Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[lobosrul]

In the USA it has only happened once but the overall context is important to understanding the situation. I've been of the same opinion as the EFF on this issue for the past 15 years, they finally came to the conclusion last year that this FCC action was likely the only way to move forward on the issue.

Comcast is the only major US ISP to completely block a service that I know of. However, they and other have been caught downgrading speeds to Netflix and other VOD services to the point thats makes them all but useless. Also, I know I read of a regional ISP redirecting traffic from google.com to their own search engine.

 

[paulhutch]

Comcast is the only major US ISP to completely block a service that I know of. However, they and other have been caught downgrading speeds to Netflix and other VOD services to the point thats makes them all but useless. Also, I know I read of a regional ISP redirecting traffic from google.com to their own search engine.

The only instance of Netflix slow down I'm aware of was not due to Comcast actions, although it appeared that way. It was actually due to Netflix's provider, Level3, exceeding it's peering agreement with Comcast and Comcast being resistant to correcting the situation.

This type of situation will still happen under the new rules as the FCC does not want to reach down to that level of network management decisions. Although the rules don't prevent it they are rumored to have a provision that has the FCC arbitrate peering level problems like that. With the specific Comcast/Netflix case, it is very likely that since all that needed to be done on a physical level to correct the situation was to plug in one cable on two unused router ports the FCC could have speed up the resolution through arbitration.

 

[paulhutch]

Solve the problem by mandating net neutrality, and otherwise keeping their greedy little power-hungry fingers off the regulatory button.

Somehow I doubt they will.

I am generally skeptical of regulatory bodies limiting their impact however the FCC has a good track record. In 50 years of regulation they have not gone overboard on regulating cable TV. No rate regulation, mostly just technical standards to prevent interference to other services and the must carry rule to ensure local stations are available. For over 20 years they've stayed pretty hands off on cellular telephone services too. No rate regulation, mostly just technical standards to prevent interference to other services and requiring that your cell phone is allowed to connect to all other telephone numbers.

So while we must remain vigilant in monitoring the FCCs actions I'm cautiously optimistic that they will use a light touch as they have with cell phones and cable TV. Also since this is an FCC action and not a congressional action the rules can be fairly easily changed or eliminated if problems arise. If this was new congressional legislation and something turned out bad we could have a hard time getting it repealed or corrected.

Also keep in mind that the FCC was instrumental in kicking the public Internet into wide use. Possibly many here aren't old enough to remember the history so I'll re-cap the highlights. Up until the 1980s AT&T owned nearly all telephone lines in the USA and was the only provider allowed for equipment, wiring and services. If you wanted an extension you had to have AT&T run the wires, lease you a second handset and then pay an additional monthly fee for the upgraded system. If you wanted luxuries like a lighted dial or tone dialing you paid an extra monthly fee.

When AT&Ts monopoly was finally broken up in the early 80s the FCC helped make sure that everyone could run there own internal house wires and buy their phone equipment from any company as long as the equipment and wiring met FCC standards. This led to affordable modems for transferring data between computers (also affordable answering machines and cordless phones). Once anyone could network their computer via the POTS lines, on-line services began to spring up in many varieties and when the Internet was opened to the public these services rapidly became gateways to the Internet.

 

[Nihilianth]

I agree with your basic point but I think there is still a connection. While NN its own doesn’t solve the competition issue by itself, if it’s something you are interested in some form of NN looks like a prerequisite.

NN is intended to protect free packet exchange between networks is the requirement for internetworking to function. With internetworking anyone could set up an ISP and have its subscribers access the same content as everyone else contacted to the internet. Without internetworking it may even be incorrect to call them Internet Service Providers, because all they are really offering is access to their own private networks. History already tells us the later model doesn’t work.

This is a good point, as ISPs are certainly blurring the line between the two industries: "content provider" and "ISP."

