
FCC chair: An Internet fast lane would be ‘commercially unreasonable’ - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/20/fcc-chair-an-internet-fast-lane-would-be-commercially-unreasonable/
======
smutticus
Maybe Wheeler's plan is to keep making confusing nonsensical statements until
we get fed up with him and stop paying attention. Seriously, it seems like the
FCC just can't be clear about what it is they actually plan to implement.

Just reclassify broadband as a 'telecommunications service' already. The court
in Verizon v. FCC said the FCC had the authority to reclassify. So do it and
stop wasting everyone's time with your vague contradictory incomprehensible
statements.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
I won't defend Wheeler, he's a jackass.

However, no one else _anywhere_ seems to be telling the truth. And we're never
going to arrive at a solution that everyone enjoys or thinks fair if we
continue to chant internet activist slogans.

In 1997, peering worked because we need a simple solution whereby dozens of
private companies could hook their networks together without going through the
complicated accounting of who owed who how much. Most networks sent as much as
they received, there was little point in nitpicking the slight differences.

In 2014, this may not be the case. Level3 wants to send much more traffic to
Comcast than Comcast would ever send to Level3. This is because Netflix (a
Level3 customer) is asymmetric in nature.

Why is Comcast obligated to do this for free? Comcast doesn't offer its
customers "Netflix service". Indeed, if it did, people would go crazy
screaming net neutrality slogans. Comcast offers internet service, and they
don't guarantee access to Netflix _especially_ when Netflix doesn't bother to
acquire sufficient network connectivity.

This doesn't mean Netflix is evil. It doesn't mean that Comcast is anything
other than evil.

But Comcast does feel cheated if they're forced to pay for the upgrades, and
Netflix feels cheated if they're forced to pay for the upgrades (even though
they are the ones who benefit from this).

This means that peering in general may not work anymore. That is the real
problem that no one seems smart enough to address. And if it does not work,
what replaces it?

So if you're suggesting Wheeler isn't smart enough to fix it... well, that
sort of figures.

> Just reclassify broadband as a 'telecommunications service' already.

That wouldn't really fix anything though. It's very likely to have not only
unintended consequences, but bad ones.

~~~
eridius
Why does it matter who sends who how many bits? It seems like that would only
matter if one peer is sending traffic over another peer's network that's has
yet a third peer as the real destination. But if e.g. Level3 is sending bits
to Comcast because they're going to Comcast customers, then that seems
entirely ok. These aren't bits that Level3 is forcing on Comcast. Comcast
_asked for these bits_. Or rather, Comcast's customers did, but that's the
same thing as far as I'm concerned.

If Comcast is asking Level3 for massive amounts of traffic, it makes no sense
at all for Comcast to then turn around and accuse Level3 of sending them too
much traffic. I suspect the real problem is that Comcast simply didn't expects
its customers to actually use all the bandwidth Comcast promised them. They
can't very well accuse their own customers of using too much traffic (for
legitimate purposes, I'm ignoring BitTorrent here).

Comcast just needs to admit their equipment simply isn't up to the task of
servicing their own customers, and they need to upgrade. Trying to charge
Netflix for all the traffic is just pure greed.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
>Why does it matter who sends who how many bits?

Because that's what peering is.

No one gets to connect to a network, any network, for free. But if you have
your own network, the company that owns another network might decide to hook
up to yours for free, and you to his for free.

Supposing, of course, that your networks are roughly equal. Why bill each
other, if your bill to him will be about as much as his bill to you? Doing all
that accounting costs money, so it's easier to just connect to each other for
free.

But this only works if both your networks are roughly equal.

If some jackass walks up to you and says "I'm selling crap to your customers,
let me hook up to your network for free!" you aren't going to agree to that.
It'd be dumb.

I really, really have trouble making sense of why so many people are ignorant
of peering. It's going to be a really big problem too, because ignorant people
are screaming for politicians to fix it, and neither the people nor the
politicians have any clue at all.

> If Comcast is asking Level3 for massive amounts of traffic

Comcast is a network. It doesn't ask for traffic.

It lets people who are connected to their network communicate with each other.
If only one party connects to their network, it is impossible in a practical
sense to facilitate communication between the two.

Comcast doesn't guarantee connectivity to any specific host. It is a best
effort service.

> Comcast just needs to admit their equipment simply isn't up to the task of
> servicing their own customers,

A kernel of truth in a turd of mistruths.

Yes, I suspect this too. But it's not their equipment... that stuff gets
switched out every few years. It's their network itself. HFC isn't sufficient
for a modern network.

Also, there's no point in them admitting this. That helps them not at all.
And, since they're familiar with all the numbers, I also suspect that they
know they can't afford to build a modern network.

