Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[blutoski]

Thanks for the specific instructions. There are a few people I hear from now and then who reach me through my dial-up address. I want them to be able to find me. I have a Facebook account and maybe that would cover such issues - except that I don't check my FB account regularly.

I suggest talking to their Loyalty dpt to explore the possibility of downgrading the dialup account to what's called an 'email only' account at this provider. It's usually a fraction of the cost of a plan that includes dialup hours.

 

[blutoski]

The internet is not their property. It is a resource built by all of us. When it comes to the internet, I couldn't care less what a multi-billion dollar company wants or does not want.

No, but try to understand their position (part of being a skeptic is understanding the opponent's argument). The regulations that would enforce NN are about how they manage traffic on their networks. What settings they implement, what they have to build where.

If they were a person, it would be like telling you how to set up your home network. That you can't do this or that, because laws.

If a company bought up all of the highways, and turned them into toll roads for a profit, they do not get to tell their customers where they can or cannot go. (or more importantly, tell you you can only drive a certain speed, because you own a certain type of car, because that car manufacturer did not pay them an extortion fee to allow you to drive the same speed if you were driving a different car from a different car manufacturer that DID pay the extortion fee.)

I agree this shouldn't be legal, but there's been a trend toward people thinking this would be OK. Free Market solution to road maintenance. Here in BC we have privately owned toll bridges that were once public.

And I see your comparison to the airwaves

It was actually a contrast. The critical difference is that airwaves are a limited natural resource. In contrast, Networks are 100% human-built and therefore real property.

, which is a great comparison. Luckily for us, we live in a republic where we can tell businesses that if their practices are harmful to society, they must change or face consequences. Luckily, we have strict governmental regulation of the airwaves which has allowed radio to remain a competitive market. Unfortunately, the ISP market is not competitive any longer, because we were too late in issuing regulations on that front. But the internet itself....the various websites and services (such as Netflix)....must remain competitive. And we must pass regulations now in order to ensure that Comcast does not get to "outshout" Netflix by eating into their profits, and/or cutting into their bandwidth to the user base, just so Comcast can promote their On-Demand services.

I agree; i just wanted to outline that there is a real impact to these companies, which is why they are fighting back, on behalf of their shareowners. The problem is that I think their pushback is too short-sighted. They see the potential for profits, but not the economic tragedy of the commons that will cause much greater reduction of their profits for a net loss, and secondly, there will be a broad social cost to their customers and our quality of life as Internet users.

Yeah, it is possible...at least here int he states...to break the regional monopolistic hold that Comcast has in different areas of the country. We would have to do the same thing we did to Bell (and Microsoft) back in the 90s: using anti-trust laws to break them up into smaller constituent parts. However, the 90s were a different....less politically nutty....time than now.

If we were to do that...break up the regional monopolies....we would have to immediately implement the rules proposed by Francesca. I'll give a link, but a quick explanation form what I understand (and perhaps Francesca can explain it better than me.)

In the UK, they made rules and regulations where ISPs can only be ISPs. They cannot own infrastructure. There is an infrastructure company that owns all the infrastructure (not totally clear if that company has a monopoly on the infrastructure. I think it does.) That infrastructure company cannot, in turn, be an ISP.

The company that owns the infrastructure (the lines and the external equipment,) cannot discriminate between various ISPs. All ISPs would pay the exact same rates, and they all get to use the same lines.

Here in the states, if an ISP were to compete against Comcast, they would have to build an entirely new set of lines, and they would have to go right along the same infrastructure that Comcast already owns. If a third ISP were to enter into the market, there would have to be a third set of lines, and etc. That's just insane. The telephone poles would be virtually weighed down by highly redundant lines. (It sends chills down my spine thinking about a bad, icy winter chill....)

Essentially, the result is that it is a HELL of a lot cheaper for ISPs to start up, and to stay in business. (A lot less maintenance for an ISP to worry about. And the infrastructure company does not have to worry about ISP-type maintenance). It ensures competition. So two reasons to keep prices a hell of a lot lower, and with a hell of a lot higher quality service.

Here in North America, we are screwed by the regional monopoly system. It sucks, it is inefficient, expensive, and crappy.

ETA: Linky found!

I'll have to read it, but I suspect the model might be misinformed. I was under the impression that the US was set up like Canada where the network owners are obliged to provide their networks wholesale to any local ISP. This model has not created a competitive environment because the main expense in operating an ISP is customer service and technical support, which benefits from economies of scale and not wholesaled from the network owner with the data provisioning.

The other problem introduced by wholesaling is regional balkanization. The wholesaling ISPs are not even remotely interested in small or remote towns. In contrast, the regional monopoly network owners are obliged as a term of their monopolies to provide services in high cost areas, regardless of any operating loss.



We saw that with long distance wholesaling in the 1980s and it still exists today. It's worth elaborating on that example... I live in a major urban area where I can walk into a corner store and buy my choice of about 500 prepaid long distance cards. These are ld wholesalers who buy bulk minutes and multiplex multiple conversations on the minutes and have zero customer service - this gives them considerably better prices than the local phone carrier. The node number is downtown, a free local call for anybody in the city. But there are no nodes outside the city. So, if I live anywhere else in BC, I can't really use the card unless I want to use the local carrier's long distance plan to phone the Vancouver node, then pay the ld wholesaler's rate on top. The reason for this is that the ld wholesaler has calculated that small communities do not have enough potential customers to justify a new node, and they have no obligation to provide the service.

This is the economics of decentralized service provisioning: if you live in a remote area, your service has a higher cost. Also, if you live in a remote area, you're likely to have a lower income. Result: remote areas are not economical because the market can't/won't accept the price offered, so remote areas will have less or no service.

This is conflicting with another government objective: universal access. So, the big challenge for policymakers right now is to figure out how to get affordable service in remote areas with as much free competition as possible. Regional monopolies with economies of scale and mandated geographical obligations and maximum wholesale rates for local exchange carried data/voice/ld have been the traditional solution.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Listen. If corporations want to do it, it can't be wrong [/conservatism]

 

[paulhutch]

I was under the impression that the US was set up like Canada where the network owners are obliged to provide their networks wholesale to any local ISP.

