RIP Net Neutrality

By the time they all finish fighting about it, google will have their balloons up there and facebook their solar-drones and they will provide connections for free!

http://www.google.com/loon/

BrotherBart said:

Just long enough to cripple the competition and then the new "plans" come on the scene. Been there, done that when the cell phone competition of was hot and heavy and Internet competition was hot and heavy. Cingular used to bury me in new stuff every time I went in to pay the bill. AT&T bought'em and called me and told me double the price or go away. Same thing with Verizon when they killed off the local ISPs.

Now AT&T is buying the service for that dish on my roof. I am real sure they are going to send me a note telling me how the price is gonna go down. Yeah right.

Click to expand...

Good Op-Ed on reason about Net Neutrality:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsense

And here the exact opposite take how net neutrality was one of the driving forces of the internet revolution:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...booting-the-network-neutrality-debate/361809/

Some quotes:

"In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. ... The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment."

"If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. "

"The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work."

Another similar opinion: http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-net-neutrality-decision-2014-5

Both can be true! I was around at the start of the net and they did all kinds of stuff like forgiving sales tax under state law (NJ), etc.....they did it for a fixed number of years.

NN definitely helped this thing get going- big time. Of course, the big unsaid which really spurred the internet bandwidth in this country is that most of the money ended up being scammed from investors...that is, many of the failing companies in the dot-com boom ended up losing or selling cheaply their rights, lines, etc.
So, in effect, a "tax" on a large part of the stock market was extracted....gave us extra bandwidth for almost a decade.

But now use is starting to catch up with the capacity...which is my guess as to why this issue is coming to the forefront.

It would be interesting to know who the top 5 players are....is it AT&T and a couple of the cable companies? Or do firms like Savvis and L3 still control a big piece?

Another metric is "how much does a residential customer need?". This could be likened to gas lines and electric lines and meters. They typically won't deliver 440v 3 phase power to your house, nor enough gas to run 10 million BTU's, etc.

I'd say the current max needed for the end user (consumers) is enough to run a couple Netflix movies in HD. Netflix consumes about 30% of peak bandwidth on the net (according to one source). Personally, I don't need more than one stream...and I could understand if my cable company wanted to charge me more for multiple streams.

Even with all the burps, the net - as a whole - has worked fairly well in terms of getting most everyone up and running. Sure, other (smaller) countries do better, but it's easier to lay lines in a smaller area and latency is also less over short distances.

Netflix claims you need 1.5 Mbps for a decent movie and 3 Mbps for very high def. If that's the case, even 5Mbps as a guarantee would do well for 90% plus of users.

In a nutshell, I see the problem as this. From the start of the internet, the entire network capacities were built on the idea that no one used the stuff constantly. An ISP may have had 500 customers but only enough bandwidth for 50 of them at one time (because usually only 20 were dialed in!). Now we have binge TV watching on Netflix changing the situation.

I'm all for NN....with the caveat that the companies should be paid enough. Big firms like AT&T do not make extensive profits when compared against their capital outlays and cost of doing business. They pay a 5% dividend which eats up over 1/2 of their profits. That means they make a total of less than 10%, which seems a fair profit.

Not to say I'm in bed with AT&T, but if a retiree, pension fund or individual wishes to get a 5% return on their money with relatively low risk, T should be able to provide it without going broke.

Bottom Line - the net has brought up many a question which didn't exist before. This goes for everything from copyright to broadcast and now is bleeding over to bandwidth. All of these new problems must be solved as we go along - without killing the goose.

And, BB, when they up your monthly price by 5%, just remember when we all wanted to get connections 1/10th that fast in 1997 - for $800-$100 a month (fractional T1's).

If I had to complain about something, it would be that in our summer house we pay the full boat for internet - even though we are not there even 20% of the time! I checked it out and we could even stream netflix through out cellular there (it's quick enough). Problem is that we'd run out of cellular data.

Can't win.

Jags said:

"won’t risk the gauntlet, thus depriving us of the next fantastic service."

Right. Cuz under the current FCC oversight the internet has been so slow to roll out new and innovative internet based services. It is a non-issue and has been for years. Tell me ONE example of how the FCC stomped a new or innovative internet based service.

Nothing like basing your side of the argument on a boogeyman that doesn't exist. If anything - pulling the FCC out is gonna do more harm to the little guys. We know how things work today - and they work well. Moving to a free market crapshoot of the highest band width bidder wins is not going to have the results you (or the author of that drivel) think they will.

Give it a couple of years running without net neutrality and I am quite sure I will be able to name you many - many examples of how innovation has been stomped on.

Click to expand...

You're the one basing your argument on a boogeyman that doesn't exist Jags.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...gnore-the-silly-net-neutrality-advocates.html

Grisu said:

And here the exact opposite take how net neutrality was one of the driving forces of the internet revolution:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...booting-the-network-neutrality-debate/361809/

Some quotes:

"In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. ... The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment."

