Obama ruins the internet

[Upchurch]

Sounds like (unnecessary) ISP content carrier monopolies are fine with you, the only remedy needed is telling them what to do with more regulation.

Is that your position?

It really doesn't matter. The question at hand is not whether ISPs enjoy a monopoly. The issue at hand is the Obama's speech and the how the FCC is (or is not) going to instate network neutrality regulations.

 

[lomiller]

And how do you get the data from the local cache servers onto the Comcast network? Why, you need to set up a connection between the two.

The data goes though the same networking gear it would otherwise come through.
Likely Netflix has a dedicated routers hanging off Comcasts core routers. Dedicated or not because Netflix found no congestion it doesn’t seem like their router was maxed out. Either Comcast was implementing restrictions at the packet level of they were implementing restrictions on the speed of the router port Netflix as connecting to.

Which Comcast is charging for.

Why would they charge for it? The amount of data going through Comcast’s core routers doesn’t change and the main congestion point for Comcast, their upstream link, is bypassed.

Network capacity had nothing to do with it, what Netflix is/was doing reduced the load on Comcast’s network What’s going on is Comcast wants to add an additional tax on anyone who wants to sell internet based services to Comcast customers. We saw similar experiments with private networks back in the late 80’s early 90’s prior to the reorganizing into the modern internet and they were an abject failure.

 

[lomiller]

Sounds like (unnecessary) ISP content carrier monopolies are fine with you, the only remedy needed is telling them what to do with more regulation.

Is that your position?

I view “solving the monopoly problem” as hand waving. I don’t think there is real solution anymore than there was a way to solve railroad monopolies in the late 1800’s. You don’t need duplicate networks and building them just adds cost to everyone. Sharing them sounds nice, but that’s exactly what net neutrality rules facilitate.

 

[Francesca R]

Isn't part of the problem in the USA, geography?

I think you're right, that isn't part of the problem. You only need existing infrastructure and it already exists

The town of Lerwick (pop 7500) in Shetland, 160km off the northern tip of Scotland, has five separate ISPs available on a check I just did, for example. That is pretty remote and sparsely populated.

 

[Francesca R]

It really doesn't matter. The question at hand is not [ . . . ]

Speak for yourself.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is caused by monopolies, but you can't solve it by not having monopolies?

Not getting the logic here.

That is because you are getting your posters mixed up. The problem is only made worse by monopolies.

 

[Belz...]

Bottom of previous page. I am not answering it twice.

There is no need for antagonism. I am merely trying to reach an agreement.

The post you seem to be refering to does not address the issue of not finding an ISP in your area that respects net neutrality. It simply identifies a potential problem, but does not propose a solution, which is the point of the question.

Upstart companies cannot offer what larger companies can, so starting one yourself is not a likely solution, in addition to beign something most people would not want to get into.

Sounds like (unnecessary) ISP content carrier monopolies are fine with you

No, Lomiller's post does not sound like this at all. Perhaps you should read his post again.

 

[Spindrift]

I think you're right, that isn't part of the problem. You only need existing infrastructure and it already exists

The town of Lerwick (pop 7500) in Shetland, 160km off the northern tip of Scotland, has five separate ISPs available on a check I just did, for example. That is pretty remote and sparsely populated.

I was referring to area. Shetland is kind of small compared to Montana. Lerwick would be in the top 12 cities in Montana.

Existing infrastructure to handle high speed internet?

 

[Ziggurat]

The data goes though the same networking gear it would otherwise come through.
Likely Netflix has a dedicated routers hanging off Comcasts core routers. Dedicated or not because Netflix found no congestion it doesn’t seem like their router was maxed out. Either Comcast was implementing restrictions at the packet level of they were implementing restrictions on the speed of the router port Netflix as connecting to.

No. Your description is wrong.

Why would they charge for it?

Because they can, because they have monopoly leverage. You keep insisting on doing something that wouldn't solve the problem (net neutrality doesn't apply here because nothing was done at the packet level), and ignoring the one thing that would (removing monopoly power).

I'm reminded of the old Intel 486 processors. They came in SX and DX varieties, the former having no math coprocessor and the latter including it. Obviously, Intel charged more for the DX version than the SX version.

But they were the exact same chip. The SX was simply crippled after manufacturing. So why did Intel charge more for a chip that cost nothing more to produce?