In the USA nearly all the fiber optic and coaxial networks are completely private and no one but the owners (cable and telephone companies) gets to use them. The POTS lines for DSL are supposed to be available to other ISPs and in some places you do have a choice of ISP. However there are a number of technical exemptions granted to the POTS line owners so in many places, including everywhere I've lived in Eastern Massachusetts, Verizon does not allow other DSL ISPs on the POTS line. AFAIK the technical exemptions have a real basis and it relates to some of the infrastructure being installed in the 19th century and barely changed over the decades.

Where I currently live DSL and fiber optic are not available at all. The only broadband choices are coaxial cable and satellite, however satellite requires removing too many trees which negates the big advantage of living where I do.

 

[blutoski]

In the USA nearly all the fiber optic and coaxial networks are completely private and no one but the owners (cable and telephone companies) gets to use them. The POTS lines for DSL are supposed to be available to other ISPs and in some places you do have a choice of ISP. However there are a number of technical exemptions granted to the POTS line owners so in many places, including everywhere I've lived in Eastern Massachusetts, Verizon does not allow other DSL ISPs on the POTS line. AFAIK the technical exemptions have a real basis and it relates to some of the infrastructure being installed in the 19th century and barely changed over the decades.

I'd be interested to understand more about that, as Canada's phone networks are identical to the US ones, from a technical standpoint.

ETA: also there's not necessarily a need to nationalize the network... regulating a wholesale rate and prohibiting verticalization is an alternative that I'm describing.

Where I currently live DSL and fiber optic are not available at all. The only broadband choices are coaxial cable and satellite, however satellite requires removing too many trees which negates the big advantage of living where I do.

We would see something similar in Canada: the universal access mandate is intended for incorporated municipalities' residential properties' phone access. (meaning, if I buy a cottage on an island somewhere, I don't have a right to phone service) Internet is deregulated in that regard - the network builders have been given freedom to deploy based on free market.

But the point is that if the guys who built the last mile can't justify adding internet as an upsell, independent companies who can't benefit from those bundling economics certainly can't either. At least not without a significant reduction in customer service, from what I can calculate.

 

[RandFan]

I have to delurk and thank everyone for contributing. I thought I was informed when I first joined the discussion. I have to try and have a bit more humility.

Good stuff.

 

[paulhutch]

I'd be interested to understand more about that, as Canada's phone networks are identical to the US ones, from a technical standpoint.

ETA: also there's not necessarily a need to nationalize the network... regulating a wholesale rate and prohibiting verticalization is an alternative that I'm describing.

I can't remember what the technical details were, it was back around 1997 that I was investigating the jump from dial-up to 500k DSL. I only remember that there was some real reason and was no longer mad that I had to pay Verizon $40.00/month for 500K service when other places in Massachusetts could get service for half that price. FWIW, Verizon didn't even offer tone dialing there (Upton MA) until about 1989 and when introduced they charged an extra monthly fee that stayed in place until about 1999.

While I was looking around to see if I could refresh my memory on the technical detail I was reminded that I think the point is moot now. In 2005 the FCC re-classified the DSL portion of the spectrum on POTS wiring from a telecommunication to an information service. AIUI now DSL like coaxial and fiber have no sharing requirements, the free market is supposed to sort it out on its own.

While I believe that regulating wholesale rates and prohibiting verticalization would spur competition and be good for consumers, these would be new regulations. The information service providers will fight it and easily sway public opinion to stop any move on that front. Unfortunately regulation of any kind is seen by much of the US public as always bad for everyone.

 

[blutoski]

I can't remember what the technical details were, it was back around 1997 that I was investigating the jump from dial-up to 500k DSL. I only remember that there was some real reason and was no longer mad that I had to pay Verizon $40.00/month for 500K service when other places in Massachusetts could get service for half that price. FWIW, Verizon didn't even offer tone dialing there (Upton MA) until about 1989 and when introduced they charged an extra monthly fee that stayed in place until about 1999.

Ah. OK, so there's a good example of what I was describing. Upton is pop approx what... 8,000 people? Small market, so the telco would find it falling onto the negative side of profitability when considering network expansion. My guess is the switch was outdated and could not support wholesaling. The life cycle of switches is that as a community grows, the smaller switches are moved to rural communities as upgrades. Your switch could have been built in the 1940s and used in Boston until, say, 1970s.

The barrier may be technical but in a way it's still cost. The telco probably presented an argument that replacing an entire switch to support wholesaling would be an unfair burden. They might ask to pass the cost to the community in higher monthly rates, which happens sometimes in Canada. Still, that doesn't stop reselling, which is a half-measure similar to wholesaling and has been the Canadian solution for these really old switches.

Of note: the oldest switches in BC that I'm aware of are GTD5 models, which was built by Verizon, and those communities have active CLECs here.


EDITED TO ADD: I had a look at Upton's switch information... it's a 5ESS, which is a very primitive and spartan featured switch indeed. There are office buildings whose PBXes operate off of 5ESSes.

While I was looking around to see if I could refresh my memory on the technical detail I was reminded that I think the point is moot now. In 2005 the FCC re-classified the DSL portion of the spectrum on POTS wiring from a telecommunication to an information service. AIUI now DSL like coaxial and fiber have no sharing requirements, the free market is supposed to sort it out on its own.

Well, that's a bummer.

While I believe that regulating wholesale rates and prohibiting verticalization would spur competition and be good for consumers, these would be new regulations. The information service providers will fight it and easily sway public opinion to stop any move on that front. Unfortunately regulation of any kind is seen by much of the US public as always bad for everyone.

I was thinking that wholesaling is a mixed bag, and not certain it would be an improvement especially for the customer (loss of economies of scale, frustrating inconsistency from region to region, lower service levels, possibly even higher price). Prohibiting verticalization would be new, but I think it would be better for the consumer.

 

[Nihilianth]

No, but try to understand their position (part of being a skeptic is understanding the opponent's argument). The regulations that would enforce NN are about how they manage traffic on their networks. What settings they implement, what they have to build where.

If they were a person, it would be like telling you how to set up your home network. That you can't do this or that, because laws.

I understand their arguments, and I reject that position. Comcast is not a person (despite what SCOTUS says). And they are providing a resource that I am paying for. When it comes to internet access, there are certain expectations the vast majority of people have if they are paying the full price for internet access in the privacy of their own home.

