That's because those practices were prohibited by the 2010 rules. There was only a year between the court striking down the 2010 rules in early 2014 and the FCC adopting the 2015 rules in early 2015.
The court that overturned the 2010 rules told the FCC how they could fix them, and the FCC got to work on that right away, so the ISPs knew that replacement rules would come out soon. Of course no sane ISP made any changes during that year.
This whole thing just has me stumped as to how we even got into this position. How in the hell does a single bureaucrat have this kind of power in the US to make a unilateral decision affecting millions of people and billions of dollars in commerce?
Next, the FCC's legal mandate to deal with net neutrality is vague. This is why the 2010 rules were overturned in court, and barring a new law being enacted, the legality of the 2015 rules are ultimately in the hands of the courts. Until the courts decide, the FCC can create rules based on their interpretation.
The 2010 rules were overturned in court because the FCC has very little power if it classifies ISPs under Title I, but lots of authority under Title II.
Now some of the questions before a federal court are about the 2017 repeal, including 1) was the FCC's reversal of the Title II classification justified and 2) was the proceeding handled fairly under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The challenges to the 2017 reclassification are about whether the FCC justified the change and followed the required procedures, not whether it has the authority.
In the US, the battle has been going on for more than a decade. Look at how google search, youtube, reddit and even HN has changed. The last major holdout was facebook, but we've seen what happened to them. It wasn't by accident or because ordinary people wanted it. It's what the elites wanted. What the people want has never really mattered. Not in the US, not in europe, china, russia, etc.
And with the constant merging of content providers and ISPs, the internet will become more like TV for most people.
What's funny is how we had so much facebook spam here ( when it was really a non-story ) and so little coverage of such a monumentally important tech topic like net neutrality. I'm guessing between facebook and net neutrality stories only, facebook accounted for 99% and net neutrality accounted for 1% on HN.
One would think that "hacker" news would care about the important story and not political fluff. But hacker news hasn't been "hackerish" for a while now.
The FCC is not a single bureaucrat, it's a five seat commission limited to three members of any one political party; in practice, approximately (not exactly because of term timing), that means three members of the party holding the Presidency and two of the other major party.
This response is kind of ironic in context of net neutrality being repealed considering it is a decision which empowered those who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people against the will of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.
I'm a firm believer that both parties have their hands dirty in one way or the other, but in this instance, it doesn't seem to be so in this case.
Net neutrality was part of Obama's presidential platform, and the first attempt at codifying NN rules happened under his first FCC commissioner in 2010.
Both parties are not the same with respect to net neutrality.
The Democrats have publicly embraced net neutrality, but have done nothing to ensure it. Even in 2016, the Democrats official stated position was to do nothing, leaving it in the hands of the courts. Both parties actual actions have the same results.
I don't know where the "Democrat's official stated position" comes from, but I have a pretty good idea as to why Democrats weren't talking often about NN in 2016: Wheeler's FCC solved the problem. The ninth circuit upheld the 2015 rules. That's not nothing.
WA passed a law to ensure it. That's not nothing. Waiting for a decision and hoping the status quo sits (I mean it's a great story to ride on the coattails of and tell your constituents you did something), is nothing.
2) No one would praise a party for making laws to a problem that is otherwise fixed. Talk about feeding into the republican talking point of democrat bureaucrats.
In short: Don't spend effort fixing something that ain't broken.
This is on the GOP because they made something worse. It's not on the dems for "not making something even better". Make the GOP pay for it if you don't like it. Blaming dems for shit they didn't cause is in part why they lost the election.
Democrats were either incompetent at predicting the GOP would unwind this when they said they were gonna. Or they liked the idea if it being unwound and being able to blame the GOP for it.
And like I said, not their first day at the rodeo, so the former is impossible. They are definitely not incompetent, they definitely knew the regulations would be unwound. And they definitely did nothing about it as if their either didn't care, or they liked the idea of using it to rile up their base for campaign donations and votes.
This is crap. The bill was introduced and ignored, though they found time to pass a bill amending the same 1934 Communications act that covers net neutrality in the session to improve caller ID.
The issue wasn't remotely fixed at the time, and they chose to fix it in an easily reversible way. Unless they expected an eternal reelection, the Democrats caused this too. They lost the election because they can't rely on being slightly less terrible than the Republicans.
