Association, the trade group Largent leads. CTIA counts wireless companies like AT&T, HTC, and Motorola as members. Largent left Congress in 2002, when his pay was about $150,000 as a public official. His move to the CTIA trade association, where he earns slightly more than $1.5 million a year according to the latest disclosure form, raised his salary by 912%.

...

As long as people like Wheeler and his coterie serve their masters, they will always get a big payout in the end.

# ? May 4, 2014 23:46

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer.

# ? May 5, 2014 00:28

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Kalman posted:

Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer.

Not all congresspeople are lawyers, but it's kind of average pay for white collar work. A couple shares of BRK.A are well more than their yearly salary and those have substantial growth potential to boot.

# ? May 5, 2014 00:35

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Kalman posted:

Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer.

Considering the landscape of public finance, and median wages in America, "only making $150,000" is not a good hand-wavey excuse for the kind of corruption you are implicitly accepting.

You might also want to self-examine a bit regarding your views on the "impartiality of lawyers" (studies show that personal political affiliation is a strong predictor of Judicial practice ... unless this has changed substantially since I lost access to journals * ), and the (underinformed, and/or self-defensive) idea that people do not have their behavior changed by large piles of money.

* Some public articles:

Affiliation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/us/judges-rulings-follow-partisan-lines.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1952531?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104109026843

Money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/11/when-businesses-give-judges-money-they-usually-get-the-rulings-they-want/

That is all an aside from the actual law-creating lobbying industry.

The usual thread trolls aside, the idea that the multi-million dollar revolving door is not determining the direction of legislation is a dead horse that died from idiocy. Money absolutely influences the outcomes, by influencing that actors.

Only someone that has never cracked open a social/behavioral psych text, someone with a personality disorder, or someone that lives in a proverbial basement could claim, without sarcasm, irony, or dishonesty, that humans are robots, change programming based on decisions that they make every morning, and are immune to influence.

# ? May 5, 2014 01:24

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

FRINGE posted:

Considering the landscape of public finance, and median wages in America, "only making $150,000" is not a good hand-wavey excuse for the kind of corruption you are implicitly accepting.

That wasn't my point. My point was that "congressmen make 10x as much when they leave office!" is one of those facts that sounds bad until you realize that if they had never been in office many of them would still be making that kind of money. Is it corruption when an IRS lawyer goes to a firm to practice tax law and gets their pay tripled?

quote:

You might also want to self-examine a bit regarding your views on the "impartiality of lawyers" (studies show that personal political affiliation is a strong predictor of Judicial practice ... unless this has changed substantially since I lost access to journals * ), and the (underinformed, and/or self-defensive) idea that people do not have their behavior changed by large piles of money.

The only people who are surprised by this are idiots who think that legal issues have a single correct outcome. They don't, which is why judges appointed by Democrats (who generally subscribe to more liberal judicial philosophies) tend to vote that way, while judges appointed by Republicans (conservative legal philosophies, oddly enough) vote that way. Is that because they aren't impartial, or because they believe that the law should be interpreted differently? (It's the latter, fyi.). Do people vote the same way as their donors want because they got bought or because people donate money to those with an existing inclination to vote that way? (More the latter than people think.)

Lobbying isn't about money, or revolving doors. It's about personal relationships. If I, as a Senator, never vote the way you want me to, I will still find someone who liked the way I voted who will hire me for the relationships I have because that's how I can be effective as a lobbyist. Same goes for staff.

All of that is totally separate from the issue of whether lawyers adopt their clients's views. (They don't, though sometimes they are inclined to take clients whose views match their own. I disagree with a number of my clients views as to what's the best direction for law. Doesn't matter, I represent them, not myself.)

End of the day Wheeler is still going to implement stronger net neutrality than if he tried to do common carrier because it will actually go through quickly and not be struck down, whereas common carrier would take a decade before they could even start defending against the lawsuits. But yeah, it's because he lobbied for the cable and wireless industries once upon a time, not because it's the right way to implement net neutrality given the court decisions.

# ? May 5, 2014 02:21

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Kalman posted:

Is it corruption when an IRS lawyer goes to a firm to practice tax law and gets their pay tripled?

If they handled cases in which that firm was involved, then yes.

I mean, if these were two law firms we were talking about here, a lawyer striking a sweetheart deal for the other guy and then retiring and immediately joining the opposing firm would be pretty unseemly.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:40 on May 5, 2014

# ? May 5, 2014 02:33

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Paul MaudDib posted:

If they handled cases in which that firm was involved, then yes.

I mean, if these were two law firms we were talking about here, a lawyer striking a sweetheart deal for the other guy and then retiring and immediately joining the opposing firm would be pretty unseemly.

Yes but as that involves the courts its easy to see and prevent. Patent attorneys/agents do similar things.

# ? May 5, 2014 03:05

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Anyone that has worked at an ISP will (probably) already more or less know this, but its a current commentary on the behavior of US carriers - by one of the (more serious) carriers.

http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism-twc-cablevision-level-3/

quote:

Level 3 calls out Comcast, TWC and others for �deliberately harming� their own broadband service

May 6, 2014

Level 3, a tier 1 Internet service provider based in Colorado, has called out Comcast, Charter, Time Warner Cable and other top U.S. ISPs for �deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers.�

In a thorough post that goes into great detail about the networks that deliver Internet service to homes and businesses across the globe, Level 3′s VP of Content and Media Mark Taylor explained �peering,� a term that has been pulled into the mainstream media recently. Netflix, as we�re sure you have read, has agreed to pay certain ISPs a �ransom� in order to reduce peering congestion and deliver faster streaming video to its subscribers.