Also, it is not their property. Once I pay for a resource, that resource is mine. What I do with it, is my business. Not theirs. Just like with water. I pay for water that comes from a spigot, I decide what to do with it. Not the utility company, even though the utility company owns the pipeline that leads up to my house. I own the spigot, and I own that water. I own my computer, and I own what I do with it. Not Comcast.

I agree this shouldn't be legal, but there's been a trend toward people thinking this would be OK. Free Market solution to road maintenance. Here in BC we have privately owned toll bridges that were once public.

Here in PA, we almost went the same route. The state under Republican leadership wanted to sell I-80 to a private company, and turn it into a toll road. (Ohio has I-80 as a toll road.) Made a lot of people angry, and turned them against the Republican party. Luckily, they had to abandon that idea.

It was actually a contrast. The critical difference is that airwaves are a limited natural resource. In contrast, Networks are 100% human-built and therefore real property.

Yeah, I understood that. Certainly the internet is a lot less limited. And it should remain that way. I do not want Comcast to kill Netflix's business, just so Comcast can offer their On-Demand services. Which means I only get the options to watch what Comcast wants to offer. And I would end up paying a higher price for it.

Now, the networks that Comcast has, is their property. Yes. But I pay a rental fee for them to provide their property for my use. They don't own the internet (nobody does,) and they do not own my computer (I do.) Just like the water company owns the pipelines, but I pay the water company to access fresh water from my house. I own my own spigot. Once the water reaches my spigot, I own that water. I get to do with it what I want.

I agree; i just wanted to outline that there is a real impact to these companies, which is why they are fighting back, on behalf of their shareowners. The problem is that I think their pushback is too short-sighted. They see the potential for profits, but not the economic tragedy of the commons that will cause much greater reduction of their profits for a net loss, and secondly, there will be a broad social cost to their customers and our quality of life as Internet users.

The only thing I disagree with, is that Net Neutrality essentially doesn't change anything. It just restricts Comcast from doing something new: Charge online companies so that I can access various websites at the same speeds (that I already pay for anyway). It only subjectively impacts what they view as potential future profits. It does not objectively impact their current business. (Unless they are already receiving money from Netflix, which I think someone demonstrated they are.)

I'll have to read it, but I suspect the model might be misinformed. I was under the impression that the US was set up like Canada where the network owners are obliged to provide their networks wholesale to any local ISP. This model has not created a competitive environment because the main expense in operating an ISP is customer service and technical support, which benefits from economies of scale and not wholesaled from the network owner with the data provisioning.

The other problem introduced by wholesaling is regional balkanization. The wholesaling ISPs are not even remotely interested in small or remote towns. In contrast, the regional monopoly network owners are obliged as a term of their monopolies to provide services in high cost areas, regardless of any operating loss.

So Canada is run similarly to the UK, sounds like to me. Any competitive market can easily suffer from economies of scale. That's why we have anti-trust laws. The best economy is one that allows competition, with regulation that ensures competition. So that the big guys with more efficient economies of scale cannot eat up all of the little guys.

I prefer to have it like how you describe it: An infrastructure company owns all of the lines, cannot discriminate between ISPs, and must provide access to "high-cost areas." Then have regulation to ensure competition among ISPs. But there is one problem I have no idea how to resolve that you brought up: How to get ISPs to operate in high-cost areas, without resorting to regional monopolies of ISPs. (To be fair, the infrastructure company already providing the lines to those areas, would necessarily greatly reduce operating costs for an ISP to provide service to those areas.

We saw that with long distance wholesaling in the 1980s and it still exists today. It's worth elaborating on that example... I live in a major urban area where I can walk into a corner store and buy my choice of about 500 prepaid long distance cards. These are ld wholesalers who buy bulk minutes and multiplex multiple conversations on the minutes and have zero customer service - this gives them considerably better prices than the local phone carrier. The node number is downtown, a free local call for anybody in the city. But there are no nodes outside the city. So, if I live anywhere else in BC, I can't really use the card unless I want to use the local carrier's long distance plan to phone the Vancouver node, then pay the ld wholesaler's rate on top. The reason for this is that the ld wholesaler has calculated that small communities do not have enough potential customers to justify a new node, and they have no obligation to provide the service.

This is the economics of decentralized service provisioning: if you live in a remote area, your service has a higher cost. Also, if you live in a remote area, you're likely to have a lower income. Result: remote areas are not economical because the market can't/won't accept the price offered, so remote areas will have less or no service.

This is conflicting with another government objective: universal access. So, the big challenge for policymakers right now is to figure out how to get affordable service in remote areas with as much free competition as possible. Regional monopolies with economies of scale and mandated geographical obligations and maximum wholesale rates for local exchange carried data/voice/ld have been the traditional solution.

When I think about it, remote areas are not really a huge concern of mine. People choose to live in remote areas. They do not have to. They have a lot more difficulty in winter weather conditions, because the state concentrates a lot less resources to keep the roads clean and cleared. The roads are in poorer condition, because the state concentrates their resources in high-traffic roads. People who live out there already know this, and they expect it.

A bit off-topic, but this is why I find rich or middle-class arguments about "less taxation" or arguments against progressive taxation ridiculous. Most people who live in remote areas tend to be of a higher economic class. (This is not strictly true, of course.) For a new road to be built so a few families can live out there, costs a heck of a lot more to the state to build and maintain per person than a road in the middle of a growing city.

If the state has issues trying to build and maintain infrastructure in remote areas, then private companies obviously would as well. If a private ISP doesn't want to provide service to Loganton, PA....then people shouldn't complain about having no internet service other than Dish. They choose to continue to live there. I don't want the price of my internet access to go up, just so my ISP can provide really expensive service to Loganton.

But when it comes to infrastructure, I think that if an infrastrcuture company that is allowed to operate as a monopoly, should necessarily be compelled to put access lines out to those areas so that it is much cheaper for ISPs to provide the service. (Less maintenance, and very little to no start-up costs to the ISPs if the lines are already in place.)

 

[blutoski]

I understand their arguments, and I reject that position. Comcast is not a person (despite what SCOTUS says). And they are providing a resource that I am paying for. When it comes to internet access, there are certain expectations the vast majority of people have if they are paying the full price for internet access in the privacy of their own home.

