
Europe reverses course on net neutrality legislation - mercurial
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/europe-reverses-course-on-net-neutrality-legislation/?r
======
KaiserPro
We don't have the same problem in europe with net neutrality.

The problem in the states is very very different. In the states you have three
corporations providing shit, slow service. Th

Traffic shaping, which stops one person on a contented link (ie ADSL) ruining
everyone else's day by torrenting every last drop of bandwidth. Its been a
fact of life for many years.

THe problem in the states can be characterised in two ways:

* A lack of competition

There is often only one ISP in town, and they don't have to try hard. This
means that service is terrible, and so is innovation.

* A lack of bandwidth

In Europe bandwidth exchanges, or peering exchanges are normally run by a
cooperative. This means that its in everyone's interest to talk to everyone
else as fast as possible. Its really really cheap to peer in london,
([http://www.lonap.net/fees.shtml](http://www.lonap.net/fees.shtml))

In the states, exchanges are run by either AT&T, verizon or level3. Which
means everything costs squillions. As there is no need to provide more
bandwidth, because customers can't move between ISPs so no one peers.

For example in the EU, ISPs are more than keen to have CDN leaf nodes in their
infrastructure, it lowers costs and improves customer experiences. However
they can't charge Netflix et al to install them because there is too much
competition.

Its not like they can limit access to netflix for a few months to make a
point, because their customers would change ISPs. Something not possible in
the States.

So net neutrality is really a side issue to competition.

~~~
chimeracoder
> So net neutrality is really a side issue to competition.

No, net neutrality is not a side-issue to competition.

Competition would mitigate some of the harms of non-neutrality, but it does
not address the full picture. Non-discrimination is essential both for
consumers and for content producers[0]. Non-neutrality has an incredibly
chilling effect on business, even if it only applies to a portion of the
population[1].

We need both neutrality and competition; we can't sacrifice either one for the
other.

[0] ie, web companies, startups

[1] [https://avc.com/2014/01/vc-pitches-in-a-year-or-
two/](https://avc.com/2014/01/vc-pitches-in-a-year-or-two/)

~~~
KaiserPro
As someone who works for a content producer, the only place to make money is
in the gatekeeping to content.

Once again, with competition that sort of practice doesn't work. If a service
is popular it will cost customers to ban it.

Nokia phones came with music for the best part of 3 years, it didn't stop the
rise of spotify. (back when data cost £1 a megabyte)

Spotify is bundled with many contracts here in the UK, but people still use
other services.

None of those VC ideas are businesses, it won't be net neutrality that stops
them it'll be common sense. Who invests in clones of already loss making
services?

------
fuligo
This is why I fear net neutrality (and the internet as we know it) don't stand
a chance.

A lot has been accomplished with public awareness and public outcry has
repeatedly averted disaster - _so far_. But the proponents of this come back
with another attempt at least once a year, in both Europe and the US, and they
have money on their side. It's amazing net neutrality has gone on as long as
it did, against vast corporate and political interests.

Whereas net neutrality advocates have to beat this back _every time_
everywhere, their opposition has to be successful _only once_ , and only in
one of these regions, for the whole thing to fall.

It is, I'm afraid, just a matter of time.

~~~
orthecreedence
It's very true it's a war. Each win we get against idiot corporations is a
battle won, but the war rages on. Hard to say if it'll ever be "won."

It's especially hard when so many people are spouting stuff about how the free
market will solve this (if I got a dollar every time "free market" was the
drooled out answer to a complicated problem...). It's like we have to convince
a critical mass of our peers of the benefits of free speech every time the
issue comes up.

However, it's still important we fight each battle, each time one rears its
ugly head, wherever it happens, with whatever resources we have available. The
internet is too powerful a tool to be left in the hands of greedy slimeballs.
It's the great equalizer. Anyone can have a voice, and anyone can listen to
that voice, whether you're a giant corporation or a 12 year-old kid with a
good idea.

It's worth the struggle.

~~~
SixSigma
The free market would solve it. ISPs do not operate in a free market.

~~~
coldpie
I'm gonna drop a train on you. Unless you're seriously suggesting living in an
anarchic society where might means right, there is no such thing as a "free
market." There are only differing levels of regulation. At a very minimum you
need some body to enforce contract law. More specifically to this issue, you
have the problem of running lines to peoples' houses. With no regulation and
no sharing of poles/lines, you'd have very high barriers to entry (read:
monopolies, bad for consumers) and dozens or hundreds of poles and lines in
every yard (bad for the environment and the people who live in it). So okay,
you build a few lines and enforce the line owners to share the lines equally
to create a "free market" in the service provider space. But now you've
introduced regulation and destroyed the "free market" in the line and pole
provider space.

Boy, this is complicated, isn't it? It's almost like "free market" isn't a
magic incantation that fixes everything.

