
F.C.C. to Try Again on Net Neutrality - 001sky
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-open-internet.html?hp&_r=0
======
jfasi
Just to be clear, this approach is awesome and completely correct. However,
it's important to remember that this policy isn't stable. It's liable to
change with the FCC chairman. Should the next administration choose to
regulate ISPs more loosely, these gains will be reversed.

The only solution is for Congress to pass these regulations and enshrine net
neutrality as a fundamental principle of internet regulation.

~~~
jwarkentin
Or we can replace the internet with a mesh net and solve the problem of
regulation, centralized control and ISPs altogether :)

~~~
lrem
As someone who spent his PhD in a building with people working on mesh nets I
just want to ask one question:

Would you accept return to text-only communication, not always instantaneous?

If so, mesh nets are there for us.

~~~
jwarkentin
Did you know that cell phone networks today are mesh networks? There is a huge
amount of work going into mesh network development, though admittedly, there's
still a long way to go.

Also, did you see this (one of many interesting efforts):
[http://openlibernet.org/faq.html](http://openlibernet.org/faq.html)

All that said, even if we just had a functioning alternative (even if it were
significantly slower), it would give us options when we need uncensored,
unregulated communication. It's better than having absolutely no options when
your government oversteps its bounds.

~~~
maxsilver
> Did you know that cell phone networks today are mesh networks?

I don't think this is true, at least not using Wikipedia definition of "mesh
network".

Mesh Networks are where each node relays data to other nodes, with data
"hopping" from node to node.

That does not happen on cell networks. Each phone relays data to a cell tower,
but thats it. There's no "hopping" from phone to phone, or from tower to
tower. (Your phone might move between towers, taking a phone call from one
tower to another as you drive, but there's never more than one "hop". Your
phone call never jumps through three cell towers before hitting backhaul, for
instance.)

For the same reason that having a few Wifi hotspots backhauled in a building
isn't a "mesh network", a cell phone network is also not a "mesh network".

~~~
spc476
Not quite true. If you are driving (say, along I-95 on a long trip) it's true
that your phone will disassociate with one tower going out of range to a new
tower coming into range, and the phone switches behind the towers will
transfer "ownership" (more like association), but once you (if you aren't
driving, or your passenger) accept a phone call, things get a bit different.

The cell phone is answered. So, it goes from switch O (the caller) to switch A
(where your cell phone is associated with). Eventually, you'll move out of
range of towers for switch A, and come into range of towers for switch B. But
because the phone network is circuit switched, you can't just create a circuit
from O to B. No, what happens is that A forms a connection to B, so now the
call is going O -> A -> B. Talk long enough, and eventually, your call may end
up going O -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F.

So while it's true that your call doesn't go through multiple towers, it
_does_ go through multiple switches (as long as you are talking on the cell
phone, and the cell phone is moving).

~~~
ghshephard
Are these links RF or Land Based? Are there any examples of fast (> 1 megabit)
RF Mesh Networks with greater than 5 hops in the RF Mesh and, say, around 20
active talkers at once behind the last hops of the Mesh?

I'm happy to get 100 kbits/talker in that scenario with todays FHSS
technology, 500 meters/hop, 1 watt power, 200 kHz channel width and 20 MHz of
spectrum in the ISM band.

Of course, the advantage of Mesh Networks is they require little in the way of
infrastructure, and scale up into the millions of nodes, with 50 million
active node networks practical. But high data rates are not one of the
properties of such networks.

~~~
spc476
Well, it's RF between the cell phone and the cell tower. Between the switches,
it's most likely land based circuits, but really, they could be anything.

------
zacinbusiness
I wonder how this sort of thing will affect Google's fiber offerings. Say what
you will about Google (I don't trust them, but I don't trust
anyone...including YOU!) but they run one hell of a tight ship and they are
aggressive when it comes to their business interests (note G+ integrations
with all other GOOG services).

If Google Fiber comes to an area that's controlled by TimeCast (ComWarner?)
will Google enter into an aggressive pricing war? I mean there were rumors
several years ago that they intended to license the dead air waves to use as
free internet. And I'd let Google inject ads into my browser if it meant
getting that insane bandwidth - especially if it's for free.