I'll admit I had missed the 2016 ruling on the issue. I may be overly cynical on it, but as I skimmed the briefing it seemed the ISPs still had some court options available. Even if I'm wrong there, they still had the chance to prevent the current situation and ignored it.
I thought it might be my local trunk hitting capacity, with some new neighbors connected and added load.
Then I learned about Comcast's ongoing refusal to increase interconnect capacity, even at Netflix's full expense.
The news about this broke, and the PR grew to be so bad that Comcast relented and started installing interconnections.
This was also the time when Comcast was trying to get one of its own video streaming products/initiatives off the ground (they made a few distinct pushes, in those years). Quelle coïncidence.
Their product then was hardly comparable to Netflix's. But they tried to ram it down their customers' throats, by making Netflix's performance on their network suck.
So, any time one of the politicians, current FCC flaks, PR people, or the like tell me we haven't actually seen problems/abuses. Or, in the face of any number of journalists incorrectly reporting this supposed lack of instances of abuse. Well, I try to point them back to this instance -- apparently so soon forgotten -- that fits the abuse scenario pretty darned well.
"What's that?" I asked.
"It's like Netflix, but better" was the rep's response. Her tone indicated she was pretty unconvinced herself. I repeated it and laughed, then she laughed. Neither of us said anything else, but it was clear that was her given line to parrot and that we both realized how ridiculous it was.
But it is awful that they can literally make this so now...not with content, but by degrading reliability of competitors.
And, at the end of the day, what are you going to do? If they're willing to weather a little bad PR, in many markets you would have no other choice.
It wasn't the bad PR that forced the issue.
Speeds increased 65% after the payment. It was kind of a big deal at the time, since most of the time nobody paid for this.
"Netflix has struck payment-free deals with Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and RCN"
Your comment is simply inaccurate and misinformed. Rely on data, not anecdotes.
I also read a lot of reporting and analysis, at the time.
I recall a step or two, on the path to a resolution. Perhaps one of those steps was Netflix offering to pay.
It's been 5 years -- I thought was even a bit longer -- so my memory doesn't retain all the details. But I do seem to recall reporting that included, for example, Comcast employees cited as saying everything at their particular facility was in place to interconnect; they just weren't allowed to make the connections. I also recall reported analysis into the possible "why's" of all this. And there was pretty strong opinion that Comcast's desire to gain marketshare in the streaming video market, then undergoing another push on their part, played a significant role.
It's been 5 years, and my memories far from perfect, these days. Thanks for the link; I hope people will take the time to read it.
At the same time, and considering both that experience and my much lengthier and overall experience with Comcast -- and also ATT (formerly SBC) and other big players in this space -- I'm not very willing to believe in their "neutrality" of perspective and cost analysis in this matter and the supposed limited scope of their consideration, tactics, and strategy in what developed at that time.
"Netflix claims that they were paying for transit to Comcast customers through their transit ISPs, and that they should not be responsible for upgrading the (congested) peering links between Comcast and the transit providers. The FCC declaration went so far as to claim that Comcast was intentionally letting peering links congest (see paragraph 29 of the declaration) to force Netflix to pay for direct connectivity. (Here is precisely where the confusion with net neutrality and paid prioritization comes into play, but this is not about paid prioritization, but rather about who should pay who for connectivity. More on that later.)
"Comcast claims that Netflix was sending traffic at such high volumes as to intentionally congest the links between different transit ISPs and Comcast, essentially taking a page from Norton’s “peering playbook” and forcing Comcast and its peers (i.e., the transit providers, Cogent, Level 3, Tata, and others) to upgrade capacity one-by-one, before sending traffic down a different path, congesting that, and forcing an upgrade. Their position was that Netflix was sending more traffic through these transit providers than the transit providers could handle, and thus that Netflix or their transit providers should pay to connect to Comcast directly. Comcast also implies that certain transit providers such as Cogent are likely the source of congested paths, a claim that has been explored but not yet conclusively proved one way or the other, owing to the difficulty of locating these points of congestion (more on that in a future post).