Also, it is not their property. Once I pay for a resource, that resource is mine. What I do with it, is my business. Not theirs. Just like with water. I pay for water that comes from a spigot, I decide what to do with it. Not the utility company, even though the utility company owns the pipeline that leads up to my house. I own the spigot, and I own that water. I own my computer, and I own what I do with it. Not Comcast.

Well, yeah, once it comes out of the tap. But the pipes under the ground aren't yours. This is the bane of the anti-fluoride set.

Yeah, I understood that. Certainly the internet is a lot less limited. And it should remain that way. I do not want Comcast to kill Netflix's business, just so Comcast can offer their On-Demand services. Which means I only get the options to watch what Comcast wants to offer. And I would end up paying a higher price for it.

Now, the networks that Comcast has, is their property. Yes. But I pay a rental fee for them to provide their property for my use. They don't own the internet (nobody does,) and they do not own my computer (I do.) Just like the water company owns the pipelines, but I pay the water company to access fresh water from my house. I own my own spigot. Once the water reaches my spigot, I own that water. I get to do with it what I want.

Same problem with the analogy, unfortunately. Regulation would be telling the water company to do X with their pipes. Again: this is the bane of the anti-fluoridation people. They're fighting city hall's public health regulations, which impacts all the customers.

The only thing I disagree with, is that Net Neutrality essentially doesn't change anything. It just restricts Comcast from doing something new: Charge online companies so that I can access various websites at the same speeds (that I already pay for anyway). It only subjectively impacts what they view as potential future profits. It does not objectively impact their current business. (Unless they are already receiving money from Netflix, which I think someone demonstrated they are.)

I think NN regulation actually would create a change, because it's been delayed so long some non-NN agreements are in place now, such as NetFlix/Comcast. That would be rolled back, because why would NetFlix pay Comcast for packet priority equivalence if it was already mandated by law?

So Canada is run similarly to the UK, sounds like to me. Any competitive market can easily suffer from economies of scale. That's why we have anti-trust laws. The best economy is one that allows competition, with regulation that ensures competition.

Possibly. The consumer sometimes hates the result of competition, if it increases prices by breaking up economies of scale and if it increases complexity and delay by adding layers of owners, and - paradoxically - if it adds confusion by expanding marketplace choice.

I prefer to have it like how you describe it: An infrastructure company owns all of the lines, cannot discriminate between ISPs, and must provide access to "high-cost areas." Then have regulation to ensure competition among ISPs. But there is one problem I have no idea how to resolve that you brought up: How to get ISPs to operate in high-cost areas, without resorting to regional monopolies of ISPs. (To be fair, the infrastructure company already providing the lines to those areas, would necessarily greatly reduce operating costs for an ISP to provide service to those areas.

Possibly, we'd have to crunch real numbers. Also, the regulation would not just be about discriminating among ISPs but also the wholesale rate would have to be set by regulation. Today, the wholesale rate for, say, DSL is in re-negotiation because the telcos are saying it's so low they are being forced by law to subsidize all the local DSL providers.

When I think about it, remote areas are not really a huge concern of mine. People choose to live in remote areas. They do not have to. They have a lot more difficulty in winter weather conditions, because the state concentrates a lot less resources to keep the roads clean and cleared. The roads are in poorer condition, because the state concentrates their resources in high-traffic roads. People who live out there already know this, and they expect it.

A bit off-topic, but this is why I find rich or middle-class arguments about "less taxation" or arguments against progressive taxation ridiculous. Most people who live in remote areas tend to be of a higher economic class. (This is not strictly true, of course.) For a new road to be built so a few families can live out there, costs a heck of a lot more to the state to build and maintain per person than a road in the middle of a growing city.

If the state has issues trying to build and maintain infrastructure in remote areas, then private companies obviously would as well. If a private ISP doesn't want to provide service to Loganton, PA....then people shouldn't complain about having no internet service other than Dish. They choose to continue to live there. I don't want the price of my internet access to go up, just so my ISP can provide really expensive service to Loganton.

But when it comes to infrastructure, I think that if an infrastrcuture company that is allowed to operate as a monopoly, should necessarily be compelled to put access lines out to those areas so that it is much cheaper for ISPs to provide the service. (Less maintenance, and very little to no start-up costs to the ISPs if the lines are already in place.)

It might be different here in Canada... the rural communities are highly correlated with poverty, unemployment, poor education, &c. The dream is that by connecting them to utilities, and especially Internet, that the demographic can be improved.

In BC it's mining towns, smelter towns, mill towns, fishing villages, indian reservations, that sort of thing. In Alberta, it's mining and farmers. And lots of these communities are destinations for people who retire from a large city and move to a depressed community where the real estate and taxes are cheap.

The nickname for them around here is "Surrey Half Millionaires" - they bought their homes in a cheap district that experienced population growth, retired and sold the house for $500,000, bought a $50,000 1-acre with a trailer in Horse Lake and live off the $450,000 savings. With the 3% rule for living off savings, they're seniors, often couples, living off $13,500 pre-tax.

Incidentally, the companies with the mandates to provide service there are not even really monopolies, strictly speaking. But they are the remains of the original telco monopolies. In Canada they're called ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers). So, even if the customer can choose between voice from the telco or voice from the cable company, only the telco is obligated to have provided service there.

 

[paulhutch]

First I want to give a big thanks to you Blutoski for the excellent detailed information.

I think NN regulation actually would create a change, because it's been delayed so long some non-NN agreements are in place now, such as NetFlix/Comcast. That would be rolled back, because why would NetFlix pay Comcast for packet priority equivalence if it was already mandated by law?

Actually the Netflix/Comcast situation had nothing to do with Comcast limiting Netflix and would not be affected by a NN (Network Neutrality) rule. The actual problem was the peering arrangement between Comcast and Netflix's provider Level 3. Netflix traffic kept increasing and finally saturated the peering connection leading to the end user slow down. Ziggurat covered this well in the previous thread starting here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10319823#post10319823

IIRC, the only situation that has occurred that NN regulations would have prevented was a 2007 bit torrent throttling incident. It was resolved due to public pressure from many groups including the EFF. For a long time the EFF was opposed to NN regulation via the FCC due to the FCC's bad track record on regulating content. When the FCC wrote it's first NN regulation, EFF's lawyers were certain it would be thrown out when challenged in court and it was. The reasoning was that the law gives very little authority to the FCC over information services.

