
Democrats unveil legislation forcing the FCC to ban Internet fast lanes - spenvo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/17/this-new-bill-would-force-the-fcc-to-ban-internet-fast-lanes/
======
cornholio
Instead of limiting my ability to enter contracts and chose the
Internet/streaming service I want, I would much rather they devise a
methodology for measuring and enforcing connection performance.

For example, "broadband internet" means at least 50Mbit. "50 Mbit" means that
90% percent of the time, there is a sustained throughput of at least 5MB/s for
a TCP connection to a server in any data-center across the continental US
(assuming the data-center link itself is not congested). "Unmetered" means
that per month, the user can transfer a volume of data of at least 10% of the
volume corresponding to a saturation of the connection 24/7 (1300 GB for a 50
Mbit connection as defined above).

Under such a rule, Comcast's connections could only be sold as "Dial-up+". And
if broadband is not available in an area it's fair game for the municipal or
state authorities to provision it with public funds as a basic need for a
modern citizen; since the incumbent private provider obviously can't get a
return on it's investment (what OTHER reason for not developing your
infrastructure could there be, right ?)

~~~
ldarby
I had to create this account just to correct this. "Broadband" means the data
is modulated on to a wide spectrum signal, on the same copper as the POTS
network. Anything from good old 512kbit/s upwards can be "broadband". I say
"can be", because if it's not using a wide spectrum signal, e.g. fibre-optics,
then that's not broadband.

~~~
w1ntermute
"Broadband" is a well-defined technical term originating from physics. But
"broadband internet" (what the OP was referring to) is a vaguely defined
marketing term that is often used by ISPs to deceive consumers as to the speed
of their connections. The OP is suggesting that that term be repurposed as a
clearly (legally) defined one that improves internet access in America without
introducing onerous regulations.

~~~
wmf
The FCC does have a definition of broadband: currently 4 Mbps, possibly to be
redefined to 10 or 25 Mbps. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2014/05/30...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2014/05/30/the-fcc-may-consider-a-stricter-definition-of-broadband-
in-the-netflix-age/)

------
PaulHoule
The trouble with all this is that it is reactive rather than proactive.

There is a simple solution that would put an end to all this BS, and this is
to separate the last mile from the middle mile the same way that the old AT&T
was broken up to split local from long distance service. (This is how they do
it in the UK and UK people are very happy with their internet service.)

In this case you get a choice of different middle miles and different
television services from different providers. If work got around that "the
Verizon network is congested" people would just switch, and I think you would
find network connectivity problems get fixed in days rather than years.

~~~
rayiner
> There is a simple solution that would put an end to all this BS, and this is
> to separate the last mile from the middle mile the same way that the old
> AT&T was broken up to split local from long distance service

It would be extremely challenging, legally. If we're talking about cable
rather than copper, the last mile was built by private companies with private
money. BT, in contrast, started out as a government-owned corporation, and
when it was privatized, the terms of the separation were written into the
prospectus.

> (This is how they do it in the UK and UK people are very happy with their
> internet service.)

Yet U.K. internet really isn't faster than U.S. internet in areas with
comparable density. According to Ookla's Net Index, average broadband speeds
in say Pennsylvania, a state with less than half the population density of the
U.K. is about the same as in the U.K. (28.3 mbps versus 28.6 mbps). Akamai's
data shows the U.S. ahead of the U.K. in average connection speeds.

~~~
Spooky23
Sure they can. It was done in the 1990's in the US. Regional Bell Operating
Companies were forced to allow other telcos to provision service on their
infrastructure. At one point, I had home phone, long distance, isdn and mobile
on one bill from Sprint.

~~~
rayiner
That infrastructure was all built while AT&T was a government-sanctioned
monopoly with regulated rates and the whole deal. The vast majority of the
cable infrastructure was built with private money, post-deregulation.

~~~
Spooky23
Maybe it varies by state then.

In Upstate NY, you can buy cable services from Time Warner, Earthlink or a
couple of smaller carriers. In the past, this was a good deal, now the 3rd
parties don't seem to have access to higher speed services.

------
insertion
Let’s spend a minute to think about political language. Do we want to “ban
Internet fast lanes” or “ban Internet slow lanes?” I suspect that most would
favor the latter.

~~~
pornel
It is indeed a poor term. I suggest calling it _" bandwidth racketeering"_
("Nice streaming service you have here, it'd be shame if some traffic shaping
happened to it...")