"The best technical solution (and what ultimately happened) is that Netflix and Comcast should interconnect directly. But, who should pay for that interconnection? Should Netflix pay Comcast, since Netflix depends on reaching its subscribers, many of whom are Comcast customers? Or, should Comcast pay Netflix, since Comcast subscribers would be unhappy with poor Netflix performance? This is where market leverage comes into play: Because most consumers do not have choice in broadband Internet providers, Comcast arguably (and, empirically speaking, as well) has more market leverage: They can afford to ask Netflix to pay for that direct link—a common Internet business relationship called paid peering—because they have more market power. This is exactly what happened, and once Netflix paid Comcast for the direct peering link, congestion was relieved and performance returned to normal."
I have to suggest that the anecdote is spot on. Cui bono, and all that.
>The news about this broke, and the PR grew to be so bad that Comcast relented and started installing interconnections.
This is not what happened, both statements are entirely false.
I don't think people should take Netflix (or Comcast's, for that matter) talking points as fact.
So it's a lie to claim that this is all "recent changes".
I have one ISP in my area that offers speeds above 5m consistently :(
The consumer can no longer choose an ISP on their individual performance separately from various internet services and their performance. The bundling of agreements will increasingly reduce the ability of the market to deliver efficiently.
- Comcast $20
- ATT $15
- Other $10
Edit: It also a gatekeeping hurdle that smaller businesses would have much more difficulty crossing than large established players.
But right now the ISPs are paying for Netflix's bandwidth and that's being passed to customers in their ISP's bill. I'd rather only Netflix customers have to fund Netflix's service.
Or maybe you can mix streaming access. For $1 each, you can pick up to eight packages on the basic plan: Amazon Prime, Spotify, Netflix, XBoxLive, etc. etc. or For $12, get all 20 of them. Or for $20, real Internet access.
Why would ISPs lower prices? They have monopolies in most markets so there is virtually no force driving prices down.
When people can charge whatever they want, its a free market right?
I don't think their monopoly would last very long, if cheaper options became available.
My rural town will likely not see the benefits from competition for a long time.
It seems to me like people who would (and can) otherwise buy internet will continue to buy internet, but people who couldn't afford it or didn't want to afford it might jump on cheaper packages. This is especially illustrated in e.g. third-world countries where we have majorities still not connected to the internet (where a super-cheap Google/Facebook/whatever package would go far), but there are still many, many people in poverty here in America that don't have access to basic things online. Offering them a cheaper plan to access just the parts of the internet they want to use seems like a win-win here.
As long as it doesn't go the other way.
At present the internet is more or less a neutral marketplace in which everyone pays their way to get packets from source to destination. Much of America is served by only one to two members of a small group of huge isps who have more to gain from bilking me and you than from competing with each other.
If we let a cartel of isp who are the only way you can get internet access in a reasonable fashion decide who is allowed to do business on the internet and in what fashion you will find that your basic package ends up costing more than your present open internet and any perceived discount whatsoever is outweighed by the money that people like netflix pay per subscriber for access and must necessarily recoup by charging you for.
If the media companies even let players like netflix survive instead of slowly strangling them this sucks for you and netflix but as for future players they aren't part of the in group that is allowed to do business at a reasonable rate and they just never get off the ground.
The system you are ok with would have strangled kids like youtube and netflix in their cribs.
The basic economics of it is allowing them to decide what is served and at what individualized price changes the economics of the cost of internet companies serving customers from what a competitive market can charge (internet backend) to the most a market can bear under a monopoly (the last mile).
1. Peak bandwidth usage
2. The cost of building (and maintaining, see above) the cables
Killing net neutrality helps with neither of those, so any significant cost reductions (if there are any) will come from bribes from content providers. And guess who'll end up paying for those...
So, it's not an invented hypothetical.
As everyone else has pointed out - we'll be paying for the full cost (and probably quite a bit more based on ISPs previous behavior) of the connection one way or another. Either we pay for it through ISPs charging service owners for the privilege on being on the limited packages (thus upping the cost of the subscription indirectly for everyone) or ISPs forcibly create monopolies by pushing users on to their own web platforms, then raise prices later (as is the end goal of any push to fabricate a monopoly). It's pretty much strictly lose lose from the customers' point of view, at least in aggregate over the long term.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that some large internet companies would subsidize plans like "Facebook-only" to connect more people to the Internet (see: to their service). This in turn, well, connects those people, gives them opportunities and access to knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have, and eventually opens them up to the rest of the Internet. It's a stepping stone: obviously, all internet is better than some internet, but some internet is better than no internet. There's an alternative of just giving them the full internet for free/cheap (which I'd love to see), but is obviously way less likely.