�Level 3 builds a route map of the Internet by connecting its tens of thousands of customers together and allowing them to communicate. So a Level 3 customer in Hong Kong can communicate with a Level 3 customer in Sao Paulo. But to complete the map we also need to fill in interconnection to everyone who isn�t a direct Level 3 customer, so that our customers can also communicate with those who are not our customers,� Taylor explained on Level 3′s blog. �We do that through connections to other networks and their customers. This latter sort of connectivity is often called peering. Peering connections allow for exchanges of traffic between the respective customers of each peer.�

The executive went on to explain the process in great detail, and also to explain some issues that might cause peering congestion and slow down Internet service for subscribers.

�Level 3 has 51 peers that are interconnected in 45 cities through over 1,360 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports (plus a few smaller ports). The distribution of that capacity with individual peers ranges from a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port to 148 ports,� Taylor wrote.

He then said that the average utilization across those interconnected ports is 36%. Utilization at 12 of Level 3′s ports is in excess of 90%, however, which is saturated and causes service slowdowns and packet loss. Level 3 is currently working with six of those 12 partner ISPs to upgrade service and resolve issues.

The remaining six peers, however, refuse to work with Level 3 to address the congestion. These ports have been saturated for more than a year according to Taylor, but the ISPs still refuse to work toward a resolution.

�They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers,� Taylor wrote. �They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.�

Which six ISPs are we talking about here? Taylor stops short of naming them, but he still manages to shame them.

�Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe,� he said. �There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.�

Taylor also noted that the ISPs in question �happen to rank dead last in customer satisfaction across all industries in the U.S.,� and he linked to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, which regularly ranks ISPs including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, Cox, Verizon and Cablevision at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys.

Long version: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/

quote:

...

Level 3 has 51 peers that are interconnected in 45 cities through over 1,360 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports (plus a few smaller ports). The distribution of that capacity with individual peers ranges from a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port to 148 ports. The average number of interconnection cities per peer is five, but ranges from one to 20.

The average utilization across all those interconnected ports is 36 percent. So you might be asking � what is all the fuss about with peering? And why did we write the Chicken post? Well, our peers fall into two broad categories; global or regional Internet Services providers like Level 3 (those �middlemen� listed in the Renesys report), and Broadband consumer networks like AT&T. If I use that distinction as a filter to look at congested ports, the story looks very different.

A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers. Six of those 12 have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer) in the process of making upgrades � this is business as usual and happens occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change providers.

That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.

Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.

...

# ? May 7, 2014 03:03

ShutteredIn: Mar 24, 2005; El Campeon Mundial del Acordeon

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/7/fcc-occupy-neutrality.html

quote:

Internet libertarians calling for the equal treatment of all Internet data have camped out in front of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, D.C., saying they won�t quit their Occupy-style protest until the regulator stands up for Net neutrality.

About 15 people stood outside the FCC�s headquarters on Wednesday afternoon in a protest organized by the two groups, Fight for the Future and Popular Resistance. Five of the demonstrators said they were determined to set up camp overnight and stick around until May 15, when the commission is set to unveil proposed new Net neutrality rules � or perhaps longer, if the new rules don�t meet their expectations.

Margaret Flowers of Popular Resistance says members of the protest � officially called �Camp Out to Save Net Neutrality� or �People�s Firewall FCC Camp� and unofficially as �Occupy FCC� � are in it for the long haul, bringing sleeping bags and signs and engaging in chants, such as �Hey, hey, FCC, the Internet must be free� and �FCC, drop the barrier, make the Internet a common carrier.�

The only group that could possibly smell worse than Occupy after a few days would be a group of "internet libertarians".

# ? May 8, 2014 18:16

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Do these libertarians not see the irony in demanding a government committee regulate private business in the interest of the consumer? Surely they understand they're asking for the state to dictate what a set of businesses may or may not do with their property.

I'm all for more people behind the cause but god drat.

# ? May 8, 2014 20:39

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

FAUXTON posted:

Do these libertarians not see the irony in demanding a government committee regulate private business in the interest of the consumer? Surely they understand they're asking for the state to dictate what a set of businesses may or may not do with their property.

I'm all for more people behind the cause but god drat.

It's probably the same philosophical idea behind libertarians supporting right-to-work legislation. Given that the government has disturbed the free market with Taft-Hartley, further regulation can actually (in their mind) increase individual freedom. Similarly, given that the cable companies already enjoy a privileged legal status that allows them to maintain a local monopoly, additional net-neutrality regulations can make the market act closer to the way it would if the government just got out of the way entirely.

# ? May 8, 2014 22:02

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

FRINGE posted:

Anyone that has worked at an ISP will (probably) already more or less know this, but its a current commentary on the behavior of US carriers - by one of the (more serious) carriers.

http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism-twc-cablevision-level-3/

It's a pretty accurate general picture but the devil is in the details on the peering agreements. Basically, Netflix was getting a better rate with other Tier 1 providers like Level3 and Cogent. This saturated their peering links with Verizon and Comcast.

There's suppose to be some gentleman's agreement in peering where the exchange of traffic should be symmetrical. If one side of the output traffic gets larger than the input than the other side might not feel too great about that. If Level3 is pushing hotter traffic than the other accused ISPS, what's the incentive of say Verizon or Comcast to expand the capacity of the interconnection speed? None, since it's going to further saturate their networks so they intentionally let the links rot by mulling with their peers on adding additional peer links.

Level3 is complaining now because what Comcast and Verizon has done is cut them out as the middleman between Netflix and them. Nothing like anti competitive practices.

FRINGE posted:

It was fraud. If you want to dig theres a ~400 page ebook that will get into the whole mess.

It doesnt matter what happens, there are always profit-apologists. "History" has an expiration date you see, and if its more than a couple years old it didnt happen.

