Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[paulhutch]

Someone help me with this one:

ISP=Cable company?
HBO=Netflix?

I need to clear up a misconception, network neutrality is not about ISPs. It is about broadband service providers, it just happens to be the case in the USA that nearly all broadband providers are also the only ISPs allowed on the broadband providers system. ISPs who are not also broadband providers are not regulated by the FCC. If, as Francesca has been pointing out, we in the USA had separated broadband and Internet providers giving us competition we should have been able to get along without the new rules on broadband providers. However after 15+ years of trying to get them separated we have only gone backwards by eliminating mandatory access for all ISPs on DSL lines. To make it clear below I will use the acronym BSP instead of ISP.

A BSP is not equal to a cable company, they are classified completely differently. Cable companies are closer to satellite and broadcast television in the FCC rules.

HBO is not equal to Netflix, HBO is a cable based broadcast network more equal to NBC, PBS, etc. in the rules.

Now HBOGO is equal to Netflix, they are both video delivery services that use TCP/IP via the Internet. They have always been and still remain unregulated by the FCC.

Prior to the new network neutrality rule your BSP was allowed to block you from accessing HBOGO, or any other content, without your consent.

If so, then isn't NN basically the equivalent of forcing every cable company to carry every channel at full capability? We don't currently do that to cable companies so under what theory should we do that with ISPs?

No.

Cable companies are currently and always have been required to carry the local broadcast television stations for your area. Additional channels are not required to be available at all.

BSPs have not been required to do anything. However, up to now they have all provided access to all TCP/IP delivered services over the Internet. The new network neutrality rule says that they must continue to provide this access.

 

[paulhutch]

I don't think you've got that right...

DirectTV is my Television Service Provider. They choose which TV Channels reach me through their service and it is not every single TV network available. They negotiate contracts with networks. If the negotiations fail, no network. They arent even required to deliver every channel in HD if they don't want to; many are not available in HD.

Time Warner is my Internet Service Provider. They are (now) not allowed to choose which Content Providers reach me. They are not allowed to restrict the bandwidth.

My basic question is why should ISPs be thusly restricted but not TSPs?

I agree with you, I don't think Tony is getting the technical details correct.

Under the previous rules Time Warner (soon to be Comcast) was allowed to block HBOGO which you could be using via your Direct TV subscription. Then your only option for watching HBO programming would be live broadcasts and the more limited on-demand offerings from Direct TV.

Under the previous rules Time Warner could have legally allowed HBOGO to broadband customers who also subscribe to HBO via one of their television packages and blocked it to you. This could be a good incentive for you to drop Direct TV and go with Time Warner for everything. Under the new network neutrality rule this can no longer happen.

 

[The Don]

Which is why the infrastructure is, and should be, a utility (as in National Grid, Openreach).

I'd be happy for a utility as long as it was an effective one. The issue with BT Openreach is that it fails to provide an acceptable level of service because it needs to generate profits for its parent.

 

[xjx388]

I will be the first to admit I know very little about the details of net neutrality. After posing my question, I've gotten several different answers . . . which leads me to believe that few people really understand it either. Obviously, I've got some reading to do from both sides of the issue if I'm going to form a solid opinion.

My first inclination is to oppose government regulation of the internet. It's operated quite well without it and I see no evidence of any intent by ISPs to start charging web content providers more to not throttle their speed. Further, I don't really see a big problem with such a practice. If Roadrunner started throttling content I use, I would complain and if they didn't fix it, I would switch. I can't see that becoming a huge problem with the consumers having a say by voting with dollars. But like I said, I have some reading to do. . .

 

[xjx388]

I agree with you, I don't think Tony is getting the technical details correct.

Under the previous rules Time Warner (soon to be Comcast) was allowed to block HBOGO which you could be using via your Direct TV subscription. Then your only option for watching HBO programming would be live broadcasts and the more limited on-demand offerings from Direct TV.

Under the previous rules Time Warner could have legally allowed HBOGO to broadband customers who also subscribe to HBO via one of their television packages and blocked it to you. This could be a good incentive for you to drop Direct TV and go with Time Warner for everything. Under the new network neutrality rule this can no longer happen.

Sure, but I could also drop Time Warner and go with DSL, Uverse or other local options. I am not at the mercy of Time Warner when it comes to internet and neither are most Americans.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This Just In: As a way of making a statement about the FCC's ruling, Verizon has released a temper tantrum in morse code: something something stop undoing our lobbying efforts.

I must admit I've had some lingering doubts as to whether there were any stinkers hidden in the FCC's new stance - so often these days policy accomplishes the exact opposite of what it claims to - but any ruling that can make a giant multinational corporation throw a hissy fit like a small child having a meltdown in the mall is alright by me.