Currently the EFF has reviewed their position and favors the White House's idea's. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/white-house-gets-it-net-neutrality-will-fcc-0 I'm inclined to side with the EFF on the issue because they always seem to favor a free-market solution when possible.

From my own experience in Upton with Verizon DSL and since 2006 with Charter Cable, in another even lower population density town on the other side of the Blackstone Valley, there have been no problems whatsoever with speed throttling. So I prefer that we don't rush into drafting NN regulations. The impacts should be very carefully considered before we implement any new regulations. FWIW I'm still only paying $40.00/month but now I have 30mbs service, I can't think of any other service I use that has improved and still costs the same as it did in late 1990s.

While it would be nice if we could do something to allow competition I'm not sure it would be practical without a very large monetary support from taxpayers to the cable companies. The majority of broadband is coming from cable providers who made deals with cities and towns when the cables where run, from the 1960's to the early 1980's. The biggest part of the deal was that the cable provider would wire every single street in town and charge the same rate to all citizens regardless of profitability. The concession the cities and towns made was to grant legal monopoly status to the cable companies. The alternative to these bargains was to allow the cable companies to only wire profitable neighborhoods or charge higher rates for higher install cost and higher maintenance cost neighborhoods. Of course the Internet wasn't even a glimmer in any consumers eye at that time, it was all about TV.

 

[blutoski]

Actually the Netflix/Comcast situation had nothing to do with Comcast limiting Netflix and would not be affected by a NN (Network Neutrality) rule. The actual problem was the peering arrangement between Comcast and Netflix's provider Level 3. Netflix traffic kept increasing and finally saturated the peering connection leading to the end user slow down. Ziggurat covered this well in the previous thread starting here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10319823#post10319823

I appreciate the correction. I had misunderstood. Excluding that example, though, there is still some real-life packet shaping, although not necessarily directed at 'extortionary' or 'anticompetitive' tactics. Specifically, I had that example of TELUS blocking the TWU's website entirely during a labour dispute. This is not illegal in Canada, since there is no NN wording in the CRTC's regulations for ISPs. Another example is that some Canadian ISPs were arbitrarily blocking piratebay.se IPs (but yet, not bittorrent packets themselves)

IIRC, the only situation that has occurred that NN regulations would have prevented was a 2007 bit torrent throttling incident. It was resolved due to public pressure from many groups including the EFF. For a long time the EFF was opposed to NN regulation via the FCC due to the FCC's bad track record on regulating content. When the FCC wrote it's first NN regulation, EFF's lawyers were certain it would be thrown out when challenged in court and it was. The reasoning was that the law gives very little authority to the FCC over information services.

Currently the EFF has reviewed their position and favors the White House's idea's. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/white-house-gets-it-net-neutrality-will-fcc-0 I'm inclined to side with the EFF on the issue because they always seem to favor a free-market solution when possible.

From my own experience in Upton with Verizon DSL and since 2006 with Charter Cable, in another even lower population density town on the other side of the Blackstone Valley, there have been no problems whatsoever with speed throttling. So I prefer that we don't rush into drafting NN regulations. The impacts should be very carefully considered before we implement any new regulations. FWIW I'm still only paying $40.00/month but now I have 30mbs service, I can't think of any other service I use that has improved and still costs the same as it did in late 1990s.

While it would be nice if we could do something to allow competition I'm not sure it would be practical without a very large monetary support from taxpayers to the cable companies. The majority of broadband is coming from cable providers who made deals with cities and towns when the cables where run, from the 1960's to the early 1980's. The biggest part of the deal was that the cable provider would wire every single street in town and charge the same rate to all citizens regardless of profitability. The concession the cities and towns made was to grant legal monopoly status to the cable companies. The alternative to these bargains was to allow the cable companies to only wire profitable neighborhoods or charge higher rates for higher install cost and higher maintenance cost neighborhoods. Of course the Internet wasn't even a glimmer in any consumers eye at that time, it was all about TV.

Yes, and now with what I think is still called Convergence (I might be using an outdated term here, but in my defense I still have Wired 1.01 on my bookshelves which locked me into an old vocabulary) TV and Internet are really just data now. Even Voice in many regions is TCP/IP instead of analog.

I'm interested in the future of the last mile... Cable and Telco are upgrading their networks in parallel, both will be stringing out FTTC... will cities decide one service path to a dwelling is sufficient and mandate Cable and Telco share facilities to reduce the clutter? After all... we don't have two power connections to the house, or two gas conduits, or two water mains.

 

[Francesca R]

will cities decide one service path to a dwelling is sufficient and mandate Cable and Telco share facilities to reduce the clutter? After all... we don't have two power connections to the house, or two gas conduits, or two water mains.

It would be a waste of (their) money to have more.

I am pretty sure I have one gas main and one electricity cable to my address. But I have more than ten choices of who to buy the gas from and who to buy the electricity from. It is the same regulatory framework as LLU.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well, yeah, once it comes out of the tap. But the pipes under the ground aren't yours. This is the bane of the anti-fluoride set.






Same problem with the analogy, unfortunately. Regulation would be telling the water company to do X with their pipes. Again: this is the bane of the anti-fluoridation people. They're fighting city hall's public health regulations, which impacts all the customers.

I know it isn't your intention to argue for the ISPs. You are just trying to be informative of what their POV is.

The difference between the anti-fluoridation crowd, and my arguments, is that my arguments do not impact public health. If anything, my arguments attempt to protect an open internet. Not allow ISPs to make random decisions about who gets to have their websites displayed, or who gets to have their websites run faster. If a person is paying a certain amount for a certain speed to access the internet; they should get the internet at the speeds for which they pay.

The only acceptable answer to me other than: "It's Comcast's property, and it is in their financial interest to restrict competitor sites like Netflix," would be more of a technical burden. If Comcast can prove that certain data types tend slow down their network, and therefore, they need to limit access to those data types, that would be a little more acceptable. However, they still cannot discriminate between producers of said data type. Just the data type itself can be restricted if they can prove a technicality of how networks work.

