
The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works - noncoml
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/fcc-still-doesnt-know-how-internet-works
======
combo4327
EFF claims that caching is not a integral part for ISPs. They use Sonic as an
example, but why no mention of other ISPs? Doesn't this link say otherwise?

"For unanticipated traffic spikes, Comcast absorbs the excess traffic by
automatically spreading traffic to multiple CDN caches in the same metro.
Comcast has over 100 separate caching locations in the U.S., and spreads its
CDN traffic to multiple proximate physical locations in each major metro
without a tradeoff in performance. These CDN locations are strategically
deployed across the U.S., which (1) enables delivery in large metro areas and
(2) more evenly spreads demand to prevent congestion that commonly impacts
high throughput HD video and large file downloads. In addition, the Comcast
network is well interconnected with many other networks. This enables high-
quality content distribution, and allows content to be localized for
distribution just as effectively."

[https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/blog/how-
comcasts...](https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/blog/how-comcasts-cdn-
handles-traffic-spikes)

~~~
Dylan16807
The CDN is a service they sell to content providers, to do part of the hosting
for them. It's not part of their internet service.

------
austincheney
To be fair almost none of those points, while completely valid, are within the
FCC's charter.

The only regulatory mandate the FCC has with regard to internet is to ensure
that ISPs offer uniformity of pricing and service as those schemes cross state
boundaries (interstate regulation of wires and transmission), which isn't the
problem net neutrality aims to solve.

~~~
neom
I used to believe that also, but it turns out the FCC does the FTCs job when
it comes to telecom and the internet (anti-trust etc) in the context of media.
Personally I think that's the most important issue here, in my opinion the FCC
is doing a job the FTC should be doing.

~~~
austincheney
Good point. I really wish congress would codify this so that things like net
neutrality would have no excuse for contention.

~~~
neom
Yes indeed. My opinions around "net neutrality" would change a lot IF the FTC
was responsible for the media component, as it sits the lobbing allows for too
much conflation of issues.

------
duxup
I'd like to know if "they" really don't know, or simply someone(s) were tasked
to come up with some arguments and those in power really don't care how
accurate it is or not.

~~~
rhino369
The problem is shoehorning the internet into a regulatory scheme devised in
the 1930s for telephone service that was modified pre-modern internet (in
1996). The regulatory scheme was designed to regulate Southern Bell, a
telecommunication service, who used to dial into an "information service" like
CompuServe, without harshly regulating CompuServe.

But broadband ISPs sort of operate as both and neither. You can call them
either an information service or a telecommunication service depending on how
you view them. But there are problems with both labels.

Which led the FCC labeling cable broadband an info service and DSL a
telecommunication service. That ruined the DSL market in the USA until the FCC
decided to label all ISPs as information services.

In 2015, the FCC switched back to telecommunication service because they
lacked the power to apply net neutrality to an info service.

Really, we need a new regulatory scheme, but good luck getting that through
congress.

~~~
magila
The DSL market was doomed to failure not because it was classified as a
telecommunication service, but because it is technically inferior to cable.
DSL's limited range and bandwidth causes it to have spotty coverage and
generally slower speeds than cable. Slower speed by itself might not have been
fatal, but it also caused even more spotty availability of TV service over
DSL. The inability to offer "triple play" service made DSL unattractive
compared to cable even for people who didn't care too much about the speed of
their internet service.

~~~
rhino369
In most of the world, DSL is more successful than cable.

Title II also prevented telecoms from replacing DSL with fiber lines that
could do all of that. After Title II ended, AT&T and Verizon suddenly poured
money into Fiber.

It's important to note that even the Obama era FCC didn't want Title II
actually applied. They just used it to get net neutrality. They suspended
almost all other Title II rules.

~~~
magila
What? Verizon rolled out the bulk of its fiber service between 2005 and 2010
at which point it halted new roll outs. AT&T has been pretty miserly with it's
fiber roll out until just the last year or so when they accelerated deployment
as a condition of their merger with DirectTV.

~~~
rhino369
Title II was removed from Verizon's service in early 2005. Before then they
had to do local loop unbundling and reselling.

In 2015 it was added back, but with almost all Title II rules suspended. Like
price controls, unbundling, reselling, etc.

------
corey_moncure
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his job depends
upon his not understanding it!"

------
AndyMcConachie
For calling the FCC out on their lack of technical knowledge I find this quote
rather lackluster from the EFF.

"Every machine translates IP addresses from machine-order to network-order;"

No. Network order is big-endian, and for big-endian architectures there is no
translation that occurs.

Also, "As the FCC would have it, an Internet user actively expects their ISP
to provide DNS to them."

Yeah, they do. Just because most users don't know what DNS is doesn't mean
they don't expect it. They expect their Internet connection to work and part
of that is DNS resolution. Come on EFF you can do better than this.

~~~
RandomInteger4
Isn't that a rather pedantic swipe? How many machines do you know which are
still big-endian?

DNS resolution is done by your operating system; just because ISPs provide DNS
servers doesn't mean that's a service they're solely responsible for
considering you can switch DNS servers at any time, with the exception of ISPs
who wrongly prohibit such things. In many cases DNS resolution is sped up by
changing DNS servers; weird that eh?

------
compsciphd
If the FCC doesn't know how the internet works, why does the EFF want them
regulating it?