"If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. "

"The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work."

Another similar opinion: http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-net-neutrality-decision-2014-5

Click to expand...

And yet these articles ignore the fallout companies like Comcast experienced for blocking such services. There was an incredible backlash in many of the areas served by these companies.

What I see is a lot of scare mongering about things that could happen, not what does happen in the marketplace.

Jags said:

Pay for what? Don't you already pay for the bandwidth that you are allowed? If you have a 1.5 or 10 gig package (or whatever) you have paid for that bandwidth to your home. From that point on it should be as simple as - give me what I searched for at the band width that I paid for. Companies or corps that don't do that should have their peepee whacked.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but leave it as a pay for play strategy, no regulation needed.

Now if you are paying for a service and they are not giving it to you, that is a case of fraud and should be handled as such.

Jags said:

T -that is nothing more than a re-write of the first article you posted. Same argument, same bogus claim.

Of all people - I would think that YOU would fight for a 10 meg package to your home should deliver 10 meg of streaming data of WHATEVER you are looking for. Don't mess around with my 10 meg I am paying for.

Click to expand...

No Jags, a 10 Meg package should provide up to 10 mbits of bandwidth under ideal conditions. If I'm trying to connect to a site that is poorly managed or can't afford for more bandwidth that is their issue to deal with. If they refuse to pay for more bandwidth or access why should anyone be required to give it to them?

You still haven't made a single logical argument here. All I see on the net neutrality side is a lot of scare mongering of what might happen.

It reminds me of the (False) Republican claims to the buildup of the Iraq War quite honestly.

Jags said:

WHAT? You don't think that Billy Bobs Website Hosting is paying for their end of the connection??? Is their some magical FREE pipeline to the backbone operators that I am not aware of??

Click to expand...

So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then? Shouldn't the heaviest users pay the most?

The problem is the company that gets the backlash will not be the ISP but the internet business whose service will be slow and cumbersome compared with more well-funded competitors. And that will stifle competition and entrench current big players. ISPs will also have a big leg up then when they can offer their content services at superfast speeds while having other people pay extra for that privilege. We'll see how long Netflix will survive when Comcast and others can offer their own movie streaming service running faster than Netflix's.

TMonter said:

So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then?

Click to expand...

That's what they do. You don't even seem to understand the argument. Someone is paying a higher phone rate when doing more calls. However, they are not going to be connected faster or having a better connection because they pay a higher rate.

begreen said:

Don't forget that this also affects DSL providers. There are several of them. Will they be left behind. Hope not, cable is often not an option for rural services.

For some reason the main players in Europe are surviving fine with an open internet. No fast lane allowed there. And the rates are reasonable.
http://dsl.1und1.de/dsl-mit-vertrag...=ct.showroom.dslpakete.1&linkType=txt#details
And they often pay a lot less for wireless services there too. It's rare for one to have a contract unless one has it for business. This is not about the market dictating what it wants. No one I know of likes being bound to a 2 yr contract to a phone co.. It's just tolerated because there are few reliable alternatives, though T-Mobile and others are starting to introduce more European style programs recently.

Click to expand...

Europe has a dense population, hardly the same demographic and hardly the same infrastructure costs.

Jags said:

T - you are loosing your debating marbles. That is exactly what I am saying. Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line. I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it. These providers are ALREADY getting payed. They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.

When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home. Guess what the other side of the equation is? Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site). So WHO isn't paying their fair share?

Click to expand...

And if this becomes more widely known, one of the competitors are going to start charging less for better service.

Your claims still seem to rest on some supposed harm that could happen, not what does happen.

Jags said:

T - you are loosing your debating marbles. That is exactly what I am saying. Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line. I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it. These providers are ALREADY getting payed. They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.

When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home. Guess what the other side of the equation is? Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site). So WHO isn't paying their fair share?

Click to expand...

I still don't see what you object to. The highest volume of traffic should cost the most and have the fastest speeds providing they are willing to pay for it. As a business scales up the higher use should also pay the higher costs. This only makes sense.

I find this is an interesting debate. I have come to the (personal) conclusion that having an internet connection is almost a right (every business uses it as a means of communication, etc) and will likely become one within 10 years. And when something slowly converts from from a privilege (that you must pay for) to a right, hot debates come into play.

In Canada a study was published by Netflix last week. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-rank-of-canadian-web-speeds/article18609068/
I found this interesting: " Netflix has its own content delivery network called Open Connect, which allows ISP customers to access streaming content more directly rather than being routed through third-party servers.
Rogers has recently “virtually doubled” the capacity for its customers to get speedier access to Netflix, said Raj Doshi, senior vice president of products.
“Our investment timing relative to the testing was probably not coincident, meaning if the tests were done now we would be at a similar level (to Bell) and probably top of the heap,” Doshi said.

Some people felt Rogers was controlling streaming speeds to encourage Netflix users to convert to Rogers' similar "in house" streaming program.

Andrew