~~~
backprojection
I'm not sure you've addressed eridius'a comments. I understand what you're
saying about peering, but I think his/her point is that ISP customers pay ISPs
not to care about peering.

I think that's generally the point that neutrality activists make, that in
large par the internet works because users have equal access to any network,
regardless of the asymmetry inherent to that access, and that users are
willing to pay for the cost of that asymmetry.

If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then
that's fine, charge me more money. I'll gladly pay directly for real
infrastructure upgrades. But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first,
you're fundamentally changing a key feature of the Internet.

The fact that these issues go away if there is no asymmetry (peering) doesn't
seem so relevant.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> I understand what you're saying about peering, but I think his/her point is
> that ISP customers pay ISPs not to care about peering.

Nothing in their contract with Comcast suggests that they've somehow bought
"the right not to care about or understand peering".

So if they think they've bought that, then the problem really is one of
"stupid customers".

Do you know that I absolutely loathe Comcast? I hate coming off like I'm
defending them. I want the company abolished, its assets sold off at auction,
its shareholders prohibited from ever investing in shares again, its
executives sent to prison to rot for the rest of their lives.

There are many bad things about Comcast. We don't need to make up lies about
them.

> If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then
> that's fine, charge me more money.

Then they're hit with accusations of violating network neutrality (if they
only charge Netflix users), or of price-gouging if they charge everyone.

This was already taken off the table by the same people who are rabble-rousing
everyone.

> But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first, you're fundamentally
> changing a key feature of the Internet.

By not forcing it, you're changing a key feature of the internet: settlement-
free peering.

This is why my original, top comment explains how things have changed and
peering may not work anymore. It's impossible to come to a resolution where
all parties feel as if they've been treated fairly.

And that's a much bigger problem than anything anyone else is talking about.
It's a problem that won't go away if we ignore it.

~~~
Goronmon
_Then they 're hit with accusations of violating network neutrality (if they
only charge Netflix users)_

I'm not sure why you think this is a 'bad thing'.

Comcast sells users bandwidth (X download, Y upload). It doesn't sell "Access
to static and dynamic web sites, but not video streaming services." If the
customer is using less than X and less than Y, why does the type of traffic
matter? If Comcast doesn't want users using the amount bandwidth they paid
for, then they need to be more upfront about that in the plan pricing (lower
the bandwidth, or increase the price).

That's what people are asking for. Just like I shouldn't expect my cell phone
bill to increase because I called across state lines instead of local, I
shouldn't expect my internet bill to increase just because I used the
bandwidth for watching Netflix as opposed to something like seeding Linux
distributions.

------
mratzloff
I wish they'd stop calling it a "fast lane"\--it's the slow lane for anyone
who doesn't want to pay up. Somewhere a cable industry Frank Luntz-alike
probably focus grouped the term and now everyone in the media is using it.

~~~
ColinDabritz
The slow lane/fast lane propaganda is the small fight, they can have it. It's
not about the speed, it's about equal access.

The ISP discrimination and censorship lanes are the real problem.

~~~
mratzloff
Sure. But phraseology shapes the debate, as is evident from "death tax",
"health care rationing", "government takeover of health care", etc.

~~~
ColinDabritz
Exactly, my point is that the slow/fast phraseology is the wrong phrasing
fight altogether. Whenever someone counters "fast lane" with "slow lane" they
are promoting the premise that the issue is 'just' about the speed of the
connections.

While I care about connection speed, it's not the critical issue at the core
of net neutrality. The issue is that the ISPs can choose discriminatory speeds
based on any criteria they like, including censorship. And because they are
known monopoly abusers, this is an especially critical issue. slow/fast
ignores it entirely. It's possible this is deliberate strategy on their part,
instead of just a simple marketing attempt.