In that sense (and, to bring things back to the comment my parent is responding to), I think that providing a cheap plan that allows access to some subset of the Internet targeted at people who wouldn't otherwise have internet is preferable to those people just not having access at all. Is that wrong of me?
I think it's not preferable. I would rather see prices driven down through demand so that full access is affordable to all, then for an artificially low price that allowed access to a Facebook internet to kill the market for cheap plans.
The problem here is that the last part -- the part where these minimal plans lead to a path where the full internet is available in these underserved areas -- doesn't have to happen.
All it does is (incorrectly) teach those users that the internet is just a means to access Facebook and a few other partnered sites. You're teaching them to expect the cable TV model for their internet access, which is precisely what we want to avoid.
It's not hypothetical. It has actually happened.
> I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that some large internet companies would subsidize plans...
Again, you don't have to assume. This has happened.
> I think that providing a cheap plan that allows access to some subset of the Internet targeted at people who wouldn't otherwise have internet is preferable to those people just not having access at all. Is that wrong of me?
Considering they would be losing a cheap plan that allows access to all of the internet in the process, yes, it is wrong of you.
Repeal of Net Neutrality makes his a possibility. Yours not so much.
People, by default, will consume stuff that enables exploitation (Ads, Facebook and its friends, porn etc). Very few ll actively seek out stuff that empowers them, even when provided access.
But when you provide only, say, facebook, in the name of giving Internet, to a population, you open a new channel to that population, that is solely meant to exploit. This is probably what facebook tried to do with India and failed.
How could anyone successfully create a new competing product once the majority of the market uses the cheap Netflix+Hulu-only package, locking them out from any potential competitors?
I mean, I get that it is bad now. Feels like it could get much much worse.
The base rate hasn’t changed and the category exemptions were open to anyone in a market rather than being negotiated behind the scenes.
I’m expecting that’s going to look really good compared to what we’re about to see.
FCC liked what T-Mobile was doing with Binge on because it didn't favour particular services or alter consumer choice significantly. It was fair and open or any website to participate in
> When it comes to T‑Mobile US Binge On services, FCC staff decided that the service "did not compel edge providers or consumers to participate in Binge On, and did not charge them anything if they opt to do so" – and therefore was legit.
> However, AT&T's Sponsored Data program "presents competitive problems" because it "imposes hefty per-gigabyte charges on unaffiliated third parties for use of Sponsored Data" – charges that "far exceed the costs AT&T incurs in providing the sponsored data service."
In Netherlands T-Mobile has a unlimited music streaming offering. To participate, a contract needs to be signed. Plus the organization/company signing such an offer needs to sign a paid support contract.
Meaning: this option within Netherlands is not free, not fair, not open. Apple refused to join that scheme in the Netherlands. Due to that new information there's going to be a new legal case about it.
Just asking, because, you know, what site is this?
Yes, some towns have created their own municipal fiber optic networks, but it's done on a small scale.
Let's get down to the practical.
Laying fiber is expensive you say? What about spacecrafts/sats? Let's phone Elon wether he has time to negotiate a deal…
Recap: 1. Everybody wants Internet. 2. Not everybody (who could pay for it) has it.
Conclusion: there is an opportunity.
Which means, yes, it is a perfect opportunity for entrepreneurial activity. Extremely high, prohibitive costs means a new, cheaper, scalable way of doing things would be disruptive and have high reward
Let me know the second you see one so we can both not buy it.
The key about the 2010 rules is that they did not reclassify ISPs. These rules were similar (actually much weaker) to the 2015 rules, but they were issued under the authority the FCC claimed to have over Title I services. As most here know, from 2005(ish?)-2015, cable/fiber ISPs were regulated under Title I.
ISPs sued and argued that since they were Title I services, the FCC's 2010 regulations were illegal. The judicial system agreed (Verizon v. FCC 2014). The solution to this problem -- the court explicitly told them this -- was to reclassify ISPs as Title II services; FCC would then have the proper legal authority to re-issue their NN regulations. Wheeler's FCC did this in 2015.
