Net Neutrality wins minor battle in long war

[Gokul43201]

Consumers may be nearing a victory in keeping the Internet open. Under pressure from advocacy groups, the Federal Communications Commission may soon impose sanctions on cable company Comcast (CMCSA), which has been accused of blocking peer-to-peer traffic.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2008/tc20080711_699714.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology

What are your opinions on net neutrality, and how it should be protected (or not protected)?

 

[Evo]

People have a lot misconceptions based on misinformation.

I think if some people consistently use more bandwidth that what is considered acceptable fair use on an ISP's network, let them do it and make them pay extra for it. It's not fair for everyone to have to pay higher prices because of these bandwidth hogs.

 

[Astronuc]

From what I heard, Comcast did not act unreasonably. Apparently customers using Bit-Torrent were affected. BT requires a lot of band-width. It's not clear to me that others were affected.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/apheadline_detail.php?story_id=D91REMFO0&group=ap.online.headlines.business

By JOHN DUNBAR, AP, WASHINGTON, Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:28:51 AM PT

The head of the Federal Communications Commission said Thursday he will recommend that the nation's largest cable company be punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open access to the Internet.

The potentially precedent-setting move stems from a complaint against Comcast Corp. that the company had blocked Internet traffic among users of a certain type of "file sharing" software that allows them to exchange large amounts of data.

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

Martin said Comcast has "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access, regardless of the level of traffic, and failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so.

Company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice on Thursday denied that Comcast blocks Internet content or services and that the "carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network are a reasonable part" of the company's strategy to ensure all customers receive quality service.
. . . . <continued>

Perhaps failure to disclose to consumers it was blocking or managing traffic is a violation, but then I don't know the specific rules.

Clearly some services did not anticipate services like Bit-Torrent.

There certainly is the issue that local cable providers have a monopoly. My internet service at work costs twice what I pay for my home service (with a different company). We regularly get dropped (lose link between modem and server) by the ISP, and I get about 10% of the speed that I get at home. I'm waiting for a competitive serviced to be installed. The fiberoptic trunk was laid in the street two weeks ago, now I waiting for them to intall the service to the building.

 

[NeoDevin]

North of the border here they just do bandwidth caps (and those are only ever enforced if you go really crazy).

 

[Crosson]

I hope that everyone understands that bit-torrent is a communications protocol, just like TCP/IP or FTP, and that the issue is with the ISP blocking data packets that are sent and received using this protocol. For example, I may be able to download attachments from physics forums at a max speed of 1.5Mib/s (using a TCP/IP protocol) but I can only download new Linux distributions using a bit-torrent protocol at a pitiful speed of 20 Kib/s.

There is no reason for this from a technical point of view, a 32 Kib BT packet takes the same amount of bandwidth and overhead as a 32 Kib TCP/IP packet.

As others have mentioned, studies show that BT is a sizable part (25%) of total internet traffic, and so by blocking this protocol the ISP can significantly reduce the total bandwidth that is available to their customers. It is not entirely clear if this is the only motivation for the ISP, since they might also be under pressure from the entertainment industry to solve the perceived problem of unauthorized copyright violations.

I am glad to see the FCC knows that the correct response to the problem is to immediately punish the taxpayer subsidized telecom monopoly for violating net neutrality laws that are already on the books. As individual citizens (as opposed to shareholders in the entertainment or telecom coporations) the most compelling reason we should support net neutrality is captured in the spirit of the poem "First they came...", to which effect I will offer a suitable variation:

"First they blocked bit-torrent, but I didn't speak up because only media pirates use bit-torrent..."

Note that, from a technical standpoint, the primary growing pain experienced by the internet is due to the heavy server loads, not due to a lack of bandwidth. It takes a huge rack of computing power to serve pages to millions of users per day, and these computers cost big bucks (the latest and most powerful hardware is seemingly never enough). Bit-torrent mostly solves this problem: since it is a P2P protocol it splits the server load across all the users, which is why it is used to distribute Linux distributions. In contrast one can better understand the price of bandwidth knowing that there are thousands of miles of 'dark fiber' that has been installed into the ground but has not yet needed to be used by the telecom industry, all of this done at taxpayers expense to the tune of $100B.