I am fine with an ISP also being a Content Provider. But there are other....many thousands....of other Content Providers that are not ISPs. Youtube and Netflix are generally the ones given. But really, anyone with a website is a "content provider." There is still that distinction between an ISP and "Content Provider."

The problem with this conversation, and one that I have made myself, is that we keep talking about large online companies, such as Netflix, having to pay an extortion to Comcast in order to keep their connection to Comcast's users at the rate that the users are already paying for. But it isn't JUST Netflix. Comcast has seen that economic model was working, and no doubt, they would attempt to reach their slimy little fingers into completely different types of content: Online forums, Online games (Steam,) Janey's Online Custom Jewlery, LLC. Hell, maybe Comcast will decide to slow my uncle's model Christmas House (Time Passages) business to a crawl for all Comcast customers, because Comcast has decided that they are "offended by model Christmas houses" until he pays Comcast their extortion fee.

 

[Francesca R]

I have the choice between United Illuminating, Public Power and Dominion Energy where I live (in Connecticut). Whichever provider I choose will send my electricity to me over UI's wires. Kind of like electricity neutrality.

No it isn't. That is local loop unbundling. And it is a great solution. And it is something that net neutrality has done completely nothing to achieve.

You have just advocated exactly what I have preferred in all these threads. Pity you don't know it.

 

[Francesca R]

One

Thank you.

 

[Francesca R]

Without Net Neutrality rules it seems unlikely there would ever be other providers.

Nor with them.

Perhaps you can report back when choice of ISP multiplies in the US directly due to these rules.

 

[Francesca R]

And so you cannot name two electric companies where you live. Or two gas companies you can choose from.

Gotta love ignorance. If the US does not do it, then nobody does and it is impossible. Right?

Wrong.

I have a choice of about 6 gas suppliers, 10 electric suppliers, and about ten phone and/or net suppliers. And I only have one set of cables/pipes.

There is only one water supplier. That it a utility.

The phone, net, gas and electric companies are not ultilities. Their regulation is considerably south of utility regulation. There are no "fixed line telephone neutrality" or "mobile broadband neutrality" (and most deals are distinctly not neutral) law or net neutrality laws, just mandatory disclosure.

 

[GodMark2]

I have a choice of about 6 gas suppliers, 10 electric suppliers, and about ten phone and/or net suppliers. And I only have one set of cables/pipes.

I'd bet, in network terms, you have a choice of 10 electric content providers, but still only one electric service provider to choose from (UK Power Networks/London Power Networks PLC). That one service provider is required by law to allow the content providers to pass their product (electric power) through the service lines without preference. What you're using that power for can't be counted against the price, only the used amount/maximum amount. That's network neutrality (for your electric services).

Imagine if UK Power Networks wasn't restricted by law, and had the legal ability to tell EDF Energy that it would charge £0.01/kWH to send electricity across UKPN lines to your flat, but then tell npower and E.ON that it would charge them £0.10 for the same, unless they paid a 'special processing fee'. What could you, as a consumer, do about that situation? You can't switch to a different set of lines: you only have one. How could a new power supplier even begin to compete with the established suppliers that have already paid the fee? That's what is starting to happen without network neutrality.

You don't see it as 'needed' because UK law already requires it of the last mile.

 

[paulhutch]

Does or does not the government set prices for public utilities?

The federal government does NOT set prices for public utilities.

Once again you show your ignorance of how things are in the USA. It's also nice that you have shown your true stripes now and made it clear you do not care for truth, honesty or reality. All you want to do is believe that Obama is at fault for everything you don't like regardless of whether he has anything to do with it or not.

 

[Nihilianth]

No it isn't. That is local loop unbundling. And it is a great solution. And it is something that net neutrality has done completely nothing to achieve.

You have just advocated exactly what I have preferred in all these threads. Pity you don't know it.

*FOREHGEAD SLAP!

FRANCESCA!