Anyone that has worked for an ISP and isnt just talking out of their rear end has seen old DSLAMS still pushing those awesome 1/1 and 1.5/256k connections over copper, even today. Theres still CE150s servicing customers in 2014.

The money was pocketed. It is an after the fact PR spin to say it was spent on other things. Profist rose, rose some more, and continue to rise. Still no door to door fiber. Still no 45M connections.

Most telcos are more interested in paying short term payouts than invest in long term infrastructure. You saw this from Verizon's change in deployment strategy and spinning off their DSL to sucker ISPs. Another example was Qwest aka Centurylink lack of anything due to paying down their debt.

The one story that amuses me the most is the story in West Va. Basically, WVA politicians have no clue and hires consultants who tells them to buy lots of expensive routers(campus grade) and put it in like a 50 person public library. The link I have is the first I could google.

# ? May 9, 2014 03:48

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

CheeseSpawn posted:

Most telcos are more interested in paying short term payouts than invest in long term infrastructure. You saw this from Verizon's change in deployment strategy and spinning off their DSL to sucker ISPs. Another example was Qwest aka Centurylink lack of anything due to paying down their debt.

A great example of this is how Verizon's sold off tons of their landline phone/dsl/fios territory in rural New England and the whole state of West Virginia to other providers.

# ? May 9, 2014 03:59

Truecon420: Jul 11, 2013; I like to tweet and live my life. Thank you.

Install Windows posted:

A great example of this is how Verizon's sold off tons of their landline phone/dsl/fios territory in rural New England and the whole state of West Virginia to other providers.

When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it?

# ? May 9, 2014 06:08

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

Truecon420 posted:

When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/41086.htm

dslreports.com has some info as well if you search through their site.

# ? May 9, 2014 06:51

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Truecon420 posted:

When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it?

http://www.ibew.org/verizon-frontier/thefacts.html

quote:

(2009)

...

Why is West Virginia especially vulnerable?

Verizon had already committed to increase fiber investment throughout West Virginia. Given Frontier�s high debt load and potential problems with integrating West Virginia into new systems, Frontier�s ability to build high speed internet is questionable. There is a significant risk that Frontier will run into delays and cost overruns when it replaces Verizon�s operational, support and administrative systems Frontier will have to replace all of Verizon�s operational and back office systems with new systems, on the day the deal closes. This is a daunting task that led to disasters in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Hawaii, which didn�t even attempt the day one cutover of operational and back office systems that Frontier says it will undertake in West Virginia.

Is it true that Verizon will avoid paying any taxes on the $3.3 billion it will get from the Frontier deal?

Yes. Verizon will avoid paying taxes on $3.3 billion by using a tax loophole called a Reverse Morris Trust (RMT). This is �loophole� allows businesses to reorganize and sell assets without having to pay taxes. Thus, taxpayers are subsidizing this transaction at a time when money is needed to expand broadband and expand jobs. Verizon could only obtain "tax free" treatment by selling its operations to a smaller company�no matter the consequences to consumers, workers or communities.

Who has to approve the deal?

The transaction must obtain the approval of the Federal Communications Commission and nine state regulatory agencies, including West Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Washington, Oregon and, possibly, Pennsylvania.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7574975

quote:

Verizon Communications vz says it has reached a deal to shed its traditional telephone line business in 14 states in a deal worth $8.6 billion.

...

Under the deal, Verizon will create a separate company for the assets being sold. That company will simultaneously be spun off to shareholders and merged with Frontier. It will carry $3.3 billion of debt that will be assumed by Frontier.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/verizon-to-slow-fios-roll-out-sell-off-midwest-and-west-coast-services/

quote:

(2010)

If Verizon Communications Inc. hasn�t already started wiring your city or town with its FiOS fiber-optic TV and broadband service, chances are you won�t get it.

... But Verizon is nearing the end of its program to replace copper phone lines with optical fibers that provide much higher Internet speeds and TV service. Its focus is now on completing the network in the communities where it�s already secured �franchises,� the rights to sell TV service that rivals cable, said spokeswoman Heather Wilner.

It was a normal corporate slash-and-burn-and-steal-the-tax-money-along-the-way game. But the FCC watched so it was ok.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizons-Favorite-TaxDodging-Tactic-May-Soon-Be-Illegal-107602
http://www.pcworld.com/article/186250/article.html

quote:

As we discussed last week, Verizon's taking increasing heat of its use of sophisticated financial tricks that allow the carrier to unload unwanted assets and debt without having to pay taxes. The problem has traditionally been that this financial maneuver (known as a Reverse Morris Trust) has resulted in bankruptcies for the companies either being spun off or used as acquisition partners, and a lot of headaches for broadband consumers.

quote:

Verizon Communication's proposed sell-off of 4.8 million rural phone lines in 14 states to Frontier Communications will saddle the smaller telecom firm with a huge amount of debt and should be rejected by the government, two U.S. lawmakers said Thursday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Morris_Trust
http://businessfinancemag.com/blog/time-call-end-reverse-morris-trusts

They had some problems with "the usual plan" though.

quote:

s Verizon now attempts to sell 6 million DSL users across 14 states to Frontier using the same method, they've found their favorite tax trick has been made illegal under a House version of a new federal jobs bill:

quote:
A provision in a federal jobs bill that outlaws a tax loophole used in Verizon's bid to sell its telephone landlines to Frontier Communications Corp. in West Virginia and 13 other states could derail the sale. On Wednesday, the U.S. House passed legislation that includes a ban on a tax shelter -- known as a Reverse Morris Trust -- that Verizon and other companies have used to spin off operations tax-free. Verizon plans to use the Reverse Morris Trust as part of its $8.6 billion deal with Frontier.