My schadenfreude deepens: the big ISPs have gotten their congresscritters to try to pass legislation on their behalf.

How tiny of a violin can you make with optical fiber?

I see no evidence of any intent by ISPs to start charging web content providers more to not throttle their speed.

Netflix is already paying every major ISP not to be throttled. You could start your reading there.

 

[lobosrul]

BSPs have not been required to do anything. However, up to now they have all provided access to all TCP/IP delivered services over the Internet. The new network neutrality rule says that they must continue to provide this access.

That's not strictly speaking, true. See, www.cinemablend.com/games/HBO-Go-Blocked-By-Comcast-PS4-70468.html

Also I was reading the other day where they were blocking VPN's causing some businesses to pay for rather expensive work arounds so their employees can telecommute. But I cannot find the link.

This is why we need NN.

 

[paulhutch]

Sure, but I could also drop Time Warner and go with DSL, Uverse or other local options. I am not at the mercy of Time Warner when it comes to internet and neither are most Americans.

12% of US citizens have only one, or zero, choice and over 44% have only two or less choices for broadband. I and most of my neighbors fall into that 12% which is why I've followed this topic for the past decade.

 

[paulhutch]

My first inclination is to oppose government regulation of the internet.

I do too, and currently under the new rules the Internet remains completely unregulated.

Sadly because for the past 15+ years Congress has refused to revise the law, the FCC had to re-classify the broadband providers to implement network neutrality. This re-classification that I would have preferred be avoided does allow the potential for the FCC to actually regulate some of the Internet in a round about way (they still can't regulate the Internet when accessed via a non-broadband connection).

 

[paulhutch]

That's not strictly speaking, true. See, www.cinemablend.com/games/HBO-Go-Blocked-By-Comcast-PS4-70468.html

Wow, just wow. I'm amazed that Comcast has dropped the veil of being consumer friendly and not interfering this week. This should help bring more people over to the pro-network neutrality side. I'm guessing this move will blow up in their face as I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of PS4 users on Comcast's broadband network who use HBOGO already pay Comcast for an HBO subscription.

 

[Babbylonian]

Wow, just wow. I'm amazed that Comcast has dropped the veil of being consumer friendly and not interfering this week. This should help bring more people over to the pro-network neutrality side. I'm guessing this move will blow up in their face as I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of PS4 users on Comcast's broadband network who use HBOGO already pay Comcast for an HBO subscription.

All of them. The way it works is that you install the app and then authenticate via Comcast that you have a current HBO subscription. While it's possible to use someone else's credentials, that's pretty easy for Comcast to detect since they know what connections are coming in through their network; also, HBOGo credentials expire and require reauthentication.

 

[paulhutch]

All of them. snip....

Well its likely some of the broadband customers will have satellite for their TV and get their HBO log in credentials that way.

I've been an HBO subscriber since 1980 and love that I can stream every episode of all the HBO produced series via HBO Go.

 

[Davidm]

Wow, just wow. I'm amazed that Comcast has dropped the veil of being consumer friendly and not interfering this week. This should help bring more people over to the pro-network neutrality side. I'm guessing this move will blow up in their face as I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of PS4 users on Comcast's broadband network who use HBOGO already pay Comcast for an HBO subscription.

It's not just PS4. I have HBO with Comcast but I cannot access HBOGO on my Roku. As far as I know Comcast doesn't support HBOGO for it's HBO subscribers at all, regardless of device. And yes, this sucks. HBOGO has content, old HBO shows for example, that isn't available on Comcast's On Demand service.

 

[Babbylonian]

Well its likely some of the broadband customers will have satellite for their TV and get their HBO log in credentials that way.

I've been an HBO subscriber since 1980 and love that I can stream every episode of all the HBO produced series via HBO Go.

Fair enough.

I will note, though, that HBO Now is on the way. That will be a $15/month HBO streaming service that can be accessed without a cable/satellite HBO subscription. So, maybe Comcast is tired of taking their cut of HBO subscriptions and wants their customers to move over to the new service when it's available.

 

[lobosrul]

It's not just PS4. I have HBO with Comcast but I cannot access HBOGO on my Roku. As far as I know Comcast doesn't support HBOGO for it's HBO subscribers at all, regardless of device. And yes, this sucks. HBOGO has content, old HBO shows for example, that isn't available on Comcast's On Demand service.

Hmm, you should actually be able to, according to Roku:

http://blog.roku.com/blog/2014/12/1...or-comcast-xfinity-customers-on-roku-devices/

Have you tried since mid December of last year?

 

[lobosrul]

Fair enough.

I will note, though, that HBO Now is on the way. That will be a $15/month HBO streaming service that can be accessed without a cable/satellite HBO subscription. So, maybe Comcast is tired of taking their cut of HBO subscriptions and wants their customers to move over to the new service when it's available.