This is wrong, but oddly not quite as wrong as the FCC chair’s description as it at least as some connection with reality.
Enforcement of “net neutrality” rules (the FCC name was always “open internet”) has gone on for quite a long time, first under a casd-by-case regime without specific regulations and from 2010 under Title I regulations that were substantively similar to the Title II regulations adopted in 2015 (though they had looser rules for mobile broadband providers.)
The court struck down the case by case approach in 2010, and the Title I approach in (IIRC) 2014, specifically pointing to Title II as the authority that the FCC needed to invoke if it was going to apply rules of the type it adopted in its Title I regs in 2010. So, in 2015, the FCC turned around and adopted rules under Title II.
Why would no not what a specialized network option for 'super low latency' for things like games?
Or if you don't use any kind of streaming, then why not get cheaper rates for 'super high latency'?
This is good, it's their job.
Where it gets ugly is if they start discriminating between customers, i.e. Netflix has to pay $X while their parent companies other asset, HBO only has to pay $Y.
Or if you have a 'Facebook package' that optimizes for FB or something like that.
So QoS, yes, content discrimination, no.
So you have an issue connecting to netflix... oh sir for just $14.99/mo you can get our Netflix QoS package added on to your connection and have no further troubles. A few weeks later... oh sir your having issues connecting to youtube, well we have our youtube QoS package for just $9.99/mo extra...
It's content discrimination under disguise.
From time to time we get a customer who calls up to order a connection specifically for a VPN. They know exactly what they need. They won't listen. I try to steer them to a less expensive package that is perfectly adequate for a VPN. They'll have none of it. They want a bunch of special add-ons because they have done this all before with other ISPs and they know the ropes. They have no idea how a VPN even works, and they've never even heard of our company before, but they know exactly what they want.
I try to politely point out that I could help them save money and still guarnantee it will work without problems. But I won't argue with the customer. If they want to pay 5x for a bunch of custom stuff they don't need, I can do that.
In the end, they are very happy. They have outsmarted the greedy, conniving ISP, and got themselves a rock-solid service. I make a mental note to try to find a local contact for them with whom we can build a relationship of trust and perhaps persuade down the road that they could actually pay less without compromising their service.
This is not always the case, but it is the most common case.
So when a customer demands a dedicated static IP address, I wonder if they really need that. We charge extra for that because we have a limited pool of public IPv4 addresses. We can do it, but it is usually unnecessary, and better to avoid unless you really need it.
I'd assume they're restricting access further by only allowing certain ips thru a firewall in front of the VPN server, or requiring extra auth factors from unknown ips, or something.
There are other valid reasons for restricting the IP. I ask about those. I'm not arguing with the customer. I'm trying to be helpful.
Unless the customer doesn't want help.
When you have a corporate IT rep who is clueless about the options, they are not in a great position to build the optimal solution.
When you have an ISP rep who is clueless about the requirements, they are not in a great position to build the optimal solution.
When you have an ISP rep who is not willing to explain the options, you have a problem. When you have a corporate IT rep who doesn't know the requirements, is unwilling to explain the requirements, or is unwilling to learn about the options, you are unlikely to achieve the optimal solution.
When you have a helpful and capable ISP rep and a cooperative and capable IT rep, the world is a brighter place. But some levels of trust require either naivety or time and shared experiences. That's difficult when every contact between the customer and the ISP involve different people each time.
So, again, just like everything else, try to work with as small and local of an entity as possible to get the job done. This is true for government, auto dealers, ISPs, or anything else. Only scale up when there is an advantage to doing so.
It's twice the money for half the bandwidth, but I have enough bandwidth and I sleep better at night. Shouldn't be necessary, but . . .
This is a goldmine for ISPs. Over the last five-ish years they decided to think of themselves as "advertising" companies. FCC repealed the internet privacy rule last April, and what are they doing now? They're functioning as data brokers. We should expect this trend to continue and assume that ISPs will take advantage of Pai's NN repeal as soon as possible.
Comcast currently extracts almost $100 a month from me, in addition to the ~$10 I pay for a VPN exit node to hide traffic from their surveillance machine. Why wouldn't they want another $10 or so to "allow" VPNs, given regulators who are loudly, publicly giddy about screwing consumers?