Frontier is still a (years long) developing story.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/30/frontier-communications-may-be-hiding-weakness/

quote:

(2011)

Frontier Communications May Be Hiding Weakness

Frontier Communications (NYS: FTR) carries $8.5 billion of goodwill and other intangibles on its balance sheet. Sometimes goodwill, especially when it's excessive, can foreshadow problems down the road. Could this be the case with Frontier Communications?

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ticker=FTR

Some of Verizons other scams:

http://www.speedmatters.org/blog/archive/proposed-verizon-frontier-merger-bad-for-consumers/

quote:

Verizon is abandoning rural America and leaving a broad swath of destruction in its wake. Verizon sold its telephone lines in Hawaii. The result: consumers received terrible service quality and Hawaiian Telecom went bankrupt. Verizon sold its lines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to tiny FairPoint. The result: terrible service quality and FairPoint is nearly bankrupt. Verizon spun off Idearc - its Yellow Pages operation. The result: bankruptcy. The August 11th Wall Street Journal stated "In all, these companies have lost upward of $13 billion in value and counting." The Journal continued "...[Verizon's CEO] extracted prices that literally sucked the life out of the buyers."

As usual - history proves the freemarkettards to be wrong.

For fun:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-cable-companies-wont-tell-you-1354552919366

# ? May 9, 2014 06:57

Femur: Jan 10, 2004; I REALLY NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP

CheeseSpawn posted:

It's a pretty accurate general picture but the devil is in the details on the peering agreements. Basically, Netflix was getting a better rate with other Tier 1 providers like Level3 and Cogent. This saturated their peering links with Verizon and Comcast.

There's suppose to be some gentleman's agreement in peering where the exchange of traffic should be symmetrical. If one side of the output traffic gets larger than the input than the other side might not feel too great about that. If Level3 is pushing hotter traffic than the other accused ISPS, what's the incentive of say Verizon or Comcast to expand the capacity of the interconnection speed? None, since it's going to further saturate their networks so they intentionally let the links rot by mulling with their peers on adding additional peer links.

Level3 is complaining now because what Comcast and Verizon has done is cut them out as the middleman between Netflix and them. Nothing like anti competitive practices.

But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3?

Like why is it significant if the world doesn't want stuff hosted by Comcast, thus giving them an uneven ratio? That's the up/dl ratio they sale to home user.

I guess if you can force the credit card model, you should.

Femur fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 13:24

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

Femur posted:

But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3?

Like why is it significant if the world doesn't want stuff hosted by Comcast, thus giving them an uneven ratio? That's the up/dl ratio they sale to home user.

I guess if you can force the credit card model, you should.

I really dont want to jump into ISP peering but I'd suggest you'd research into it. It can be convoluted which is why it's an ongoing issue today in settlements between ISPs. Don't conflate peer traffic with an individual user traffic. Peering traffic can be viewed as the total aggregate of the end user traffic to a common destination on another ISP network. Your upload and download speeds is what the ISP believes their network infrastructure can handle and get make some profit. Peering traffic is practically transparent to the end user until there is congestion or disruption.

Netflix went with other Tier 1 providers because they offered a better rate. So their peering links to VZ got saturated since the transit link is like few 10gig links per POP market. VZ or Comcast notices this imbalance and is also jealous that they didnt score the money with Netflix. As level 3 has stated, VZ and Comcast just let the peering links saturate and their own end users get hosed who complain to netflix when there's nothing they can do unless they also pay Comcast and Verizon to be CDNs on their network. So now Netflix pays twice and loses out. Also VZ was offering Redbox to try and compete with netflix, you cant tell me that VZ was jumping at the heel to upgrade their saturated peer links due to netflix?

The argument is that Netflix has to pay comcast or verizon to host in their network to get a decent stream to their end users. You, as a end user, might not care because you get to see your movies without issues again. Verizon wins because they dont have to worry about their peer links and they can also tack on additional fees for no reason because that's what they do. The interconnect they use to hook up to Netflix could have also gone to the interconnect to the peer link. Netflix is the one who really loses and would possibly endanger its future event more.

Here's an okay starting place if you need a primer on net neutrality.

# ? May 9, 2014 15:46

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/charts-why-fcc-ditching-net-neutrality

quote:

Why the FCC Is Ditching Net Neutrality

Charts: The "open internet" is no match for revolving doors and buckets of cash.

...

Obama's first pick to lead the FCC, Julius Genachowski, was initially a strong proponent of net neutrality. Genachowski made a video explaining why he wanted to reclassify ISPs as "telecommunications services," a legally bulletproof way of preserving an open internet that had long been favored by consumer groups. But he ultimately backed off in the face of an onslaught of lobbying by ISPs. By then their main trade group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), was spending about 95 times more money lobbying the FCC than the Internet Association, which represents the tech companies that favor net neutrality.

...

Last May, two months after Genachowski stepped down, Obama replaced him with Tom Wheeler, a veteran telecommunications lobbyist who'd served as president of the NCTA before taking the helm of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CITA), the lobbying arm of the wireless industry. Obama called him "the Bo Jackson of telecom." The New Yorker's John Cassidy suggested that a more apt sports metaphor might have been "to compare him to one of the lawyers who helped finagle a lucrative anti-trust exemption for professional football and baseball."

Did Obama like that Wheeler represented two of the most powerful groups that oppose net neutrality, or could he have picked him for some other reason? See below.

...

With a few notable exceptions, you can assume that tech companies, consumer groups, and content producers favor net neutrality, while ISPs oppose it. Which is to say, if the lobbyists have their way, the future clearly lies in net discrimination.

# ? May 11, 2014 22:34

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

Femur posted:

But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3?