I think NN regulation actually would create a change, because it's been delayed so long some non-NN agreements are in place now, such as NetFlix/Comcast. That would be rolled back, because why would NetFlix pay Comcast for packet priority equivalence if it was already mandated by law?

I would argue that it wouldn't be a noticeable change from Comcast's financial stand point. Comcast is an enormous company. Whatever fees they charge their competitors would be chump change to them. Whereas, those fees could noticeably impact the bottom line of their competitors. Netflix is nowhere near the size of Comcast. And Bob's Movie Gallery is even smaller yet. Bob's would literally not be able to afford those fees, and would eventually be forced out of the market because of Comcast's policy of restricted user access to their site. And the main problem of this: Comcast's customers already pay a certain price for a certain speed.

It would be like taking your car to your car mechanic to have the oil and filter changed, and that is what you paid for; both an oil and filter change. But your mechanic decides to not change your filter because you drive a Ford, and Ford did not also pay them a fee to change both, even though you already did.

Possibly. The consumer sometimes hates the result of competition, if it increases prices by breaking up economies of scale and if it increases complexity and delay by adding layers of owners, and - paradoxically - if it adds confusion by expanding marketplace choice.

The only "layers of owners" it adds, is the fact that an infrastructure company owns the infrastructure, and ISPs get to use it after paying a standard price. That would be invisible to the public. If anything, it should reduce maintenance costs and the employment of line workers for the ISPs to maintain the cables on the poles along the streets.

As for it adding confusion by expanding marketplace choice....Well, that would be true for virtually every single industry. My hometown has a population of about 30,000. There are 6 supermarkets, all within 10 miles of one another. Each store has different prices and different sales. And some do price-matching. Does it "add confusion because of the market place choices?" Well, sure. But that is not exactly a BAD thing. I would argue that it is good for the consumer, and it is good for the city.

Possibly, we'd have to crunch real numbers. Also, the regulation would not just be about discriminating among ISPs but also the wholesale rate would have to be set by regulation. Today, the wholesale rate for, say, DSL is in re-negotiation because the telcos are saying it's so low they are being forced by law to subsidize all the local DSL providers.

I don't see a problem with this. They have the right to re-negotiate rates, and if they can prove that it is necessary, then fine.

It might be different here in Canada... the rural communities are highly correlated with poverty, unemployment, poor education, &c. The dream is that by connecting them to utilities, and especially Internet, that the demographic can be improved.

In BC it's mining towns, smelter towns, mill towns, fishing villages, indian reservations, that sort of thing. In Alberta, it's mining and farmers. And lots of these communities are destinations for people who retire from a large city and move to a depressed community where the real estate and taxes are cheap.

We also have depressed areas. Most notably, old mining towns. However, there are many, many affluent neighborhoods, towns, and cities that are far outside the cities, and a lot of middle and upper-middle class people often commute long distances to work. Especially along the east coast. There are also a lot of "country houses" way out in the middle of nowhere that are really, really nice. People who live there tend to be upper-middle class, and even higher.

As for the old mining towns, I think they should be given preferential treatment from government consideration to have communications and infrastructure going to those places. But not those communities of the rich and fabulous that decided to stake out in the middle of nowhere.

The nickname for them around here is "Surrey Half Millionaires" - they bought their homes in a cheap district that experienced population growth, retired and sold the house for $500,000, bought a $50,000 1-acre with a trailer in Horse Lake and live off the $450,000 savings. With the 3% rule for living off savings, they're seniors, often couples, living off $13,500 pre-tax.

Incidentally, the companies with the mandates to provide service there are not even really monopolies, strictly speaking. But they are the remains of the original telco monopolies. In Canada they're called ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers). So, even if the customer can choose between voice from the telco or voice from the cable company, only the telco is obligated to have provided service there.[/QUOTE]

 

[blutoski]

I know it isn't your intention to argue for the ISPs. You are just trying to be informative of what their POV is.

The difference between the anti-fluoridation crowd, and my arguments, is that my arguments do not impact public health. If anything, my arguments attempt to protect an open internet. Not allow ISPs to make random decisions about who gets to have their websites displayed, or who gets to have their websites run faster. If a person is paying a certain amount for a certain speed to access the internet; they should get the internet at the speeds for which they pay.

Right, but that's easily solved by altering the ISP's terms of service, which they can rewrite tomorrow... the subscription will be for 'up to' 25Mbps, depending on the service being downloaded, at the discretion of the ISP. Take it or leave it, just like you have today.

The only "layers of owners" it adds, is the fact that an infrastructure company owns the infrastructure, and ISPs get to use it after paying a standard price. That would be invisible to the public. If anything, it should reduce maintenance costs and the employment of line workers for the ISPs to maintain the cables on the poles along the streets.

The concern about layering is based on my experience today in Canada where we have mandated competition for these services: voice, long distance, data. There is a huge impact to customer service due to the additional complexity.

I can give you the two biggest sore spots that haven't really been worked out yet.

Firstly, it's pretty common for a customer to move across the street and have to change local service providers because their current local service provider has redlined that block as unprofitable and therefore outside their service footprint. Transferring a telephone number from one carrier to another uses a neutral 3rd party that requires 10 working days' notice, plus the automation rejects requests if there are any discrepancies. Some customers lose their number because they need to move sooner than the system supports. Customers breaking a contract may pay a cancellation fee.

The second big complaint is repair delays. For example, let's say a truck backed into a condo's demarcation and damaged the panel. The customer calls the reseller. The reseller doesn't actually have repair staff - the infrastructure isn't theirs. The reseller has to turn around and make an additional call to the infrastructure owner. Then wait for an ETA callback, then call the customer back with an appointment. As often as not, the customer says "but I won't be able to give the tech access at 10:00am, can they come back at 2" - OK, so the reseller calls the infrastructure owner to see if that different appointment slot is available... back and forth. Sometimes it takes longer to negotiate an appointment than it would have taken to get it fixed.

The third is similar: delays for changes to configuration such as adding calling features, changing plans, resetting passwords. All the normal day to day stuff that represents the bulk of operational activity.

There are other examples, but you get the picture. Adding a layer adds complexity and delay.