~~~
massysett
Negatively. A heavy regulatory burden will raise Google's costs to enter into
this business. In particular, any last-mile network that Google would build
would be much less valuable to Google if the government requires Google to be
"net neutral." Of course Google wants to discriminate in favor of its traffic
--and why shouldn't it? It built the network!

Government enforcement of "net neutrality" is a great idea if we want to
cement the role of the incumbent operators.

~~~
joe_the_user
Your post seems confused.

There's nothing in a net neutrality demand that would change Google's costs as
such. One might argue that neutrality might impact Google's potential profits
- but since Google already has such a large portion of the net's traffic, it's
main business model has involved a neutral net and they have been a strong
advocate. Since they profit from a large portion of Internet traffic, their
aim has been to increase this traffic to thus increase their profits (IE, the
ability to shake-down Netflix is not worth anywhere as much as the other ways
Google makes money - see: "world's largest advertising company").

On the other hand, some of their motive for entering the ISP business has been
make sure the current operators respect net neutrality and don't engaging in
sleazy that exploit their monopoly (throttling, ad-substitution, etc). If net
neutrality were guaranteed, Google might feel less urgency in entering this
business. On the other hand, they aren't doing this at a loss so they may well
continue.

Also, Google has a vast internal network that carries it's internal traffic.
This network isn't part of the Internet at all and won't be affected ever by
net neutrality issues.

------
MBCook
I thought the ruling said they didn't have the authority to do this without
classifying ISPs as common carriers. If they're not going to do that (per the
end of the article) then what changed that makes it legal this time?

~~~
lallysingh
I took "The commission will not seek to immediately reclassify Internet
service as a utility. Mr. Wheeler said that the commission will retain the
right to do so, however, if its new rules are approved and appear not to be
working adequately." to mean that they'll be using the utility-classification
as a lingering threat if the ISPs don't follow along.

~~~
rhizome
It's odd to see utility status classified as a punishment for industry.
Shouldn't it refer to the technology (water delivery, electricity, possibly
internet) and its role in the customers' lives?

~~~
rayiner
It is in a way a punishment. What makes a company profitable? Creating things
people want and need. What makes them really profitable? Creating things
people really want and need. But if you build something people _really_ need,
you get classified as a utility, which limits your ability to profit from what
you're building and also drives out most of the spark from the industry. Our
water pipes are mostly 100+ years old, our electric grid is ancient, most of
our power is provided by plants that are decades old, etc. Chicago
decommissioned a 110 year old coal plant in 2012. Our utilities are not
exactly places bustling with innovation, new ideas, new technologies.
Regulation has effectively killed the once promising nuclear industry, for
example.

~~~
AnIrishDuck
I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. There's been tons of research into
nuclear power, for example. Look at the generation IV reactor designs [1]. And
there's been tons of interest and investment in cleaner electric power
alternatives [2].

The examples you cite (coal plants staying open forever, water pipes, etc) are
massive capital investments. That's the primary reason they've stayed open /
haven't changed for so long, once you spend that much money you want to milk
it for every penny it's worth.

Utility regulation is burdensome and costly, but I don't think it necessarily
kills innovation in industry like you intimate.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor)
2\. [https://www.americaspower.org/our-commitment-clean-energy-
fu...](https://www.americaspower.org/our-commitment-clean-energy-future)

~~~
chc
> _I 'm not sure this is a fair assessment. There's been tons of research into
> nuclear power, for example. Look at the generation IV reactor designs [1]._

Research isn't industry. The regulations don't prevent people from _designing_
reactors; just from building nuclear power plants.

~~~
tbrownaw
I think that's more due to the NRC and the NIMBYs, than it is due to being a
utility.