 

[Evo]

Note that, from a technical standpoint, the primary growing pain experienced by the internet is due to the heavy server loads, not due to a lack of bandwidth. It takes a huge rack of computing power to serve pages to millions of users per day, and these computers cost big bucks (the latest and most powerful hardware is seemingly never enough). Bit-torrent mostly solves this problem: since it is a P2P protocol it splits the server load across all the users, which is why it is used to distribute Linux distributions. In contrast one can better understand the price of bandwidth knowing that there are thousands of miles of 'dark fiber' that has been installed into the ground but has not yet needed to be used by the telecom industry, all of this done at taxpayers expense to the tune of $100B.

I "sell" bandwidth to ISP's. The problem is not a lack of availibilty of bandwidth from Internet Backbone providers (my company is one). It is how much ISP's have to pay for that bandwidth. FYI, ISP's pay the backbone provider a cost per MB for the bandwidth they allow their customer's to use. So it is the cost to the ISP's for the bandwidth that is the issue here.

Dark fiber has absolutely nothing to do with the price of bandwidth. It is merely fiber cable that does not have the electronics connected. Lighting more dark fiber only gives more bandwidth to the backbone provider to sell to the ISP's if it were ever needed. The ISP's would still be charged for it and their customers would then be charged for it. And, no, it's not done at the taxpayer's cost. These are private companies for the most part.

 

[humanino]

I "sell" bandwidth to ISP's.

Would you sell bandwidth to individuals ? I always wanted to see in the infrared :shy:

 

[Evo]

Would you sell bandwidth to individuals ? I always wanted to see in the infrared :shy:

Yes, I will sell to anyone willing to pay and can pass credit. I only sell to businesses though, but that doesn't mean that you can't say you are a business.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Good post Crosson. Bit Torrent has legal uses, so you shouldn't be able to block the whole thing. Net neutrality would ban this from occurring.

I have comcast as they are a monopoly in my area, and the other monopoly on the "DSL" side of things, Qwest, is asking way too much for crappy service. With broadband if you have a neighborhood downloading things then it'd lag me a little bit, but I'd rather be lagged a few times then blocked from accessing the services that I need.

 

[Evo]

Net neutrality means higher prices. Hopefully, they will only penalize those that use a lot of bandwidth.

Cellphone companies are now beginning to limit data use. Gone are the days of a flat rate for unlimited data. I'm afraid we are going to see the same thing happen to our home internet service if ISP's aren't allowed to control traffic.

Thank you to all the bandwidth hogs for ruining everything for the rest of us!

 

[OrbitalPower]

Isn't Obama for Net Neutrality? A reason (one of the only) I might consider voting for him (I'm a registered Green).

ISPs can create tiers of service. That's what they do. The underlying concept, though, is that they do it on a non-discriminatory basis. That is, the overall bandwidth of all the customers' traffic, without discrimination for certain destinations.

Really, I'm against coercion rather it be a government, or a corporation taking my freedoms. In this case, it's a state sanction monopoly, as Crosson hinted to. When you use the government to back your business, you have every "right" to be regulated.

Corporations are really governments anyway, and as such their power should be curbed and/or subjected to public influence.

 

[Evo]

Isn't Obama for Net Neutrality? A reason (one of the only) I might consider voting for him (I'm a registered Green).

ISPs can create tiers of service. That's what they do. The underlying concept, though, is that they do it on a non-discriminatory basis. That is, the overall bandwidth of all the customers' traffic, without discrimination for certain destinations.

Really, I'm against coercion rather it be a government, or a corporation taking my freedoms. In this case, it's a state sanction monopoly, as Crosson hinted to. When you use the government to back your business, you have every "right" to be regulated.

Corporations are really governments anyway, and as such their power should be curbed and/or subjected to public influence.

I think there is some confusion over backbone providers that are also local phone companies, this would be Verizon, AT&T & Qwest, for example. Sprint, Level 3, and others are not local phone companies and do not get local phone company subsidies.

And this will force ISP's to start charging for usage. You download a lot, or do a lot of file transfers, don't start crying when you get a bill for $500 for your monthly internet service. It's the only fair way to do it. You drive an SUV, you pay $100 to fill your tank, you drive a small car, you pay $50.