Like why is it significant if the world doesn't want stuff hosted by Comcast, thus giving them an uneven ratio? That's the up/dl ratio they sale to home user.

I guess if you can force the credit card model, you should.

What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it.

The fact is, Netflix wants to deliver content in a way that the existing infrastructure cannot handle. If we say Comcast and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to ask for payment, we are saying that Netflix deserves a subsidy at their expense. Maybe they do, but that's not really "net neutrality" anymore.

# ? May 12, 2014 18:05

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Amarkov posted:

What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it.

The fact is, Netflix wants to deliver content in a way that the existing infrastructure cannot handle. If we say Comcast and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to ask for payment, we are saying that Netflix deserves a subsidy at their expense. Maybe they do, but that's not really "net neutrality" anymore.

Is that even what the debate is about though? Everyone understands peerage agreements sometimes involve payments. I thought the question was whether the ISPs are allowed to discriminate in bandwidth availability over the last mile, particularly where (as in the case with Comcast/Hulu and Netflix) the ISP owns a competing service.

# ? May 12, 2014 18:10

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

KernelSlanders posted:

Is that even what the debate is about though? Everyone understands peerage agreements sometimes involve payments. I thought the question was whether the ISPs are allowed to discriminate in bandwidth availability over the last mile, particularly where (as in the case with Comcast/Hulu and Netflix) the ISP owns a competing service.

That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality.

e: To be clear here, there is no last mile discrimination against Netflix. A lot of people have gotten a misleading impression, but not even Netflix itself claims that any such thing is happening.

Amarkov fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 12, 2014

# ? May 12, 2014 18:38

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Amarkov posted:

That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality.

e: To be clear here, there is no last mile discrimination against Netflix. A lot of people have gotten a misleading impression, but not even Netflix itself claims that any such thing is happening.

Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring.

Other than that, I don't understand why we're talking about peering and a flat internet if we agree the issue is last mile discrimination. That whole topic seems inapposite to the discussion at hand.

# ? May 12, 2014 18:57

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

KernelSlanders posted:

Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring.

Other than that, I don't understand why we're talking about peering and a flat internet if we agree the issue is last mile discrimination. That whole topic seems inapposite to the discussion at hand.

Well no, there was a quite long time with no particular rules making last mile discrimination illegal or even just fineable. Then there was a short time where it was explicitly forbidden. It's something that seems like doing it "right" (in this context the isps making sure they can implement it to get more money than setting it up and running it would cost them) is very hard, and thus why no ISPs actually did it in times where the legal aspect would be wide open. They can get most of the benefit by simply convincing various big net businesses to hook up directly, a business pattern that's served them great since the 90s.

A TON of the reporting out there conflates that stuff with last mile discrimination, often because the esteemed journalists barely understand what's going on.

# ? May 12, 2014 19:17

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

KernelSlanders posted:

Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case,

This is incorrect. From roughly 1996 to 2005 (brand x), it was believed legal. 2005-2008 (wireline policy order), it was explicitly legal for cable companies and believed legal for DSL. From 2008-2010, there were unenforceable principles that suggested the FCC didn't like the idea of discrimination but didn't create a general way to do anything about it.

In 2010, Comcast successfully challenged the principles from the 2008 order. Then the FCC issued the open Internet order. That was basically immediately challenged by Verizon (and others) and effectively treated as a dead letter while being challenged.

At no point in the past 20 years has there been anything resembling network discrimination being illegal in an enforceable way.

# ? May 12, 2014 19:26

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Thank you for the explanation of exact timelines and status in each time, kalman.

# ? May 12, 2014 19:28

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

The rumbling is getting louder.

https://bgr.com/2014/04/30/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

quote:

FCC chairman Wheeler is just as bad as we thought he�d be

... In exchange for giving Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T something they�ve wanted very badly for a long time, Wheeler says that the FCC will have power to enforce certain rules that will prevent ISPs from blocking or degrading traffic or from �degrading overall service so as to force consumers and content companies to a higher priced tier.�

All of which sounds nice, but this is the kind of genie that really can�t be put back in the bottle once it�s been opened and it gives ISPs� legal teams way too much room to distort the rules. Allowing ISPs to create Internet �fast lanes� where they can extract tolls in exchange for giving certain big companies faster pipes for their data gives them much more incentive to invest in those faster pipes since they�ll deliver much more value to the ISPs. The �regular lane� of the Internet, meanwhile, is much more likely to suffer from comparative neglect and to constantly fall farther behind the �fast lane.�

By Wheeler�s own rules, this situation would be perfectly fine because ISPs wouldn�t be actively degrading traffic for anyone who doesn�t pay them a toll � rather, they�d just be keeping them at the same speed while putting the big incumbent companies� speeds into hyperdrive. This would in effect allow for companies to engage in a kind of passive aggressive discrimination that would leave upcoming disruptive startups at a disadvantage if they�re trying to go head-to-head with bigger Internet companies.

The bottom line in this case is that we�re actually better off doing nothing right now than adopting Wheeler�s proposal. Yes, ISPs at the moment are free to block and degrade traffic to their hearts� content thanks to a court ruling earlier this year that overturned the FCC�s net neutrality rules for wireline ISPs. But at least that discrimination isn�t allowed with the express written consent of the FCC, as similar discrimination would be under Wheeler�s proposal.

As bad as it may seem to just let ISPs do whatever they want, that�s sadly the preferable option for the time being until we get an FCC chairman who is actually interested in preserving the Internet in its current form.

https://bgr.com/2014/05/09/fcc-net-neutrality-controversy/

quote:

The FCC can�t handle all the net neutrality calls it�s getting, urges people to write emails instead

... This seemingly indicates that either the FCC is being flooded with calls about net neutrality that its operators can�t handle them all or it just is tired of hearing everyone call about net neutrality and would like to see them send emails instead. Either way, it looks as though people are speaking up about the issue.