Net Neutrality declared them a UTILITY! That is a VERY important first step. Again, the United States of America does not equal the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! Believe it or not, they are two entirely different nations, with two entirely different laws and political atmospheres.

Now, yet again, NN doesn;t set out to force new competition among ISPs. What it does, is PROTECT the competition of CONTENT PROVIDERS. You keep insisting it has to be about competition among ISPs. No. It does not. That is the strawman! You are talking about the wrong industry. NN keeps the ISPs from interfering with the industry of CONTENT PROVISION.

 

[Francesca R]

That's network neutrality (for your electric services).

No it isn't. You need to understand what NN is before speaking about it.

Almost everyone does now know the difference between last-mile sharing and network neutrality. For a long while many members here insisted they were the same thing and denied the situation. They are not. Perhaps peruse the threads about this more closely.

NN is not about last mile sharing. It never was. It is an attempt to compensate for the lack of that.

 

[Nihilianth]

No it isn't. You need to understand what NN is before speaking about it.

Almost everyone does now know the difference between last-mile sharing and network neutrality. For a long while many members here insisted they were the same thing and denied the situation. They are not. Perhaps peruse the threads about this more closely.

NN is not about last mile sharing. It never was. It is an attempt to compensate for the lack of that.

Yet again, you totally misunderstand NN. It isn't meant to "compensate for the lack of last mile sharing!!"

THAT IS A STRAWAMAN!

It is meant to protect the completely totally 100% separate industry of "online content provision."

The industry of "Internet Service Provision" is compeltely different form the industry of "Online Content Provision." It's like the difference between the farming industry, and the grocery store industry.

NN is about "Online Content Provision." Not about "Internet Service Provision." What it does, is to keep the ISPs online content from unfairly competing against other online content providers. In other words:

Comcast On-Demand Service vs. Netflix vs. Youtube vs. Hulu.

It isn't about Comcast, Inc. vs. Verizon Wireless.

We need to keep the online competition between Comcast On-Demand, Netflix, Youtube, and Hulu. THAT is what NN DOES! FFS.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Electricity Neutrality allows any originator of electricity to deliver power to a household without unfair interference of the last mile owner...

Net Neutrality allows any originator of data to deliver information to a household without unfair interference of the last mile owner...

I don't see why you think they're different at all...

 

[Francesca R]

Power companies are not "originators of electricity". They are suppliers to the public of electricity. They are akin to ISPs in comparison.

Net content makers are akin to nuclear, coal, oil, hydro, wind etc power stations.

The last mile electric cable is the local loop, like the last mile of phone/net cable.

Net neutrality is not about un-bundling the last mile to multiple ISPs. Net neutrality is not about increasing ISP competition. It is not akin the electric power arrangement whereby the last mile is un-bundled to multiple power companies.

This should be obvious given this and other threads here. I am not about to walk through it all over again. Others (including advocates of NN) understand this. I don't know why so many enthusiasts of network neutrality do not actually know what it is.

You can advocate NN all you wish but not by appealing to the merit of a different arrangement (local exchange network unbundling and competition between internet service providers) which it is not, (and which, by the way, is a way superior arrangement).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Power companies are not "originators of electricity". They are suppliers to the public of electricity. They are akin to ISPs in comparison.

Net content makers are akin to nuclear, coal, oil, hydro, wind etc power stations.

The last mile electric cable is the local loop, like the last mile of phone/net cable.

Sure, that's the point I was making. Electric Neutrality requires the power company to deliver a a third party electricity to a household that wants to use it, just the same the Net Neutrality requires an ISP to deliver a third party data to a household that wants it.

Net neutrality is not about un-bundling the last mile to multiple ISPs. Net neutrality is not about increasing ISP competition. It is not akin the electric power arrangement whereby the last mile is un-bundled to multiple power companies.

This should be obvious given this and other threads here. I am not about to walk through it all over again. Others (including advocates of NN) understand this. I don't know why so many enthusiasts of network neutrality do not actually know what it is.