~~~
SixSigma
Hence my replying to the parent

------
lorddoig
Net neutrality is very important, but it occurs to me that when we finally
figure out that we don't need separate telephone lines, cable tv, etc - i.e.
when we realise _it 's all just data_ and one-pipe-fits-all - then it seems
fairly obvious that your neighbours 999/911 VoIP call should perhaps not be
drowned out by 4K Netflix. And neither should your burglar alarm. Or panic
button. Or self-driving car. Or robotic doctor.

It's an issue in its infancy now, sure, but it will become a problem.

~~~
Arnt
The issue has stayed in its infancy for 35 years so far (Jon Postel wrote
about it in January 1980), so do you think it will become a bigger problem in
the next five? Ten? Twenty? If so, why?

~~~
kristoffer
The answer to that should be pretty obvious. How many different services
relied on internet in 1980? How many will in twenty years?

And I'm not sure the issue still is in its infancy. It's becoming a problem
and it's stopping further innovation. I think we really need to think about
"internet 2.0".

~~~
Arnt
"Many" and "even more". That's not the point.

The internet has added hosts, users and services every year since 1980. It
didn't cross a threshold to need priority blah in 1981, not in 1982 either,
not in any of the 33 following years. What's so special about the 36th year?
Or the 40th?

------
ticking
TL;DR The only problem is that ISPs love to oversell their capacities. And
important services don't need that much bandwidth. NN has nothing to do with
this.

The "911 calls should not be interrupted by torrents" is such a load of crap
argument. It has nothing to do with net neutrality but is all about service
level agreements.

With landlines, the main problem here is not that your neighbour could prevent
you from making a 911 call by torrenting, but that his torrenting affects your
bandwidth at all.

When you buy 10mbit from your ISP, you should _always_ be provided with that
speed, and the ISP should take measures to ensure that. Not on a per service
level, but on a per customer basis.

But instead ISPs like to sell "up to 25mbit" offers which actually means
"0mbit guaranteed, the rest is lottery" because you share that "25mbit"
connection with everybody on the street.

Mobile contracts are a bit trickier, because there the topology is unknown and
can change anytime, but even here we can calculate a lower bound if we take
into account that each lte cell can only support a few hundred [(maybe a few
thousand, if you have really fancy tech and own a very wide frequency
spectrum)]([https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Plz-anyone-help-me-
How-11807...](https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Plz-anyone-help-me-
How-1180727.S.217555082)) connections at the same time.

Even if we assumed that an lte cell can have an utopian 10.000 _active_ users
using every available frequency, we would still be left with
300mbit/10.000=30kbit per user, [which is still enough for that goddamn 911
call.]([http://www.erlang.com/bandwidth.html](http://www.erlang.com/bandwidth.html))

------
hereonbusiness
>The proposals did not go unopposed. More than 100 MEPs signed a letter to the
Telecoms council that accused it of "lacking ambition". "Weakened proposals on
net neutrality go against the European Parliament's repeated calls for clear
definitions," it read. "We call on you to have clearly defined net neutrality
rules for Europe."

I think this is the important part, yes some services probably should be
considered special, many people here mention VoIP as an example, but it must
be clearly defined in the law, we must not give ISPs the power to decide what
is special because the law would be become effectively worthless.

~~~
icebraining
And then a new service that requires low latency appears. Have fun waiting for
the European Parliament to vote on it, for the EC to ratify the change, and
for each member state to turn it into law.

But hey, I'm sure the providers of the services that are already in the law
(like VoIP) will be very grateful for this rent you've granted them.

~~~
hereonbusiness
What would be the alternative, should we just get rid of the laws then? I
think that would be an order of magnitude worse than having to wait.

Also, in my mind special would mean that the service is of great public
importance, it doesn't seem likely to me for such things just turn up every
other day.

~~~
icebraining
_What would be the alternative, should we just get rid of the laws then? I
think that would be an order of magnitude worse than having to wait._

We don't have net neutrality laws in Europe right now to get rid of. The
alternative is doing nothing, which in my experience is working pretty well.
Are you European? Are ISPs in your area trying to slow down some traffic? If
not, what problem exactly are you trying to solve?

And even if you _are_ having problems, why do they must be solved at the EU
level?