Because they could.

 

[Meed]

Okay. Simply put: One side thinks that the network neutrality is unnecessary and that there isn't a problem. The other side thinks the only practical way of having network neutrality that the ISPs will respect is through regulation.

I don't understand what's confusing you. But I do thank you for answering.

You seem to have presented two non-contrasting views here. One could be of the position that "network neutrality is unnecessary and there isn't a problem" while also holding the position that "the only practical way of having network neutrality that the ISPs will respect is through regulation". One is a position regarding what the best way of achieving NN would be. The other is a position on whether or not NN is a good thing and a position on whether or not there is a problem (and these two positions shouldn't really be lumped together because at least one poster clearly seems to be arguing that network neutrality is unnecessary while maintaining that there is a problem).

Also I think you forgot about the disagreements regarding the Comcast/Verizon situation.

 

[Octavo]

Several in mine do. And there are no net neutrality laws here. Like in yours. But there is competition here. Unlike in yours.

Points to competition being the primary issue more than it points to network neutrality regs being the primary issue. Might be a small sample. But you got a better one?

Francesca, what happens when one or two of the bigger ISP's start acquiring and merging with the smaller ones? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that in a few years, your 5 or 6 or 10 available ISP's are all actually just flavours of one or two megacorps. How will you prevent them from implementing net non-neutrality then?

The constant clarion call of yours for more competition is a possible fix, but it's also impractical to implement in the US or any country with large tracts of rural land (like South Africa). It also will not prevent monopolies from naturally forming over time, at which point you're exactly back where you started. No NN protection and a monopoly exploiting that.

 

[Corsair 115]

I posed this question back in post #192, but it seems it was ignored. So I shall try once more.

So, what is one to make of big corporations such as Amazon, ebay, Facebook, Google, and Netflix being in favour of net neutrality, as evidenced by this statement released by the association which represents them?

The Internet Association applauds President Obama’s proposal for the adoption of meaningful net neutrality rules that apply to both mobile and fixed broadband. As we have previously said, the FCC must adopt strong, legally sustainable rules that prevent paid prioritization and protect an open Internet for users. Using Title II authority, along with the right set of enforceable rules, the President’s plan would establish the strong net neutrality protections Internet users require. We welcome the President’s leadership, and encourage the FCC to stand with the Internet’s vast community of users and move quickly to adopt strong net neutrality protections that ensure a free and open Internet.

There was an interesting article on the CBC News web site earlier that took a look at what the proposal of a two-tier internet might mean for Canada and other nations. This is something I have wondered about—given the global nature of the world wide web, if the U.S. implements the proposed two-tier approach, what does that mean for traffic to U.S. web sites originating from outside the United States? Does it get the fast lane? Or is it automatically shunted onto the slow lane? Would other countries have to work out agreements with U.S. ISPs in order to get their nation's traffic routed to U.S. web sites on the fast lane?

Here is the article: Net neutrality changes in U.S. could impact Canada. A quote from the report:

If the FCC rejects that model and allows so-called pay prioritization, it could impact Canadians, says Josh Tabish, campaigns manager at the Vancouver-based internet advocacy group Open Media.

"We may not live in the U.S., but many of our favourite websites do," he said. "Canadians rely on a lot of American services… to go about their daily lives.

"If a proposal were to go through that would allow slow lanes on the internet, that could impact how those services operate and what new services are able to emerge."

That last paragraph reflects the questions I had. How would the U.S. having fast and slow internet lanes affect those U.S. web sites and companies which do international business? How might this help or hurt such U.S. businesses?

 

[mumblethrax]

So, what is one to make of big corporations such as Amazon, ebay, Facebook, Google, and Netflix being in favour of net neutrality, as evidenced by this statement released by the association which represents them?

Two things to say about that: first, tiered service has mostly seemed like a fight about pricing between infrastructure companies/ISPs on one side and content providers (Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.) on the other. It's not surprising that content providers have been better at infrastructure companies at getting us to believe that theirs is the side of right and good (they have people for that), but I'm not sure why I'd want to get involved in that fight. I do think infrastructure companies are right about at least one thing--it's a lousy business to be in. Verizon has already stated that they have no plans to build out last-mile fiber beyond current obligations. Wall Street has advised them to sell of their fiber and copper networks altogether.