Yeah, if anyone thinks that they won't outright block or seriously degrade HBO Now without NN rules is drinking the funky cool-aid.

Of course if I'm not OK with HBO Now being blocked, I can pay a bundle to get out of my contract with Comcast, and switch back to CenturyLink for much slower service (crippling slow upstream speed) where I am limited to 250GB a month which is about half of what I could get by with. The invisible hand of the free market at work!

 

[paulhutch]

It's not just PS4. I have HBO with Comcast but I cannot access HBOGO on my Roku. As far as I know Comcast doesn't support HBOGO for it's HBO subscribers at all, regardless of device. And yes, this sucks. HBOGO has content, old HBO shows for example, that isn't available on Comcast's On Demand service.

OMG, I was totally unaware that Comcast was doing this to its customers. Now I'm really glad that in about 60 days they'll have to stop blocking it to comply with the new network neutrality rule. Sometime after that I'm likely to end up as a Comcast customer do to the swapping of customers their planning on doing with my provider Charter. I use HBO Go on a Roku as well via the web browser interface extensively and since I have no other broadband choice I'd be screwed.

 

[Babbylonian]

OMG, I was totally unaware that Comcast was doing this to its customers. Now I'm really glad that in about 60 days they'll have to stop blocking it to comply with the new network neutrality rule.

Maybe, maybe not. I know that any existing traffic will have to be treated equally (e.g., they won't be able to throttle CBS streams while allowing Hulu to run at full speed) but refusing to authenticate HBO Go may be a loophole in that they might claim they're not required to assist their competitors.

 

[paulhutch]

Good point, network neutrality definitely doesn't compel Comcast to provide authentication.

If that does happen when I get switched to Comcast I'll have to drop HBO from the TV part of my plan and subscribe directly to HBO Now when it comes online this year.

 

[paulhutch]

To most people, myself included, the FCC its actions and rules are rather difficult to grasp. I've been dealing with the FCC and its rules professionally since the early 1980s, including writing simplified summaries for management. So I thought that perhaps I can clear up some of the mystery with a simplified summary of how the rules pertain to broadband.

The FCC's primary purpose is to prevent interference in the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from DC to daylight. This is partially intended to prevent monopolistic actions caused by companies intentionally interfering with competitors signals. Intentional interference had actually happened before the FCC existed, large radio stations in the early 20th century would adjust their signal in such a way that all competitors signals where effectively unusable thereby capturing 100% exclusive market share in radio for a region. In summary the FCC's basic governing principle for its rules is: Thou shall not interfere. FYI - this is what those FCC labels and notices on electronic equipment are all about, can't have your PC interfere with your neighbors TV reception.

The FCC's authority comes from a law passed by Congress. Like all federal agencies they are only allowed to create rules to implement the law, they can not change the law in any way, only Congress can do that. The law that the FCC creates rules to enforce is the Telecommunications Act. The Act specifies only a few classes of services and devices and the FCC is required to fit all potentially interfering services & devices into one of those classes. The classes are roughly: broadcast, telephone, cable TV, accidental and information. The original intent of the information class was to regulate telegraph/teletype services. The information services had a very low probability of creating interference so Congress severely limited what rules the FCC could create for that class. If the citizens of the USA wanted to prevent blocking of particular stocks from appearing on the ticker tape we were meant to use the SEC for that type of rule not the FCC.

The last revision of the Telecommunications Act was in 1996, when broadband wide area networking was practically non-existent for consumers. As broadband grew over the years the FCC needed to regulate it to prevent electrical interference with other services. Since by law the FCC couldn't add a new class of service they had to pick the exiting one most similar electrically to broadband that gave them sufficient authority to prevent interference. So they chose the information class to use for broadband wide area networking. As I mentioned above this class severely limited the FCC's authority to regulate broadband service providers. This is why the courts threw out the FCC's first attempt at network neutrality rules.

It would have been much better if the Congress had updated the Telecommunications Act to add a new class with more appropriate limitations for broadband wide area networking. The sad fact is that due to a combination of many factors Congress has thus far been unwilling to revise the law so the FCC had no choice other than to move broadband wide area networking from the information class to the telecommunication class.

The change in classification unfortunately allows the FCC to enforce rules that are completely inappropriate for broadband. These include things like banning language that many citizens consider offensive. The FCC does not have to enforce those rules on broadband because the Telecommunications Act allows them to exempt some services/devices from general rules for a class. While I hope they will keep their promise to not apply the inappropriate rules, I still hope that some day Congress will get off their butts and revise the Telecommunications Act to create a new class more appropriate for broadband wide area networking.