 

[Astronuc]

The ISP for my home has two rates, one for about $50/mo and the other for about $100/mo for a much higher bandwidth. My daughter uses most of our bandwidth doing video/voice over the internet. Traffic slows down when she's home.

The ISP that serves my office has 7 tiers of service, but they are very costly and the highest level is not as fast as I have at home, but costs about several hundred dollars, well above what I pay for home service. I'm waiting for a lower cost, faster service from a competitor - then I'll switch. It's not even the bandwidth, but rather remaining connected.

 

[rootX]

At my university, I hardly ever go out of bandwidth. We have fixed amount of bandwidth per day. If we use more, our internet slows down until the tank if refilled.
And at my home, rogers charges fixed amount for using some gigs, if you go over it; you pay for which additional one you use. I hardly ever go above it so haven't been affected by either.

 

[Evo]

The ISP for my home has two rates, one for about $50/mo and the other for about $100/mo for a much higher bandwidth. My daughter uses most of our bandwidth doing video/voice over the internet. Traffic slows down when she's home.

The "higher bandwidth" is the speed, not the usage. Two different things.

The ISP that serves my office has 7 tiers of service, but they are very costly and the highest level is not as fast as I have at home, but costs about several hundred dollars, well above what I pay for home service. I'm waiting for a lower cost, faster service from a competitor - then I'll switch. It's not even the bandwidth, but rather remaining connected.

It's the difference in technology. If you are cheap, you get cheap. Dedicated private lines like T1's are a higher class of service, are more reliable, and having better TTR (Time To Repair). Of course if you buy a T1 from Bill and Ted's Excellent Internet Service, you are at their mercy, you are now paying a middle man. Always better to buy from a backbone provider. A dedicated T1 for a business might have a guarantee for repair of 4 hours, where cheaper, less reliable service like DSL has a TTR of 2 days. You're not comparing apples to apples. FIOS is the same, it's cheap, it's unreliable, and if you go down, no quick repair. Also, there is (or was) a lawsuit against Verizon for cutting the copper to a house or business when they installed it so that you are stuck, you can not switch back to regular phone and DSL, or switch to another provider. I don't know if they have been forced to stop that as an illegal practice yet.

 

[Crosson]

Cellphone companies are now beginning to limit data use. Gone are the days of a flat rate for unlimited data. I'm afraid we are going to see the same thing happen to our home internet service if ISP's aren't allowed to control traffic.

Thank you to all the bandwidth hogs for ruining everything for the rest of us!

You are putting the blame in the wrong place. These are the same cell phone companies that charge $0.20 for a 10Kib text message, just because they can get away with it. The corporations will always charge you as much as they can, especially when their are high barriers to entry in the market.

 

[Evo]

You are putting the blame in the wrong place. These are the same cell phone companies that charge $0.20 for a 10Kib text message, just because they can get away with it. The corporations will always charge you as much as they can, especially when their are high barriers to entry in the market.

Most cellphone companies have unlimited texting plans. And none that I have used charged per KB, they charge per message, if you don't have a plan. You expect to use a service and not pay for it?

And what do you mean "just because they can get away with it?" When you go to buy shoes, do you pay for the pair, or can you carry out as many as you can hold for the same price? When you buy groceries, do you buy by the can, box, bottle, pound, ounce, item? Or do you expect to load your cart up and not pay for what's in it?

Please tell me what companies let you have all you want without charging you.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the clarification on the speed vs bandwidth, Evo. I just associated the higher speed with higher capacity.

I don't think I'm bandwidth limited, except on the home network. I don't generally do a lot of video, and I don't do bit-torrent.

As for cellphone usage, I don't do text, although it was offered in a package. I think it's by the message, but they also had different pricing schedules depending on volume. One of the guys in my company checks emails on his cell, so he took a more expensive option for his phone. I'm not sure why people need to text - why not just call some one. On the other hand, I've heard some pretty inane (and totally unnecessary) conversations on the phone - only because the person nearby wouldn't talk softly.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure why people need to text - why not just call some one. On the other hand, I've heard some pretty inane (and totally unnecessary) conversations on the phone - only because the person nearby wouldn't talk softly.