Second, Google and Facebook issuing a statement only through an industry body represents a curious divestment--they were at the forefront of the debate a few years ago, and now they're largely silent. I'm not sure why they've pulled back. Here's an article about it from the New York Times: In Net Neutrality Push, Internet Giants on the Sidelines.

This is something I have wondered about—given the global nature of the world wide web, if the U.S. implements the proposed two-tier approach, what does that mean for traffic to U.S. web sites originating from outside the United States? Does it get the fast lane? Or is it automatically shunted onto the slow lane?

Since we're only talking about last-mile infrastructure, our regional monopolies wouldn't have any control over how data packets are prioritized in Canada--that'll be down to Rogers and Canada. The only effect on Canadians would be indirect--it might have an impact on what kind of internet business is viable in the future (which the spokesman in your quote hints at in the last paragraph).

 

[ponderingturtle]

You still don't recognize the real problem, even though it's right under your nose. Net neutrality doesn't do anything about it. You can't just expand net neutrality to do so either, just like you can't expand net neutrality to cover securities fraud. You need a different approach.

Do you have any actual proposals for how you think this should work? You ignored this the last time. If you have a better idea present it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is caused by monopolies, but you can't solve it by not having monopolies?

Not getting the logic here.

The problem is certainly exasperated by monopolies, but the limited nature of the companies acting as high speed ISP's and that all of them are also media companies is a problem as well.

You can get collusion in a market with out the true monopolies we currently have, as competition does not remove the potential issues of the vertical integration that these companies have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't part of the problem in the USA, geography? Population density in many places is not very high so unless you have a monopoly it's not worth going into an area. If you don't get everyone it isn't worth the investment. That's why county/local governments give exclusive rights to whomever. It was either that or nothing.

That isn't exactly what she has been suggesting though. She is suggesting that the local infrastructure should be owned by a separate entity from the ISP. So the wires are owned by Neighborhood Net, but you chose from Alpha, Beta, Gama, Zeta, and Bob's ISP. And Neighborhood net must be neutral to traffic from different ISP's.

So it is dramatically restructuring the marketplace and regulating a portion of it heavily(the wire owners) while not regulating the actual ISP's as much.

I like the idea, but hold no reasonable expectation of it being politically feasible in the US especially with the new make up of the Senate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Francesca, what happens when one or two of the bigger ISP's start acquiring and merging with the smaller ones? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that in a few years, your 5 or 6 or 10 available ISP's are all actually just flavours of one or two megacorps. How will you prevent them from implementing net non-neutrality then?

The constant clarion call of yours for more competition is a possible fix, but it's also impractical to implement in the US or any country with large tracts of rural land (like South Africa). It also will not prevent monopolies from naturally forming over time, at which point you're exactly back where you started. No NN protection and a monopoly exploiting that.

It isn't technically impractical in the US, it is politically impractical. She is not suggesting multiple services need to run wires in residential neighborhoods.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Two things to say about that: first, tiered service has mostly seemed like a fight about pricing between infrastructure companies/ISPs on one side and content providers (Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.) on the other. It's not surprising that content providers have been better at infrastructure companies at getting us to believe that theirs is the side of right and good (they have people for that), but I'm not sure why I'd want to get involved in that fight. I do think infrastructure companies are right about at least one thing--it's a lousy business to be in. Verizon has already stated that they have no plans to build out last-mile fiber beyond current obligations. Wall Street has advised them to sell of their fiber and copper networks altogether.

You do know that basicly all of the infrastructure companies are also content providers as well? I guess Time Warner might not have enough of a media presence though.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't understand what's confusing you. But I do thank you for answering.

your question was unclear, both as to what you were asking for and the level of detail you wanted.

Also I think you forgot about the disagreements regarding the Comcast/Verizon situation.

I didn't forget. I was putting it simply, which necessitates not going into the details.

 

[mumblethrax]

You do know that basicly all of the infrastructure companies are also content providers as well?

Time Warner Cable isn't owned by Time Warner these days (which helps explain HBO's recent announcement that they'll be offering internet-only subscriptions). But sure, some are, some aren't (it would be difficult to understand Verizon as a content provider). And some of the companies I've identified as content providers also do infrastructure (Google Fiber). I'm identifying them in terms of primary business, not claiming that they have exclusive interests.