 _Also, in my mind special would mean that the service is of great public
importance, it doesn 't seem likely to me for such things just turn up every
other day._

Services don't appear and are suddenly recognized as of great importance. They
start small and unimportant until they gain enough momentum to be recognized
by the public at large. And they'll never will if you enshrine into law the
privilege of existing ones.

~~~
hereonbusiness
>... what problem exactly are you trying to solve?

Look at what happened in the US, net neutrality was not an issue, just like it
isn't really in the EU at this time, then services like Hulu/Netflix/Youtube
appeared. In the US like in Europe most ISPs are either Cable companies or
Telecoms which offer their own IPTV. Now you as a ISP have a competing service
using your network, why would you just tolerate that if you don't have to?

Well they didn't, Netflix is now paying off AT&T, Comcast and Verizon so they
won't throttle its service. Now in order for your service to compete with
Netflix you'll have to pay up too.

How does that further competition?

>And even if you are having problems, why do they must be solved at the EU
level?

Why not? How is the EU's common market supposed to work if we just keep
implementing things like this on a country by country basis.

> Services don't appear and are suddenly recognized as of great importance.
> They start small and unimportant until they gain enough momentum to be
> recognized by the public at large. And they'll never will if you enshrine
> into law the privilege of existing ones.

Again I don't think this will be an issue, even if you allow for special
cases, _Netflix_ should never be special, and neither should probably 99% of
services available today. VoIP is special (and I guess is already treated as
such by ISPs) because it is a replacement for PSTN which was special and you
can't have voice communication be degraded because people are watching the
World Cup final or whatever.

Let's put it this way, what would be the harm of having a common net
neutrality law in Europe?

Wouldn't that just mean that if you want to do business inside the EU you
won't have to worry about being blackmailed by ISPs in 28 different countries?

And yes I live in Europe.

~~~
icebraining
_Look at what happened in the US, net neutrality was not an issue, just like
it isn 't really in the EU at this time, then services like
Hulu/Netflix/Youtube appeared. In the US like in Europe most ISPs are either
Cable companies or Telecoms which offer their own IPTV. Now you as a ISP have
a competing service using your network, why would you just tolerate that if
you don't have to?_

For the same reason I'm paying much less for higher speeds than the average US
household. Unlike most places in the US, there's competition in the ISP market
in my country. I live in a city of less than 100K, and I have four ISPs
offering me fiber.

 _Why not? How is the EU 's common market supposed to work if we just keep
implementing things like this on a country by country basis._

How is the common market hampered by this particular regulation being
implemented at a national level?

 _Again I don 't think this will be an issue, even if you allow for special
cases, Netflix should never be special, and neither should probably 99% of
services available today. VoIP is special (and I guess is already treated as
such by ISPs) because it is a replacement for PSTN which was special and you
can't have voice communication be degraded because people are watching the
World Cup final or whatever._

What about real time video communication? What about real time 3D
environments, when they appear? Say real time VR becomes feasible, and a
school wants to implement remote education for the underclass?

And that's just an example I came up with in 30s. Thinking that all important
services that can be invented have been invented already is just silly.

 _Let 's put it this way, what would be the harm of having a common net
neutrality law in Europe? Wouldn't that just mean that if you want to do
business inside the EU you won't have to worry about being blackmailed by ISPs
in 28 different countries?_

But do you already?

Laws are important, but they impose costs. Financial, administrative, and
potentially worse. It's fine for us to say "No discrimination for traffic
except for VoIP!", but a law will be a 30 page document that will still leave
plenty for well paid lawyers to discuss and find loopholes over.

Trying to start a small ISP? Better make sure your QoS tables are exactly like
the law says, or you might get shutdown if your competitors find out - but
when was the last time you saw a law that could be objectively translated into
a technical spec?

And then there's the fact that a EU-wide net legislation is a great
opportunity for the lobbyists of the media industry to stick their clauses
into.

And finally, EU officials have made some worrying claims about censorship "for
the children!" for me to trust them with such things.

No, thanks. Let's talk again if and when it becomes a problem, not before.

------
r00fus
Does anyone have more information on what qualifies a service to be "special"
enough to qualify for the loophole? It's amazing to me that no qualifying
factor is included in the legislation.

------
kristoffer
Sorry guys but reality is that on a technical level some packets must be
treated as higher priority. Think voice communication, for example. It must be
prioritized over bulk data transfers. It is already built into LTE.

The future holds more use cases. Remote surgery, autonomous vehicles etc etc.

~~~
quonn
LTE voice communication is not a very good example, since it is provided by
your mobile carrier, even with LTE. It's not an internet service.

I can't see how autonomous vehicles necessarily require any kind of priority
access to the network. Remote surgery is a pipe dream - it has been discussed
20 years ago and nobody cares. It's certainly not worth destroying the network
just for that.

~~~
xxxyy
LTE is a packet switching solution, so without traffic prioritization regular
cellular voice calls could easily be trumped by a few heavy torrenters.

------
twiceaday
This loophole will definitely not be abused. /s

------
amelius
I can already see the future: IP packets with prioritization and billing
information in their headers.