As for it adding confusion by expanding marketplace choice....Well, that would be true for virtually every single industry. My hometown has a population of about 30,000. There are 6 supermarkets, all within 10 miles of one another. Each store has different prices and different sales. And some do price-matching. Does it "add confusion because of the market place choices?" Well, sure. But that is not exactly a BAD thing. I would argue that it is good for the consumer, and it is good for the city.

It's not up to us to speculate, though. The consumer advocacy groups have expressed concern, especially for the population segment who are less technically savvy.

One of the things about the regulator in Canada (CRTC) is that there is a strong consumer protection voice, and they emphasize the plight of the most vulnerable as a baseline for expectations. There is a feeling that complexity of choice increases the probability that grandma will get shafted. Utilities are in a different place than Skittles, because of the perception that it's a necessity to be able to dial 911, and because enormous charges can be incurred so easily.

I have had so many conversations with seniors who just didn't understand the entire concept of tiered bucket mobile roaming plans, and ran up something in the neighbourhood of $10,000 on a boat cruise.

Their representatives walk into the room with "The number one priority this year is to make it easier for the consumer to navigate the offers."

I don't see a problem with this. They have the right to re-negotiate rates, and if they can prove that it is necessary, then fine.

That was regarding the hope that more competition would reduce prices. I didn't explain the relevance of the fact that the ILECs are subsidizing the new entrants. The new entrants have been operating for something like 30 years and they haven't made much market penetration or profit, even with subsidies. This suggests that the economies of scale create a greater efficiency than competition.

 

[Nihilianth]

Right, but that's easily solved by altering the ISP's terms of service, which they can rewrite tomorrow... the subscription will be for 'up to' 25Mbps, depending on the service being downloaded, at the discretion of the ISP. Take it or leave it, just like you have today.

Not if they are a monopoly. Hence: The importance of either breaking apart Comcast in order to open up the market to more competition, or put simple rules in place to keep Comcast from discriminating between content providers on the internet. Again, the only acceptable answer to this is regarding data types. If a particular data type is a burden on their network, and Comcast can prove it is a burden on the network, then I would accept intentional throttling for that data type only.

Again, I am paying for a resource, just like paying for water. My computer is my property. The internet is nobody's property. I am paying Comcast for the service of connecting my property in order to access a resource that nobody owns via Comcast's property. Just like I am paying for the service of connecting my property in order to access a public resource via the water company's property. In the end, what I do with it, is my decision. Period. And if I owned an online business, it would be an unfair business practice for Comcast to throttle my website just because some random person behind some random desk somewhere does not like the content that I sell, or if they think I am somehow competing against Comcast. Screw that person. I have a business, and they should not be able to impact my business just because they "want to."

There is also the issue that we, the people, have given Comcast the advantage of operating as a monopoly on a regional basis. Comcast has the responsibility to respect what we have given to them. If they cannot take that responsibility seriously, then they need to seriously be regulated.

At this point, for fear that you will end up repeating yourself, I can agree to disagree with you about this.

The concern about layering is based on my experience today in Canada where we have mandated competition for these services: voice, long distance, data. There is a huge impact to customer service due to the additional complexity.

I can give you the two biggest sore spots that haven't really been worked out yet.

Firstly, it's pretty common for a customer to move across the street and have to change local service providers because their current local service provider has redlined that block as unprofitable and therefore outside their service footprint. Transferring a telephone number from one carrier to another uses a neutral 3rd party that requires 10 working days' notice, plus the automation rejects requests if there are any discrepancies. Some customers lose their number because they need to move sooner than the system supports. Customers breaking a contract may pay a cancellation fee.

The second big complaint is repair delays. For example, let's say a truck backed into a condo's demarcation and damaged the panel. The customer calls the reseller. The reseller doesn't actually have repair staff - the infrastructure isn't theirs. The reseller has to turn around and make an additional call to the infrastructure owner. Then wait for an ETA callback, then call the customer back with an appointment. As often as not, the customer says "but I won't be able to give the tech access at 10:00am, can they come back at 2" - OK, so the reseller calls the infrastructure owner to see if that different appointment slot is available... back and forth. Sometimes it takes longer to negotiate an appointment than it would have taken to get it fixed.

The third is similar: delays for changes to configuration such as adding calling features, changing plans, resetting passwords. All the normal day to day stuff that represents the bulk of operational activity.

There are other examples, but you get the picture. Adding a layer adds complexity and delay.

Why doesn't the customer just simply call the infrastructure company him/herself directly if physical repair need to be made to the infrastructure?

As for the other issues, such as a phone company "redlining" one block but not another.....I don;t have a response for that.

It's not up to us to speculate, though. The consumer advocacy groups have expressed concern, especially for the population segment who are less technically savvy.

One of the things about the regulator in Canada (CRTC) is that there is a strong consumer protection voice, and they emphasize the plight of the most vulnerable as a baseline for expectations. There is a feeling that complexity of choice increases the probability that grandma will get shafted. Utilities are in a different place than Skittles, because of the perception that it's a necessity to be able to dial 911, and because enormous charges can be incurred so easily.

I have had so many conversations with seniors who just didn't understand the entire concept of tiered bucket mobile roaming plans, and ran up something in the neighbourhood of $10,000 on a boat cruise.

Their representatives walk into the room with "The number one priority this year is to make it easier for the consumer to navigate the offers."

I must admit: Sometimes, I am dumbfounded by some of the plans being offered out there for cell phones. I have one rule of thumb, and this is true even for shopping for other items that can get a bit complicated, such as a car:

If the "ifs/ands/buts" are getting too numerous from a particular carrier or a particular plan, then my shopping continues. In other words: If a plan is too complex, that generally means there could be a sinister reason behind the existence of such a plan. Most people (particularly the elderly,) are just looking for a basic phone service. Nothing fancy. A service where they can call their kids or grandkids on the weekend, or dial 911 if they have to.

Of course, if nana or popop decide to bring their cell phone with them on an international cruise or vacation in another country....there isn't much that can be resolved with the complexity of a service having to transfer through various complex means to get to the correct number that far outside their reach. But again, it doesn't have to be very complex. Just a simple rule of thumb from the traveling grand parents: Don't make calls using your cell phone if you are outside your country of origin unless it is absolutely necessary. And even then, keep the conversation to a minimum.