I'm with you on the texting. It seems to be something inherent to teens. The Child of Evo is always texting. Why spend ten minutes texting back and forth when a 60 second phone call would have the same results? I understand that teens use the text so that they can "talk" to each other in class without the teacher noticing. And it's a good way to reach her if she's in a movie. Other than that, I don't get it.

 

[Strilanc]

I expect that, in the end, flat rates will become a thing of the past. There's too much a usage difference between someone who only checks email compared to someone who is downloading movies.

Net neutrality is a catch-all term for a bunch of different things ISPs could do. I don't particularly mind them prioritizing http traffic, but I prioritizing traffic to particular sites should not be allowed [eg. pay for access to websites before you can use them]. There's a lot of other possible things that would make pricing overly complicated (eg. an ISP in the middle not forwarding your traffic unless you pay them] that should be blocked.

Essentially, I believe ISPs should be allowed to prioritize based on protocol, and only at the edge of the network.

 

[NeoDevin]

I have internet with Shaw Cable, and with my account there is a bandwidth cap. I can buy a more expensive account or a business account and get more bandwidth. Why can't they do this (or something like it) in the states?

PS. Though there is a bandwidth cap, it has never been enforced. I have more than tripled my bandwidth allowance in a month with nary a comment from them.

 

[Crosson]

Most cellphone companies have unlimited texting plans. And none that I have used charged per KB, they charge per message, if you don't have a plan. You expect to use a service and not pay for it?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982251-7.html?hhTest=1"

I just expect to use a service without paying for %10,000 profits. This is a clear case of charging whatever they can get away with, and its because the market has high barriers to entry.

When you go to buy shoes, do you pay for the pair, or can you carry out as many as you can hold for the same price? When you buy groceries, do you buy by the can, box, bottle, pound, ounce, item? Or do you expect to load your cart up and not pay for what's in it? Please tell me what companies let you have all you want without charging you.

All those items are material goods. Comparing apples-to-apples, I noticed, for example, that the phone company allows unlimited local calling.

Following the analogy with unlimited local calling, this blocking of bit-torrent traffic is similar to blocking the local calls that are made to an apartment building that is suspected to contain mostly drug dealers. These guys get 100 calls per day, and my phone bill is going up, so why don't we cut off the phone to their building (even though some residents are law abiding) so that we all have lower prices.

 

[humanino]

Why spend ten minutes texting back and forth when a 60 second phone call would have the same results?

This is part of the shift cell provided us with. It is not only the fact that text message allows you to keep useful information (such as an address) most easily. It is also the fact that one has greater flexibility. One has to remember before cell phones, we had to make plans in advance, such as "let's meet at 4pm tomorrow". It does not make sense anymore today. Now it's "I'll text you when I get off work". If the other person is busy at the this moment, he'll answer as soon as he will be ready to answer. Which might be 30s if you tried to call him while in the restroom Or while having an argument with his mother :uhh:

edit

In addition, teens usually type much faster than us elders (seriously, but I'm improving)

 

[Evo]

All those items are material goods.

No difference for services that you pay for. For instance, want your car repaired? You pay according to the labor involved in addition to the parts. You think for the cost of an oil change that you can get the muffler and brakes replaced too?

Comparing apples-to-apples, I noticed, for example, that the phone company allows unlimited local calling.

Actually, most of the local phone companies in the US charge for time and/or distance for local calls. SBC was one of the last that had a flat rate local service plan. They also offered a metered plan for a lower fixed monthly fee, but you paid for calls. So your anaolgy that follows is not correct for most of the country.

Following the analogy with unlimited local calling, this blocking of bit-torrent traffic is similar to blocking the local calls that are made to an apartment building that is suspected to contain mostly drug dealers. These guys get 100 calls per day, and my phone bill is going up, so why don't we cut off the phone to their building (even though some residents are law abiding) so that we all have lower prices.

This doesn't make sense because you don't realize that most local services aren't flat rate.

 

[B. Elliott]

Level 3

Or would that be Broadwing?