------
mpnordland
What I don't get is why the FCC can't simply tell ISPs to provide the service
their customers pay them to. Seriously. By paying for internet access, the
customer pays the ISP to deliver any packets sent from or to their machine.
This is nothing less that a protection racket in order to get paid twice.
"Dat's a nice video streamin' site you got there, be a real pity if you
couldn' get any customers".

~~~
dragonwriter
> What I don't get is why the FCC can't simply tell ISPs to provide the
> service their customers pay them to.

Contract law already does that. The transparency provisions of the previous
and proposed Open Internet orders aim to solve the main particular problem of
that in the ISP world, which is ambiguity on what exactly the service being
paid for _is_.

(The anti-blocking and anti-discrimination provisions, which are different in
the old and new orders, go further and aim to _align_ what the service being
paid for _is_ with a certain conception of what that service _should be_.)

------
throwaway420
I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a
certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider
the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type
of data that is absolutely critical? Maybe as a business, you actually want
something like Netflix throttled to some extent so that Skype chats that you
depend on are 100% rock solid. Why restrict the possibility for new types of
services to emerge from actual needs?

The real issue with this isn't the lack of network neutrality, but all kinds
of local and other types of regulations that make it extremely difficult for
all but a few connected big companies to take part in. This is why each region
has maybe 1 or 2 really shitty ISPs rather than a decent array of choices.

~~~
Karunamon
What you're describing is QoS. Packet discrimination by _kind_. Bulk file
transfer vs streaming video vs VoIP. Necessary because because the impact if
your torrent downloads go a bit slow is your torrent downloads a bit slow. If
video or VoIP get congested, the effect is the service becomes unusable.

Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by _source and destination_.

It's not a problem if VoIP gets higher priority over web surfing and arbitrary
file downloads. It's a huge problem if the ISP's VoIP service has higher
priority than Skype, despite them being identical traffic.

~~~
danielweber
_Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination._

Net Neutrality seems to be a No True Scotsman where if you ask 10 people on HN
what it _really_ means, you get a dozen different answers.

There are some kinds of NN I support, and some I don't. I would sign up for
the definition in your comment.

~~~
bitJericho
It's not really confusing unless you ask the ISPs. NN is all about treating
all traffic equally. No QoS on the ISP level.

~~~
Karunamon
ISP QoS is fine as long as it's by type and not by source/destination. It's
perfectly reasonable to expect all those people torrenting the latest Game of
Thrones shouldn't impact other people's Skype calls.

This isn't a value judgement on anything, mind, it's all about what the
application needs in order to work. A torrent can still download on a
congested network. A VoIP call will have great difficulty on same.

~~~
bitJericho
If the ISP can't pipe the advertised bandwidth that's not the user's fault.
The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes. As for
torrenting, there's also a uTP which is supposed to help mitigate some issues
at the ISP level.

That all said, if you don't agree that QoS should not be allowed at the ISP
level than you don't agree with NN. It's really not complicated.

~~~
Karunamon
Advertised bandwidth is always an "up to" number, not a dedicated pipe. If you
want that, you want business class service at a significant price premium.

>The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes.

And the Skypers should absolutely be allowed to have their calls. QoS ensures
that everyone has a minimum usable level of service.

QoS and net neutrality are two different things, as previously mentioned. If
you'd like to argue otherwise, you'll have to do better than simply gain-say
my definition.

~~~
bitJericho
If the network doesn't have the throughput, then QoS makes sense. However, QoS
is by definition not NN

~~~
Karunamon
Again, you really fail to explain why you think packet prioritization based on
type is the exact same thing as packet prioritization based on source and
destination. The latter is always anticompetitive at the ISP level, the former
can be, but _needs_ to exist to operate a network of any decent size.

~~~
bitJericho
Please explain why it needs to exist? All my packets, no matter what they are,
should have equal access to another person's packets on the same network.

I myself will employ QoS so that my packets are arranged how I like them in
the bandwidth provided by my ISP.

If my ISP cannot give me sustained bandwidth, then I don't receive proper
internet service where anything but browsing and maybe streaming will be
great.

In that case, I expect to pay less, not to have the ISP implement some
technology to decide my traffic isn't as important as my neighbor's skype
chat.

~~~
Karunamon
The why is simple. Bandwidth is limited on a given time scale and load is
unpredictable. QoS ensures that all of your customers receive a minimum usable
level of service. If a bunch of people run off to download a given torrent
simultaneously, blowing well past average projected usage and you're not
packet shaping, anything that relies on real time packet transfers on that
network is hosed.

It's that simple. It's ensuring that a minority of customers can't fuck up the
service for the majority.

Everything you've mentioned so far is a lot of statement with no backup. You
want "sustained bandwidth" \- this is not a thing that most ISPs sell to
normal customers at rates mere mortals can afford, and for good reason.

 _All my packets, no matter what they are, should have equal access to another
person 's packets on the same network._

QoS's entire _raison d 'etre_ is ensuring this equal access by making sure
sudden high load does not negatively impact the service for everyone else.
Would you prefer your call quality/game/video not get shitty when the latest
GoT episode comes out? Or would you prefer a complete wild-west free for all
where the "bandwidth hogs" can quite literally ruin a service for everyone?

And don't say "expand capacity", either. Nobody in the world, not even Google,
has the ability to deliver their max advertised bandwidth to all subscribers
simultaneously.

Please, for your own sanity, learn the difference between average speed and
max speed.

~~~
bitJericho
Sustained bandwidth is not out of the ordinary. I consistently get the same
bandwidth day after day, but I realize at times it could have issues, because
I don't have a dedicated line.