I think the most efficient way to hide your service would be to tunnel it over HTTPS given that it's not really realistic to drop that when you're an ISP. Still, a relatively simple traffic analysis tool won't have too much difficulty differentiating between proper web browsing and something fishy over HTTPS even it it just looks at the shape of the traffic.
It's a 15 minutes task for good admin to start dropping VPN connections (not to block, but to interrupt every 5 minutes, but blocking is even easier).
One important info:
- ISP can't see your VPN traffic. But they can see that you are connecting to specific IP (VPN service's IP) at specific port. Once you're connected to VPN you probably pass ALL the connection through it. So ISP can see only single connection to single point. That is more than enough.
So how can they block VPNs:
1) Most VPNs uses standard VPN ports. Just dropping connections to that port is a good start.
2) Dropping connections to a servers when this is your (almost) only, long standing connection. This is a good moment to store that IP as VPN service IP.
3) Reverse DNS on IPs you're connecting to. A lot of services will reveal that they belongs to VPN services.
4) Public list of VPN IPs. Some provides them. Some are already noted somewhere on the internet.
ISPs can even share their databases with each other to be better at VPN dropping.
This is very easy thing to do.
It would be REALLY hard to hide your connection to a VPN service. One thing that came to my mind, to hide your VPN servers you would have to:
- use VPN services at random ports
- change VPN IP every few minutes at random factor, so dropped connections will occur anyway
- in the background you should keep direct (un-VPNed) connections to random servers at random ports, passing random data around (it will look encrypted just like VPN connection)
This would require huge infrastructure though. Really huge.
But still - if ISP notice behavior like that - it means you're probably trying to do something shady, like walk around their VPN dropping rules - so they could just throttle your connections even more, just in case :)
So in general - you're fu^Hat very bad situation. I'm from Europe. I'm "safe" now, but we are also going to have bad law for net neutrality soon.
If we can open up these rules while radically increasing enforcement of quality of service then this might be a good thing. It might be good to replace "up to 75Mbps" with "guaranteed 50-75Mbps and 5-15ms ping to nearest public internet junction, 95% of the time during peak hours." I'm sure some folks might even sign onto world-beating five-nines performance guarantees too.
But this is probably just a dream and we'll see the ugly product differentiation you're describing.
Hell yeah. I would happily pay extra for a decent service that advertised it’s minimum speeds instead of its maximum because in reality, the theoretical maximum speed of my connection is really not a useful metric unless I’m hitting it 99% of the time. I have a fast connection but I still typically get a good 50 Mb/s less than advertised (which luckily still leaves me with 200 Mb/s or so) making the advertised amount completely inconsequential and useless. Telling me the lowest I should expect, on the other hand, is actually helpful and allows me to do some rudimentary capacity planning to see if it’s suitable for me or not.
A 'Netflix QoS package' is not a QoS package. That's against Net Neutrality.
A 'Video Streaming' package that offers high quality video streaming with low latency, but doesn't care about things like picking up dropped packets - and doesn't discriminate between content sources - this would be 'net neutral'.
"Because in order to sell you onto these bullshit packages they will end up making your regular connection hellish"
This is a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with NN really. They can (and probably do) this already today with their regular package offers.
Let's not confuse general ISP stupidity with actual NN.
Net Neutrality doesn't exist any more. Did you not read the article? This isn't hypothetical, it was allowed to expire as of today. It's no longer the law, ISPs can legally do whatever they want now, including a "Netflix QoS package".
I am admittedly not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably well informed on the topic and completely open to being corrected if you know better.
Yes, the US law requiring a certain kind of Network Neutrality did expire.
The point is: service providers charging for differentiated QoS (such as different packages for latency) is well within the concept of Network Neutrality.
What is 'out of bounds' for NN is charing for customers based on the content of those packages.
> A low latency service (designed for gaming in mind), is NN
> A low-latency service 'for games only' - is not NN
> If the ISP charges you money to access 'Steam' games, but not for others - that is not NN.
You are saying what I am saying: You pay for 'Quality of Water Service'.
What if you need 5x the flow that the water company normally provides?
What if you needed, for medical purposes 'unflourinated' water (whereas all of their other customers use flourinated).
+ If you want more water monthly - you pay for that.
+ If you want higher water pressure - you pay for that.