~~~
chc
I don't think the statement "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the reason
nuclear power hasn't taken off" is incompatible with the statement "Regulation
has effectively killed the once promising nuclear industry."

~~~
tbrownaw
Right. But the relevant regulations are because people are scared of the word
"nuclear", rather than because electricity is a utility.

~~~
saalweachter
I would also cite differential regulation.

Nuclear is a significantly more regulated industry than coal and natural gas.
Consequently, it is cheaper to run coal and natural gas plants, just because
there are large external costs associated with natural gas and coal
(emissions, environmental damage) which are passed on to the taxpayer instead
of the consumer.

It is quite possible that if natural gas and coal were forced to pay for their
externalities (via regulation) nuclear would be more cost-competitive, and
you'd see more advancement of nuclear technology in industry.

------
brownbat
I feel like I could sort of wrap my head around Net Neutrality in a world with
just content providers and ISPs.

Once people start talking about CDNs and peering agreements, and all those
massive middleman infrastructures most consumers don't even know exist, this
issue gets orders of magnitude more complex. It seems unregulatable.

What is Netflix supposed to do if Verizon just passes data around its network
to keep it "full" all the time and refuses to open up good datalines to
Netflix CDNs? What is the network supposed to do if a major data provider ends
up choking the lines just to move from one endpoint to the other, not even
stopping at customers?

I doubt any rules would work here except for actual enforcement of anti-
monopoly regulations on a locality by locality basis. Maybe Netflix needs to
start rolling out fiber and competing directly with ISPs (most of them are
already competing by providing content anyway).

------
dasmithii
Although legal action against ISP censoring and monopolization sounds
beneficial, I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open
Internet pursuits entirely.

It should be by the people, for the people.

~~~
gtaylor
If internet service were a luxury product, I'd agree. However, an internet
connection is every bit as important as having a phone (land or cell) these
days.

Assuming we completely de-regulate, you'd still have municipal governments
striking these anti-competitive monopoly deals. In fact, there'd be no barrier
to it at all, since we're de-regulated in this case.

Don't like Comcast? Better not move to City A, because they "own" it, even
though some of the fiber was paid for by the residents.

~~~
gojomo
If that's the problem, why not prohibit municipalities from creating local
monopolies? Why have the FCC dictate limits on the design of network pricing
and services everywhere, even where there are many options?

~~~
gtaylor
That sounds like regulation, to me.

~~~
gojomo
Limiting governments from making corrupt or short-sighted mistakes isn't
usually considered 'regulation', but even if it is, this 'regulation' is also
simultaneously local-franchise 'deregulation'.

And it's more sensible, since competition is a cure-all, than federal
'neutrality' rules about what services are allowable.

~~~
gtaylor
Looking back the this parent's original statement:

> I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet
> pursuits entirely.

What you are describing doesn't follow this. You are in support of regulation,
the thread OP isn't.

------
MWil
How can one tell if Netflix is purposely being throttled as opposed to it just
being heavy traffic periods?

~~~
twoodfin
In my experience all recent Netflix slowness is a product of congestion at
peering points between Netflix's ISPs (Cogent, Level 3) and the consumer
broadband ISPs (Comcast, Verizon). There's a good article in the WSJ today on
the dispute:

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304899704579391223249896550.html&ei=MekEU4fvHoWQ1AGWyIDgBg&usg=AFQjCNHyOtOjhwqssjZ8zKDLuKKnWuwy3w&sig2=BDZmNqfIIuvTgeaa3j0ICw&bvm=bv.61535280,d.dmQ)

This kind of dispute is not really anything a Network Neutrality regime as
currently proposed could fix.

~~~
seanmcq
There are a few interesting choices in your comment that make it appear to be
an Astroturf:

1\. You state that it is "your experience" that "all" recent Netflix slowness
is a result of peering contract disputes. Unless you are a network operations
engineer at one of these companies how could you have this experience?

2\. You link to the WSJ, which is not a credible source when discussing big
media companies.

That said, you may well be a real person, in which case I would recommend
changing your wording on commonly astroturfed topics.