When I don't use QoS, I can't download a large file and skype at the same
time. If I use QoS on my network, it's no problem. Clearly this means my ISP
is not doing anything particularly special with my data, and I get on just
fine.

I go through Midcontinent Communications, one of the better ISPs in the US.

~~~
Karunamon
I am very, very jealous of you. I've got a coworker who used to live in that
part of the states who tells me leaving that particular ISP was one of the
hardest parts of moving here :)

That said, I bet they got out in front of projected growth so they have a
large surplus of capacity. Still, I'd be willing to bet you large and
ridiculous amounts of cash that the right combination of growth + popular
event would result in contention.

------
dkhenry
So it sounds like this is less of a law restricting tiering and more of
direction to have the FCC make regulations to restrict tiering. Also not
having seen the bill I can't say for sure but the language "between the
customer and ISP" is a little shaky since someone like Comcast is both a
customer ISP and backhaul provider so can they claim they are operating as a
backhaul company when they change money to Netflix .

~~~
eli
To be fair, that is typically how it's done. Congress passes a law that
directs the relevant agency to figure out the minutia of implementing it.

~~~
dkhenry
The issue I have with the model ( which is true across the board on issues )
is that with so many things by leaving it up to regulators you are putting
governance in the hands of unelected career beurocrats with minimal oversight
over what is actually being done. That is why the next phase in governance is
always legal wrangling over regulations since the legislation has given such
wiggle room to regulators to implement policy.

~~~
eli
Do you have an example in mind when you talk about regulations that go against
the intent of Congress? Not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems like the
exception.

What's the alternative? Congress should rewrite FCC rules itself? How else
would you bring them into compliance with the new law?

------
TheBiv
>>"It wouldn't give the commission new powers, but the bill — known as the
Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act — would give the FCC crucial
political cover to prohibit what consumer advocates say would harm startup
companies and Internet services by requiring them to pay extra fees to ISPs."

The title seems a bit off. Wouldn't Congress only be the ones that could ban
internet slow lanes? Not the FCC.

~~~
ethbro
The debate is three part:

Part A) Whether the FCC should use the existing powers Congress granted it to
push network neutrality

Part B) Whether Congress should force the FCC to use its existing powers to
push for network neutrality

Part C) Whether Congress should grant the FCC new powers to push for network
neutrality (the FCC reclassifying broadband as a utility probably falls in
here as well, given its impact)

~~~
adestefan
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on A.

------
crazy1van
"Leahy and Matsui's proposed ban on fast lanes would apply only to the
connections between consumers and their ISPs"

I don't see how this will address the issue in a practical sense. When I'm
having trouble streaming netflix on Verizon, my speed tests still return a
solid 25mbps. The connection between Verizon and Netflix is the issue, not the
connection between my house and Verizon.

~~~
autokad
this is why i find it strange people are basically saying netflix is sticking
up for network neutrality, when in essence netflix is asking for special
treatment because they are big.

------
beat
I love how the very first paragraph implies that the problem is Netflix (as
the example company) getting special, preferential treatment, when in fact,
Netflix has been obviously punished for not paying ransom money, and has led
the charge on the net neutrality movement that led to this bill.

But this is the Washington Post, the Pravda of the Beltway. What do you
expect? Honesty?

------
protomyth
"will unveil a piece of bicameral legislation Tuesday"

Is the text of the actual bill up yet? I cannot find it.

~~~
protomyth
I guess this is the text:
[http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/The%20Online%20Com...](http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/The%20Online%20Competition%20and%20Consumer%20Choice%20Act.pdf)

------
exabrial
God Dangit. Don't make this a Red vs Blue Debate.

~~~
dragonwriter
Its been a red vs. blue debate for a long time. Why is it surprising that
significant issues of government policy in which the opposing sides represent
conflicts between the deeply-held interests of different groups also turn out
to be issues of division between political parties. I mean, isn't that exactly
what you'd expect?

------
brokenparser
What are these so-called "fast lanes"?

------
ChikkaChiChi
That title looks like it was written by a Telco Lobbyist. Immediately it's
made partisan (Democrats are regulating!), dire (unveils has a negative
connotation), overbearing (forcing the FCC oh noes!), and incorrect (no such
thing as an Internet "fast lane").

A better title could read: "Lawmakers Introduce bill to halt ISPs crippling
Netflix-type Internet Services"

It's no wonder we can't get anything done for good in Washington.

------
jharig23
Anyone have a link to the legislation?

------
deciplex
I wonder which lobbying group will kill this at the eleventh hour this time?
Will it be the trial lawyers again? Hollywood? Hollywood lawyers? Will it be
the NSA, who claim they can not comply with the directive?

Whatever the outcome, rest assured that this Congress is at its most creative
when finding a reason to kill any bill that has the support of the American
people.

~~~
kiba
_Whatever the outcome, rest assured that this Congress is at its most creative
when finding a reason to kill any bill that has the support of the American
people._

Phone call works, but we are too distracted to care or that we don't care in
the first place.