+ If you want different kinds of water (hard, soft) you pay for that.
That's 'Water Neutrality'.
What you do not pay for is a higher rate because you're a hospital. Or because you are wealthy and the water company knows they can scam you.
If you do not allow the water company to charge for 'high pressure' or 'hard / soft' water types - then they cannot justify in the investment and no such services will exist
As for networks:
+ If you want a dumb pipe, you pay for that.
+ If you want a faster pipe, you pay for that.
+ If you want more data, you pay for that.
+ If you want higher service level guarantees - you pay for that.
It's like buying AWS, or a new computer, or whatever.
What you should not have to pay for is: $X for Netflix data and $Y for HBO data. Or $X for Facebook and $Y for Linked in data. That's raw price discrimination and it's a problem.
Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video, so if you want amazing streaming at 4K super high quality, well, they can provide that if you're willing to pay. But - they should charge the same irrespective of content (i.e. HBO, Netflix etc)
Do they though? Over and above just providing a link with a sufficient bandwidth and contention ratio?
It doesn't matter.
Apple can charge you whatever it wants for it's iPhone. You can pay or not.
ISP's can charge you whatever they want for whatever QoS. You can pay or not. That's Network Neutrality.
What they cannot do under NN, is charge you based on who you are, or based on what you use your service for. So, charging you for Netflix usage, vs HBO usage is totally out of bounds.
If they sell you a 'streaming service' with whatever QoS - you should be able to it for whatever on earth you want.
My point is: there is usually an underlying cost-based reality to most of these things, and some of the people on this thread are not actually arguing for 'Net Neutrality' - they are arguing for 'ISP's should only be allowed to bill me in a very, specific narrow way, by law, irrespective of what consumer needs are or what their costs are'.
So if you buy a QoS from an ISP, they can't throttle you if it's for P2P or for Netlflix or HBO or whatever. That would be against NN and of course outside the bounds of any normal QoS.
It's just like buying form AWS: you pick from any number of configurations, but AWS can't charge you if you are doing 'gaming' vs 'news' on your hosted service. Amazon doesn't bill you based on what you are doing, just how you use the service.
So, under NN, ISP's can definitely sell you a 'low latency' service, as long as customers want that.
Eh, this isn't true in most places.
You pay a flat rate since you most likely have a 1"-1 1/2" pipe ran to your residence. Even if you cut the pipe off after the meter and let it run full blast you can only burn up a relatively limited amount of water (compared to what the system can carry). If you have a much larger line it is highly likely that your contract has usage conditions.
But the water company should not bill me differently if I choose to water tomatoes, but not chillies.
If turning on your faucet took an average of twenty minutes before the water showed up you'd probably want a high-cost low-latency spigot in case of a fire.
Nobody cares if an ISP wants to offer 2 "packages":
1. High latency, high bandwidth
2. Low latency, low bandwidth
Just like the metaphor of a water pipe, an ISP could offer "normal" where the water takes 20 minutes, or "fast" where it takes a second, but you have to pay 10x or have a much lower limit.
What NN is all about is preventing the ISP from saying HOW you are using the data. In the "water" analogy it would be like your water company saying you can ONLY use their "fast" water in their proprietary "soup making system", then they slow down all other water if they detect you are using it in any non-compliant pots.
I'm more than fine with an ISP that wants to offer a special low-latency VOIP option, but when they slow down all their competitors VOIP services and only allow you to get their VOIP service with low-latency, then it's a problem. Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps, while not offering that option to Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video, or even your own startup or self-hosted option.
That's what I want my government protecting me against, that's the kind of thing that should be heavily regulated.
I know this forum is full of people who want total control of everything but I would bet this would provide a better experience since it doesn't have to be managed by the customer.
> Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps
This doesn't technically fall under NN but I agree it's pretty scummy. I think it's a tough argument to make the ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do this though. If Hulu wants to make a deal with an ISP where they pay for their customer's data usage and pay more to be exclusive I don't see why that should be forbidden.
An example outside of ISPs. Spotify used to integrate Musixmatch into their app which would otherwise cost users $12/year. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that Spotify can't make an exclusive deal or that Musixmatch must allow GPM to integrate with them as well.
I'm perfectly okay, as long as you are using the word "application" as a synonym for "type" and not as another word for "service or platform".