This week has been a very bad one for Wheeler�s proposal that would create Internet �fast lanes� that would let Internet service providers charge companies more to ensure faster traffic delivery. Several big-name tech companies this week � including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix � wrote a joint letter to the FCC telling it to back off any plan that would create a two-tiered Internet and instead urged it to adopt policies that would not only protect against blocking of websites but also the Internet�s traditional architecture where all packets are delivered on a first-come, first-serve basis.

What�s more, two FCC commissioners have come out and said that they want to delay voting on Wheeler�s proposal, which is scheduled to take place at an FCC meeting on May 15th. However, with at least two commissioners seeking to delay the vote and expressing opposition to parts of Wheeler�s plan, it remains unclear whether Wheeler will even have the votes to get his plan passed even if he decides not to table it.

https://bgr.com/2014/05/12/fcc-net-neutality-controversy-wheeler/

quote:

The FCC is pretending to back down from its controversial net neutrality plan

... However, just because Wheeler is signaling an intention to back down, that doesn�t mean that he actually is. The Journal�s sources say that Wheeler�s newest plan �is sticking to the same basic approach but will include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don�t unfairly put non-paying companies� content at a disadvantage.�

In other words, the new plan will still allow ISPs to strike deals with big players such as Google and Netflix to make sure that their content gets delivered on a fast lane while insisting that the FCC will have the right to make sure that these deals aren�t putting competitors at a disadvantage. Basically, this is the exact same endgame as the one in Wheeler�s original plan, only this time he�s decided to add some more language to assure us that the plan really isn�t supposed to do what he�s designed it to do.

These kinds of cosmetic changes that Wheeler will reportedly propose aren�t likely to quiet critics of the FCC�s plan, but it is interesting to see that he at least feels some need to pretend to cave to outside pressure.

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-tells-fcc-grow-spine-reclassify-isps-common-153554045.html

quote:

Mozilla might not be as big as Google or Netflix in most consumers� minds but as the maker of the popular Firefox browser, it does have some clout. That�s why it�s noteworthy that Mozilla on Monday recommended that the Federal Communications Commission use the �nuclear option� against Internet service providers by reclassifying them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

https://bgr.com/2014/04/30/google-netflix-fcc-net-neutrality/

quote:

Google and Netflix are considering an all-out PR blitz against the FCC�s net neutrality plan

More bad news for the Federal Communications Commission: It looks like the coalition that came together to kill the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) might be getting back together to rally against its proposed new net neutrality rules. The Wall Street Journal reports that while big tech firms such as Google, Netflix and Yahoo have kept their powder dry so far when it comes to the FCC�s new rules, �officials inside the companies who follow government policy say they are considering mobilizing a grass-roots campaign to rally public opinion around the idea that the Internet�s pipes should be equally open for all.�

http://www.vice.com/read/former-comcast-and-verizon-attorneys-now-manage-the-fcc-and-are-about-to-kill-the-internet

quote:

Former Comcast and Verizon Attorneys Now Manage the FCC and Are About to Kill the Internet

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/05/09/fcc-gets-a-taste-of-its-own-medicine-bandwidth-throttled/

quote:

FCC Gets A Taste Of It�s Own Medicine � Bandwidth Throttled

# ? May 13, 2014 01:51

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers?

# ? May 13, 2014 01:53

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers?

Nothing useful (because as it turns out Title II providers are allowed to discriminate in a number of ways) and a lot of things harmful (primarily to do with regulation of rates and physical plant in a fashion that makes no sense for ISPs because it's designed for telcos.). That's the overview.

Edit: AT&T's filing from today isn't a bad summary, if obviously biased. You can start at page 4, everything before that is "business people would hate it."

Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 02:01

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers?

In the details no. There will be a saga-worthy amount of politicking to actually decide what happens.

It would provide a launching point to address certain things no matter what though (wiki):

quote:

Common carriers are subject to special laws and regulations that differ depending on the means of transport used, e.g. sea carriers are often governed by quite different rules from road carriers or railway carriers. In common law jurisdictions as well as under international law, a common carrier is absolutely liable for goods carried by it, with four exceptions:

An act of nature
An act of the public enemies
Fault or fraud by the shipper
An inherent defect in the goods

... An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason. As of 2007, the status of Internet service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).

You should always be suspicious when the meat of the anti-neutrality argument pretty much always sources back to the industry that is pocketing all the money in the status quo though.

The largest "reason" to leave everything as-is is still:

quote:

Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.

quote:

Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute.

There is a reason the anti-regulation team on the forums has a great deal of overlap with the corporate apologists in every other thread.

If you cant trust ATT/Verizon/Time-Warner/Comcast/Charter and the AEI ... who can you trust? :suicide:

The NCTA wants you to understand that regulation is bad because ... um ... well reasons?

https://www.ncta.com/platform/public-policy/why-its-a-good-thing-that-broadband-isnt-a-common-carrier/

quote:

... We now live in a vastly different world and broadband is a very different service than any traditional utility service...

... Part of what we need to do as a nation is to encourage innovation and vibrant marketplaces...

Oh well now that we all know that. :rolleyes:

Recognized names that are anti-net neutrality are being proved wrong right now.

quote:

Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: "The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future.

That is exactly what is being hoped for by the carriers. (Also note that limiting and shaping are features that Cisco sells...)

Other well known people in favor of net neutrality are being proved right year after year:

quote:

Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use...Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content.
�Lawrence Lessig & Robert W. McChesney

quote:

Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down.

This last one I can promise is true.