 

[Evo]

This is part of the shift cell provided us with. It is not only the fact that text message allows you to keep useful information (such as an address) most easily. It is also the fact that one has greater flexibility. One has to remember before cell phones, we had to make plans in advance, such as "let's meet at 4pm tomorrow". It does not make sense anymore today. Now it's "I'll text you when I get off work". If the other person is busy at the this moment, he'll answer as soon as he will be ready to answer. Which might be 30s if you tried to call him while in the restroom Or while having an argument with his mother :uhh:

edit

In addition, teens usually type much faster than us elders (seriously, but I'm improving)

:rofl: My daughters thumbs move so fast when she's texting they are a blur. I cannot type with my thumbs, but that is all she uses.

For just leaving a short message, I agree text is great, but not for carrying out lengthy conversations, which is what she does. I'll be driving and her little thumbs are just a blur. Of course, I have no idea what she's telling people. AHA! That's it! Mom has no clue what evil the Evo Child is up to!

 

[Evo]

Or would that be Broadwing?

Level 3 bought Broadwing, both of them were my customers at my previous company.

 

[rewebster]

No difference for services that you pay for. For instance, want your car repaired? You pay according to the labor involved in addition to the parts. You think for the cost of an oil change that you can get the muffler and brakes replaced too?

OK-ok---you talked me into into


I'll take three bandwidths, please---with two of those, can I get extra MB's on the side?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

:rofl: My daughters thumbs move so fast when she's texting they are a blur. I cannot type with my thumbs, but that is all she uses.

For just leaving a short message, I agree text is great, but not for carrying out lengthy conversations, which is what she does. I'll be driving and her little thumbs are just a blur. Of course, I have no idea what she's telling people. AHA! That's it! Mom has no clue what evil the Evo Child is up to!

When I am at work it is much easier to get text than a phone call. A phone call demands my attention where as a text I can get to when I feel like it. Same the other way around. I can text someone without feeling as though I am interupting anything. They can get back to me when they are able to.

 

[Evo]

When I am at work it is much easier to get text than a phone call. A phone call demands my attention where as a text I can get to when I feel like it. Same the other way around. I can text someone without feeling as though I am interupting anything. They can get back to me when they are able to.

Heh, I guess I am used to using voicemail for that purpose. I can leave a quick message that they can listen to and respond to at their convenience. Again, my youngest daughter isn't supposed to take personal calls while she is working, so texting is how she gets around it. So I guess that's another reason kids are so used to texting.

 

[Astronuc]

This is part of the shift cell provided us with. It is not only the fact that text message allows you to keep useful information (such as an address) most easily. It is also the fact that one has greater flexibility. One has to remember before cell phones, we had to make plans in advance, such as "let's meet at 4pm tomorrow". It does not make sense anymore today. Now it's "I'll text you when I get off work". If the other person is busy at the this moment, he'll answer as soon as he will be ready to answer. Which might be 30s if you tried to call him while in the restroom Or while having an argument with his mother :uhh:

I can understand a single text message with 'useful information', e.g. an address, or date/time for rendezvous, i.e. something of which one would like to keep a record. But a text conversation?

I suppose texting (on a cell phone) is just another version of chat (on a computer).

 

[Evo]

We're becoming obsolete Astronuc. We belong to the cave days when people actually spoke to each other and used "voice' as a means of communication.

 

[Astronuc]

We're becoming obsolete Astronuc. We belong to the cave days when people actually spoke to each other and used "voice' as a means of communication.

I'm definitely out of step with the modern world, or perhaps it's the modern culture. I'd much rather hear the other's voice.

The again - before the telephone - people would have to write letters. We still write by email, in this case, on forums.

Nevertheless, I do prefer verbal conversation, especially when the other person has a pleasant voice.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm definitely out of step with the modern world, or perhaps it's the modern culture. I'd much rather hear the other's voice.

The again - before the telephone - people would have to write letters. We still write by email, in this case, on forums.

Nevertheless, I do prefer verbal conversation, especially when the other person has a pleasant voice.

I hate speaking with people on the telephone. I would rather text message someone than speak on the phone with them, but I would much rather speak with them face to face, rather than texting them.

 

[Astronuc]

I hate speaking with people on the telephone. I would rather text message someone than speak on the phone with them, but I would much rather speak with them face to face, rather than texting them.

I agree with the face-to-face, but most of my oldest friends live far away (several hundred miles to several thousand miles), so I must be satisfied to talk by phone rather than do face-to-face.