That was regarding the hope that more competition would reduce prices. I didn't explain the relevance of the fact that the ILECs are subsidizing the new entrants. The new entrants have been operating for something like 30 years and they haven't made much market penetration or profit, even with subsidies. This suggests that the economies of scale create a greater efficiency than competition.

Taking all of your points and concerns into consideration, then I say the internet should be a nationalized (or in the USA, a state) utility. But that would be an even bigger fight than unbundling.

 

[blutoski]

Not if they are a monopoly.

That makes sense, and this may be the disconnect: in Canada, there are no monopolies anymore, except in a few rural communities. The telcos that used to be monopolies are still required to provide services there (and makes them a de facto voice monopoly in these communities - for the last mile at least.)

Hence: The importance of either breaking apart Comcast in order to open up the market to more competition, or put simple rules in place to keep Comcast from discriminating between content providers on the internet. Again, the only acceptable answer to this is regarding data types. If a particular data type is a burden on their network, and Comcast can prove it is a burden on the network, then I would accept intentional throttling for that data type only.

Again, I am paying for a resource, just like paying for water. My computer is my property. The internet is nobody's property. I am paying Comcast for the service of connecting my property in order to access a resource that nobody owns via Comcast's property. Just like I am paying for the service of connecting my property in order to access a public resource via the water company's property. In the end, what I do with it, is my decision. Period. And if I owned an online business, it would be an unfair business practice for Comcast to throttle my website just because some random person behind some random desk somewhere does not like the content that I sell, or if they think I am somehow competing against Comcast. Screw that person. I have a business, and they should not be able to impact my business just because they "want to."

There is also the issue that we, the people, have given Comcast the advantage of operating as a monopoly on a regional basis. Comcast has the responsibility to respect what we have given to them. If they cannot take that responsibility seriously, then they need to seriously be regulated.

At this point, for fear that you will end up repeating yourself, I can agree to disagree with you about this.

I think it comes down to whether there's actually a monopoly involved, in which case NN would be bound up with Antitrust.

Why doesn't the customer just simply call the infrastructure company him/herself directly if physical repair need to be made to the infrastructure?

Because they're not the infrastructure company's customer. They're the reseller's customer. The reseller received a discounted rate because they own the customer relationship and all the costs that involves. The reseller has the customer's information (the name of the business, the valid authenticated contacts &c) but the infrastructure business only knows this is Leased Line copper pair 10385852674658, with "RESELLER" or "WHOLESALER". For privacy reasons, the ILEC has no right to know the account information of the end user. The call centers cannot even know what reseller is involved. That is considered a private relationship between the reseller and the end customer.

And it does happen today - end users call the ILEC complaining about interrupted service, 99% of the time they've been cut off from the reseller due to nonpayment, but the ILEC has no right to know that.

So: ILEC call center procedure is to ask the customer what company they are with (a good part of the time end users aren't sure who their suppliers are but hopefully they have a bill kicking around), google the company's website for current contact information, and warm transfer them to their service provider.

In a completely unbundled environment, the ILEC wouldn't even have a call center, because their only customers would be the handful reseller/wholesalers themselves, so the support team would not be staffed or trained to deal with end users at all.

As for the other issues, such as a phone company "redlining" one block but not another.....I don;t have a response for that.

Well, not redlining in the traditional race sense (we never really had that in Canada), just that wholesaler/resellers are selective about their geographical service areas for economical reasons. This is true for all wholesale/resold services of which I'm aware: voice, long distance, internet, and cellular.

Taking all of your points and concerns into consideration, then I say the internet should be a nationalized (or in the USA, a state) utility. But that would be an even bigger fight than unbundling.

Yes I think this is politically impossible in most Western countries.

 

[blutoski]

I must admit: Sometimes, I am dumbfounded by some of the plans being offered out there for cell phones.

It's a huge complaint of seniors and lower income households. This segment mostly wants something basic. Basic is unprofitable, so nobody's going to offer it, and greater competition actually makes basic service less available: basic service was mandated per regulation, but competition relieved the ILECs of that burden in markets that have received forbearance. These "utilitarian" regulated products are just not available anymore.

The other thing that *really* confuses people is when a wholesaler/reseller pulls up stakes, which happens a lot. Customers get a letter from their providers saying "we are no longer providing voice services in your area as of January 30th, please port your service to another provider before that date, consult your yellow pages for a list of suppliers. We will be happy to continue offering long distance after you switch local voice providers."

They're required to give 30 days' notice, which they always do, but there are people who are out of the country for months and are surprised to find they've lost their number when they return.

This disproportionately affects seniors, since they are the bulk of snowbirds, and also they grew up in a pre-competition world and the thought of the phone company going out of business is inconceivable so they don't plan for it.

Basically: the lower the cost of entry, the more supplier turnover. Some resellers/wholesalers are strata corporations that only provide service in their one building, and often become non-regulated monopolies in the free market as they bundle internet/phone/tv in the monthly strata fees, take it or leave it. The smallest one I'm aware of reselling my employer's services is a coop with five end users.

About once a year, the ILEC infrastructure owner has to cut off a wholesaler/reseller for nonpayment as well. We can't tell the customers why they've lost service, just tell them to contact their provider.

 

[Beerina]

That's the "Net Neutrality" that Comcast et.al. are trying to get you to fbe angry about.

It's not, however, the Net Neutrality anybody else is talking about. The real Net Neutrality is saying that the road you have coming to your house (which is as big as you are willing to pay for and want to have) must have the same speed limit for all cars, regardless of whether they are Ford or Fiat. And, more importantly, the same must hold true for the highway that connects your local road to everyone else's.

Comcast is fighting tooth and nail for the right to say "On our roads, Fords have no speed limit, but all other cars must stay under 10mph".

Still there has to be a better way than a government regulatory takeover, which will turn cable companies into water or electricity companies, with slightly different lobbyists whose job is to suck on the politicians with struggle sob stories until they agree to rate increases. You are no longer the customer. The politician is, and the exchange is regulatory change.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Still there has to be a better way than a government regulatory takeover, which will turn cable companies into water or electricity companies, with slightly different lobbyists whose job is to suck on the politicians with struggle sob stories until they agree to rate increases. You are no longer the customer. The politician is, and the exchange is regulatory change.

It would be nice for the cable companies to be treated like utilities.