People intimately familiar with the situation who are not industry lobbyist/plants have opinions too:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/drop-regulatory-hammer-on-internet-providers-says-former-fcc-commish/

quote:

Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011 (and acting chairman for several months in 2009), is proof that not every former FCC member becomes a lobbyist for the industries the commission regulates. The only commission member to vote against allowing the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, Copps is now a self-described public interest advocate who leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.

On Wednesday, Copps wrote a blog post titled, "The Buck Stops At The FCC," calling upon the commission to "reclassify broadband as 'telecommunications' under Title II of the Communications Act." The effect of that move would be to designate Internet service providers as "common carriers," making them subject to increased FCC regulation.

Such a move would bring fierce opposition from telecommunications companies and their friends in Congress. But the FCC's previous failure to reclassify broadband blew up in its face when a court ruled that that the agency couldn't impose anti-blocking and anti-discrimination regulations on ISPs because they aren't classified as common carriers.

FRINGE fucked around with this message at 10:46 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 10:41

anonumos: Jul 14, 2005; Fuck it.

quote:

By Wheeler�s own rules, this situation would be perfectly fine because ISPs wouldn�t be actively degrading traffic for anyone who doesn�t pay them a toll � rather, they�d just be keeping them at the same speed while putting the big incumbent companies� speeds into hyperdrive. This would in effect allow for companies to engage in a kind of passive aggressive discrimination that would leave upcoming disruptive startups at a disadvantage if they�re trying to go head-to-head with bigger Internet companies.

Where have I heard this sort of thing before? Oh yeh, with inflation adjusted wages not-exactly-falling-but-definitely-falling-behind. So basically we're facing a century of DSL-speed internet to-the-home while anyone that "matters" gets the latest and greatest technology.

# ? May 13, 2014 11:01

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

Amarkov posted:

That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality.

e: To be clear here, there is no last mile discrimination against Netflix. A lot of people have gotten a misleading impression, but not even Netflix itself claims that any such thing is happening.

KernelSlanders posted:

Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring.

Other than that, I don't understand why we're talking about peering and a flat internet if we agree the issue is last mile discrimination. That whole topic seems inapposite to the discussion at hand.

When you say last mile, that means from the provider's pop through most likely existing infrastructure to your house or apartment. There is no discrimination there, it's more at the transit/peering points.

Vox has been some great stuff lately so I'll post these here.

Everything you need to know about network neutrality

quote:

Netflix has been forced to cut private deals with ISPs. Is that undermining net neutrality?

In February, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to ensure that its videos would play smoothly for Comcast customers. The company signed a similar deal with Verizon in April. Netflix signed these deals because its customers had been experiencing declining speeds for several months beforehand. Netflix realized it would be at a competitive disadvantage if it didn't pay for speedier service. After its payment to Comcast, Netflix's customers experienced a 67 percent improvement in their average connection speed.

Netflix has accused Comcast of deliberately provoking the crisis by refusing to upgrade its network to accommodate Netflix traffic, leaving Netflix with little choice but to pay a "toll." That might sound like a classic network neutrality violation. But surprisingly, leading network neutrality proposals wouldn't affect this kind of agreement at all.

That's because Comcast wasn't technically offering Netflix a "fast lane" on an existing connection. Instead, Netflix paid Comcast to accept a whole new connection. The terms of these agreements, known as "peering," have always been negotiated in an unregulated market, and network neutrality regulations don't apply to them.

In theory, Netflix's deal with Comcast doesn't violate network neutrality because everyone on this new pipe (e.g. only Netflix) is treated the same, just as everyone on the old, overloaded pipe gets equal treatment. But it's hard to see any practical difference between the kind of "fast lane" agreement network neutrality supporters have campaigned against and Netflix paying Comcast for a faster connection.

So why hasn't interconnection been a bigger part of the network neutrality debate? Until recently, it was unheard of for a residential broadband provider like Comcast to demand payment to deliver traffic to its own customers. Traditionally, residential broadband companies would accept traffic from the largest global "backbone" networks such as Level 3 for free. So anyone could reach Comcast customers by routing their traffic through a third network. That limited Comcast's leverage.

But recently, the negotiating position of backbone providers has weakened while the position of the largest residential ISPs � especially Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T � has gotten stronger. As a consequence, the network neutrality debate will be increasingly linked to the debate over interconnection. Refusing to upgrade a slow link to a company is functionally equivalent to configuring an Internet router to put the company's packets in a virtual slow lane. Regulations that try to protect net neutrality without regulating the terms of interconnection are going to be increasingly ineffective.

beyond-net-neutrality-the-new-battle-for-the-future-of-the-internet.

quote:

Yet interconnection disputes are generally treated as a distinct issue from network neutrality. Neither the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which the courts struck down earlier this year, nor FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's new proposal, would govern this kind of interconnection dispute. Wheeler has said that he intends to monitor the interconnection situation closely, but he hasn't put forward any concrete proposals to address the issue.
"A poorly written rule could create a lot of work for lawyers without actually preventing abusive practices"

One reason for this is that Comcast's hardball tactics are relatively new. According to Wu, "we never thought much about" interconnection issues when the concept of network neutrality was developed in 2002. That was "mainly because it seemed like, 'Why would anyone do that?'" It was generally assumed that consumer ISPs would always buy enough transit to serve their customers' needs.

Wu worked in Silicon Valley prior to 2002. And he says he remembers that "solving a joint technical challenge" � that is, making the internet work as well as possible � "was the predominant motivation of the engineers." That's still true in most parts of the internet. But some of the largest ISPs now seem to view declining network performance not as a technical problem to be solved so much as a source of leverage in business negotiations.