I propose we take the phraseology debate to them, and use phrases like "ISP
discrimination lane".

------
higherpurpose
This rule is _so easy_ to bypass. All it means is that ISPs can't "offer"
_fast lanes_ anymore - as in premium access for certain companies, for which
they would charge extra.

However, under this rule, they can still do what they're _already_ doing:
_slowing down_ everyone's Internet, and then charging websites money to "get
it back to normal". This way they didn't create a "fast lane". It's the same
"normal lane" \- for which they now charge extra money, unless you want them
to _slow you down_. Like this:

[http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-
hilarious...](http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-
graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/)

Wheeler is either a fool, or playing ignorant, if he doesn't realize this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> However, under this rule, they can still do what they're already doing:
> slowing down everyone's Internet, and then charging websites money to "get
> it back to normal".

It would be fairly hard to construct either the actual text of the proposal
itself or Wheeler's statements of the FCC's intent in applying it to find any
rule under which a "fast lane" would not be "commercially reasonable", but
intentionally reducing the quality of service for normal use and paying to
bypass that reduction would be "commercially reasonable". In fact, its hard to
see how the latter is _not_ exactly the same as the former.

------
randomfool
If they were to allow fast lanes, would there be any incentive for Comcast to
upgrade regular peering connections?

\- They'd lose out on fast-lane revenue.

\- Increased peering bandwidth would just be increased costs.

\- Worse internet video experience supports their Cable TV business.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
Peering was created because the two peers wanted to send each other nearly-
equal levels of traffic.

If we have a situation where one peer wants to send alot of traffic and not
receive anything in turn, this is a problem settlement-free peering cannot
handle.

It's absurd to expect Comcast or anyone else to bend over backwards and pay
for upgrades so that the other party gets to do this for free.

None of them are obligated to peer.

If we force this issue, we may get something that looks like a victory,
temporarily. And then it will backfire on us.

I keep getting downvoted on reddit because I point this out. There are people
who claim "but it's still Comcast's fault! Netflix offered them servers to
relieve the load"...

Never mind the fact that placing servers in Comcast's own datacenters is
something they rightly bill companies for the privilege of.

No one is being sensible about this, or so it seems.

~~~
cobookman
The funny thing is that Google, Viacom,...etc already pay for ISP datacenter
access. Why should netflix get a 'free' pass?

Totally agree on the peering aspect, and this is not a new issue. Comcast even
posted a video explaining 'free' peering, but sadly took it down
([http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-
pee...](http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-peering-
works)).

As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then
Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less. Where-as in the current
system Comcast could care less how much of your 300GB cap you use, hence them
wanting to be paid to upgrade their peering exchanges.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then
> Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less.

Unless the cost of handling increased Netflix traffic outweighs the minor
profit of per-gigabyte billing.

Read my sentence above a few times if necessary.

------
coreymgilmore
Finally, the FCC is hearing the demands of users/consumers of internet
service. The fast-lane idea was terrible for businesses - other than huge
companies who can pay the fast lane fees - and for users who already deal with
pretty widely terrible experiences with ISPs.

------
wmf
Too bad paid prioritization is last year's battle. This year it's intentional
congestion.

~~~
Istof
maybe a class action lawsuit could solve intentional congestion (for not
meeting contract agreements)

------
dtdt1
If internet access regulation can be compared to railway regulation it seems
like providing a fast lane service is a fair option from the ISP point of
view. The only wrinkle is when the ISP is a monopoly, in which case the
definition of the tiers and the pricing in the individual tiers must be
regulated.

~~~
nitrogen
Unfortunately, the Internet is very difficult to analogize to anything else.
Bandwidth is not an exhaustible resource, so it's not comparable to power or
water. Throughput can be increased without modifying the medium just by
replacing equipment in a few locations, so it's not like roads or railways.

This makes it difficult to reason about the Internet without direct knowledge
of its distinguishing characteristics, thus making it easy for entrenched
interests to sway legislators and the public. We need to convince people that
the Internet is special, that we need to think carefully about how we run it,
and that we can't lazily shove its square peg into the round holes of ill-
fitting analogies.

------
tom_jones
Providing broadband connectivity to rural Americans should have priority over
giving 'fast lanes' to those who already enjoy broadband service.