You can advocate NN all you wish but not by appealing to the merit of a different arrangement (local exchange network unbundling and competition between internet service providers) which it is not, (and which, by the way, is a way superior arrangement).

And then a giant strawman

Net Neutrality preserves the current extremely high competition between internet data providers. All it does is prevent unfair interference from ISPs on internet data providers.

I don't care about competition between ISPs. I want to have the ability to access the internet data that I want to without it being blocked or throttled by my ISP. Even if I have more ISPs to choose from, there's still no guarantee that any one ISP will give me access to everything I want. So no, unbundling is NOT a superior arrangement.

 

[paulhutch]

When I was young many, maybe most, of the electric utilities in the USA did all the functions. They generated the power, sent it onto the grid they owned & maintained, it went onto the last mile wires they owned & maintained and they exclusively sold it to end users.

Comcast could have emulated that situation under the previous lack of rules or laws. They create & distribute content (NBC, Golf channel, Weather channel, SyFy, Universal Studios, etc.), they own enough nationwide backbone distribution for their needs, they own and exclusively use last mile connections and they exclusively sell to end users on the last mile. To close the last loophole all they needed to do was block content that wasn't their own and they had an old electric utility style end to end monopoly.

So to me it's easy to see why people would make the analogy and why people feel NN, which now blocks Comcast from implementing that final step, is helping.

Myself I haven't looked at it this particular way because I'm not a Comcast customer, I have Charter Cable. However that is likely to change very soon, part of the Time-Warner & Comcast intended merger includes swapping a bunch of customers with Charter. This is meant to please the FTC & SEC, Charter ends up with a net increase and Comcast/Time Warner ends up with a net reduction in last mile customers. This happens while making both companies more profitable by consolidating their customers by region. Comcast will own all cable service in the entire State of Massachusetts.

 

[Francesca R]

Electric Neutrality requires the power company to deliver a a third party electricity to a household that wants to use it

Not here (UK) it doesn't. Power companies are not regulated as utilities. When you have competing ones this is not necessary.

What is this "electricity neutrality" you speak of anyway? Sounds like something you made up.

And then a giant strawman

Funny. If you shoot at the wrong goalposts (comparing net neutrality to the situation of power companies sharing last mile infrastructure in completion, which it is not, and never was intended to be), and I call you on that, you do not get to say "strawman". Well not with above-zero credibility.

I don't care about competition between ISPs.

Yeah . . .

Many people cant in many areas because there is only one or two broadband providers in their area.

. . . . right (bold and highlight and font not mine).

You are all over the place on this. You don't care about ISP competition? Are you a corporate shill for Comcast or something?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not here (UK) it doesn't. Power companies are not regulated as utilities. When you have competing ones this is not necessary.

What is this "electricity neutrality" you speak of anyway? Sounds like something you made up.

jhunter1163 brought it up earlier. You even replied to that post.

. . . . right (bold and highlight and font not mine).

You are all over the place on this. You don't care about ISP competition? Are you a corporate shill for Comcast or something?

Are you trying to say that there's some sort of contradiction in my statements? There's not. But if this is part of the straw man you've created I could see the point you're making against an imaginary foe.

Even if the last mile is unbundled, there's still no guarantee that people will have more than one choice.

 

[Francesca R]

jhunter1163 brought it up earlier. You even replied to that post.

Yes--to show that it is not the electric power analogue of network neutrality. Which it isn't. What it is, is the electric power analogue of local-loop unbundling. Which is why it is a good idea.

The fact that it was even brought up here indicates that (i) people still don't understand what NN is and (ii) they think they are getting LLU.

Even if the last mile is unbundled, there's still no guarantee that people will have more than one choice.

Even if a monopolist or duopolist is constrained from one type of rent seeking with new rules, there is no guarantee that they won't find other ways to do the same thing. In fact it is rather likely. But never mind, you don't care that they are monopolists and duopolists.