Another reason is that regulating interconnection is much more complex than a "classic" network neutrality rule. When all of an ISP's traffic comes through one cable, it's not too hard to write a rule requiring that the packets in that cable be treated equally. But it's harder to write a rule governing when and how ISPs must interconnect. Someone needs to pay for the cost of these connections, and the fairest way to split the costs depends on many subtle factors, including geography, traffic patterns, and the relative size of the interconnecting networks. A poorly written interconnection rule could create a lot of work for lawyers without actually preventing abusive practices.

A good first step would be to require more transparency. "The big challenge with this whole internet interconnection world is that everything is opaque," says Kevin Werbach, a scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who has long emphasized the importance of interconnection in broadband regulation. "You're seeing this now with Netflix and Comcast, both sides are firing back and forth making representations about what's going on. The public doesn't actually know."

Wu says he's still mulling the best way for regulators to address this new challenge. But he believes one promising approach would be for regulators to mandate that large ISPs accept traffic bound for their own customers without payment.

Concerns about abusive interconnection practices also provide an argument against Comcast's proposed merger with Time-Warner. Comcast's sheer size gives the company leverage in its negotiations with both content and backbone companies. Further consolidation could make the problem even worse.

The bottom line is that network neutrality advocates will need to broaden their thinking to respond effectively to the internet's changing structure. Merely banning fast lanes isn't going to accomplish much if the largest ISPs are allowed to sell new private roads.

To be fair, Netflix was trying to be cost efficient or cheap and they got smacked down by Comcast and Verizon.

# ? May 13, 2014 13:51

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

The vote happened. It doesn't seem like the actual text is released yet, but the press releases are out.

quote:

The FCC proposes to rely on a legal blueprint set out by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its January decision in Verizon v. FCC, using the FCC�s authority to promote broadband deployment to all Americans under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At the same time, the Commission will seriously consider using its authority under the telecommunications regulation found in Title II of the Communications Act. In addition, the Notice:

Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet traffic exchange and specialized services.

Proposes to enhance the existing transparency rule, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit. The proposed enhancements would provide consumers, edge providers, and the Commission with tailored disclosures, including information on the nature of congestion that impacts consumers� use of online services and timely notice of new practices.

As part of the revived �no-blocking� rule, proposes ensuring that all who use the Internet can enjoy robust, fast and dynamic Internet access.

Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise.

Asks how to devise a rigorous, multi-factor �screen� to analyze whether any conduct hurts consumers, competition, free expression and civic engagement, and other criteria under a legal standard termed �commercial reasonableness.�

Asks a series of detailed questions about what legal authority provides the most effective means of keeping the Internet open: Section 706 or Title II.

Proposes a multi-faceted process to promptly resolve and head off disputes, including an ombudsperson to act as a watchdog on behalf of consumers and start-ups and small businesses.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launches-broad-rulemaking-protect-and-promote-open-internet

# ? May 15, 2014 19:25

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

The vote to open a rule making happened, not the vote on a final rule.

# ? May 15, 2014 19:33

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

Right, didn't mean to imply otherwise. When I said text I meant to be talking about the text of the notice. Which has since been put up here.

# ? May 15, 2014 23:06

anne frank fanfic: Oct 31, 2005

At least we can all rest easy in knowing that we can vote the FCC out if they don't choose the right way.

# ? May 16, 2014 03:33

My Q-Face: Jul 8, 2002; A dumb racist who need to kill themselves

Paul MaudDib posted:

At the end of the day Congress doesn't have the power to prevent the President from ordering movement of the troops (and the prisoners under their control). He is the Commander in Chief and has ultimate control over the military, Congress being able to take underhanded control of the military by micromanaging funding and cutting off funding for individual troop orders that they disagree with pretty much undermines the whole "commander in chief" bit. Can you imagine how that would go in an actual war? Republicans demand that Fire Base Charlie remain manned and cut off funding for allowing troops to retreat from that position?

You would be surprised. The military has flushed millions, possibly billions of dollars, and I personally know dozens of killed and wounded due to Congressional funding requirements.

One such requirement is that the military was not allowed to build any sort of permanent structures on their bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why you end up with tents and sheet-metal walled containers that do nothing to protect the occupants from blast or shrapnel damage. Consequently, you still have people living on 10+ year old FOBs in tents and lovely wobbly plywood sheds instead of brick buildings (or even the old WW2/Korea era corrugated metal huts which could be piled high with sandbags) and getting hit by mortars and rockets and shrapnel. I know too many people who were wounded or killed from that exact thing. Even the KBR/Halliburton C-huts from Kosovo would have been better, and two massive FOBs of those were built in less than 2 years.

Another such requirement was that the military was not permitted to purchase tools and light utility vehicles (pick-up trucks and four/six-wheeled Polaris utility vehicles), which they generally needed to do their jobs on the base, especially later in the war as Humvees and such started to be replaced by MRAPS and such. So instead the military leased these vehicles, which was what congress required, and the lease for a single year -especially for the lovely used Polarises and 15 year old Toyota Hiluxes we were getting- would have bought brand several new ones each year. (Supply-side economics :rolleyes:

)

Every time a vote came up for extending the war funding, they were literally deciding whether or not the military in the war zone would continue to receive fuel and food, and be able to pay its monthly contracts.

# ? May 16, 2014 15:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 11:33

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

So what exactly is the basic reason that broadband is so expensive in the US? Is it that ISPs are unwilling to build new infrastructure because of monopolism, or is it something else? I recently read this article claiming it's local governments setting up barriers to building new infrastructure, however the guys who wrote it run a think tank affiliated with people like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and the usual suspects.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

Also, just to confirm, the chance of the FCC declaring ISPs common carriers is essentially zero, right? I thought that was basically the ultimate fix to this problem, or would even that be insufficient?

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:01 on May 17, 2014

# ? May 17, 2014 01:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th

«‹›17 »