~~~
samelawrence
I'm not familiar with the term astroturf in this context. Explain?

~~~
positr0n
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

Basically it's a play on "grass roots" movements. Powerful groups attempt to
mimic grass roots, populist movements by hiring a bunch of employees to pose
and regular people and write comments on forums, etc. And as you know,
astroturf is fake grass.

------
eck
I worry that the rules will forbid ISPs from having explicit
whitelists/blacklists, but will do nothing to prevent them from having
undersized and saturated transit links then demand payment for peering with
content providers like Netflix.

What would happen if consumer ISPs were required, for each customer, to choose
a single point (at the metro level, probably) where they are required to peer
openly? That allow all Netflix-like companies access to customers, but since
it's a point local to the customer, would not impose any long-distance
bandwidth requirement on the ISP.

------
gz5
FCC can help open up local access ISP competition. Spectrum reform, permitting
dynamic sharing of existing spectrum, etc.

Anything else is a band-aid on top of an injury (the ISP monopolies) that
actually requires surgery.

~~~
wmf
Any form of wireless seems like a band-aid compared to wired broadband.

------
x0054
They need to regulate ISPs as common carriers. Anything short of that will
result in ISPs constantly lobbing to get more say, until they get what they
want. We can NOT rely on the free market to sort the ISPs out because there is
0 competition in that market.

~~~
craftkiller
While I agree that right now there is zero competition in that market, the
reason is because we didn't let the free market decide. We gave government
approved monopolies to them and now we're seeing the consequences.

~~~
x0054
What does a market with competition looks like? 20 cables from 20 different
ISPs hanging outside my window? ISP is a utility, like water, electricity, and
gas. Maybe once we have good wireless technology it would be different.

~~~
lutusp
> Maybe once we have good wireless technology it would be different.

Or a bunch of satellites in low orbits, which is something Google wants to do.
A number of companies have tried this idea, so far without economic success,
but as time passes it's becoming more practical, and eventually it will
probably become feasible. Once it does, many companies will do it, and you
will be able to choose which company you want to get satellite Internet
service from. Finally there will be competition.

~~~
x0054
The problem with low orbit satellites is the backbone connection speed. The
way I understand it, the individual connections to each subscriber isn't
really a problem. But say you have a satellite serving 10k clients at one
time. If you have a service with any scale, that's realistic. To provide a
good quality service to those users you need to get at least a 200 gigabit
connection to an Internet backbone. Getting that over fiber isn't difficult,
but over air, not sure if the technology is there yet.

I am so looking foreword to satellite Internet, mainly because my new home is
off the grid, and I have no Internet at all there. The best option I found so
far gives me 25 gigs per month for $70. I would gladly pay $140 for 50+ gb but
that's not even an option. Unlimited, fast, and ubiquitous Internet would be
amazing, but in my research I have yet to see any company that's even close to
offering that.

If any one can recommend a satellite Internet company with high or now
bandwidth caps, I am all ears. My budget is something under $200/m for
unlimited or 200+gb/m.

~~~
lutusp
> The problem with low orbit satellites is the backbone connection speed.

Yes, and system congestion, which you also mention. This is why so many
different ideas are being considered -- balloons and solar-powered high-
altitude drones to name two. But satellites, in spite of their drawbacks, at
least in principle would have longer lives and wold present a lower
per/subscriber cost.

Because of the propagation delay you mention, satellites work very poorly with
VOIP, in fact existing synchronous-orbit satellite methods won't work with
VOIP at all. Future low-orbit satellites might be more acceptable, but
propagation delay will always pose a problem for anything but terrestrial
fiber.

------
etler
If the FCC classifies a carrier as a common carrier, does that apply just to
the service, or also to the infrastructure itself? If cable companies were
made into a common carrier would cable television also have the same
regulations applied to it?