In other words, it's okay if VOIP service is prioritized via QoS rules, much of the internet as we know it won't work without this kind of thing, and it's a good thing for everyone involved.
What's NOT okay is when ComcastVOIP is allowed low-bandwidth, low-latency, but GoogleVOIP isn't. Or when each VOIP company needs to "apply" to get approved for the special consideration, or there are additional "rules" that have to be followed that deal with where the data is going, what it's doing, or how it's being used (like saying "VOIP that is used for business must pay more" is not okay in my book).
>This doesn't technically fall under NN but I agree it's pretty scummy. I think it's a tough argument to make the ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do this though. If Hulu wants to make a deal with an ISP where they pay for their customer's data usage and pay more to be exclusive I don't see why that should be forbidden.
It may not, but it absolutely should. At this point nothing falls under NN as it's not a law any more, so I'm not buying this "excuse" any more.
un-limiting one companies data is the same as limiting all other companies data in my opinion.
Again, if that data-cap-bypassing stuff works on a protocol level (as in VOIP data doesn't count toward your limit), then i'm perfectly fine with it, but when it deals with who owns the server, what content it's displaying, and who you are paying to get the service/data, then it should be heavily regulated.
>I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that Spotify can't make an exclusive deal or that Musixmatch must allow GPM to integrate with them as well.
neither would I, but that's not what i'm worried about. Bundling and deals including other services is fine, but what isn't is when those bundles bleed over into the actual data being sent. Just like how i'm fine if my water company provides a free water filter service with their water service. But when they start interfering with other companies water filters, or start making their core service (the water itself) cheaper when used with their provided water filter, then it's in what I consider anti-competitive territory.
And I guess that's the core of the problem I have with things like "unlimited for one service" deals. It's not just including another service with your internet, it's the ISP actively changing the price of their own core service when you use another unrelated service.
While I understand that a policy prohibiting this might end up slowing or stopping some innovative or new ways of providing internet access to people how they want it, I truly feel that the upsides of not allowing the ISPs to play gatekeeper (whether intentional or otherwise) will greatly outweigh the lost innovation.
I also want to point out that i'm not calling for these "shady" practices to be outright illegal, just that they should be "heavily regulated". Meaning there should be quite a lot of oversight, time should be spent determining if there is a conflict of interest or if the specific practice will end up harming competition or innovation.
I have a 3/4" pipe entering the house that I pay for. I can upgrade it to 1" for $50 more a month (and a ton of capex replacing the spur to the service line). I can upgrade it to multiple inches for for $100's more a month as well.
My Internet connection is capable of considerable more bandwidth than I'm paying for. Generally speaking, it's just a software setting on my modem.
I guess you could sort of compare it to having the water provider bringing in a 6" line to my house and tapering the line down to 3/4". But even then, their isn't a way for them to force me on to a specific water well or source, or directly force pricing based upon what I use the water for.
Its really just a tough comparison.
It's like if a football stadium was located near a tollway, and the tollway decided to start charging the stadium itself during sporting events.
That's not a legitimate business transaction, it's a cash grab.
Yes, I do as the consumer of that water. In this analogy Netflix would be the dam operator, so why would a particular dam pay more to the pipe company than another dam?
You pay your utility bill every month for electricity (probably a base rate, and a fixed consumption rate). Does your utility then go to the provider (A local green power source) and demand they pay the utility as well, since 60% of the requests in the region are for their power? (users opting into to green power on their bills?)
So do I.
Sounds like it is already paid.
What they want though, is to charge data coming in, and data going out.
Wouldn't segregating VPN traffic, or gaming, or streaming traffic be its own form of content discrimination? They are picking winners and losers in terms of tech that consumers use right there.
I live in the Bay Area and there is only one ISP (Comcast) that offers me more than 5Mbit.
Package 1: Fortnite, CS:GO, Hearthstone
Package 2: Rocket League, Dota2, World of Warcraft
Package 3: Overwatch, PUBG, Borderlands 2
Everything a gamer needs!
Well, the vendor shouldn’t dictate the class of my packets. Offering me “super low latency” or whatever isn’t being a dumb pipe—emphatically my preference—it’s upselling me something I never asked for.
If it costs the vendor 2x to provide a super low latency network, then they can charge you 2x for that.
Do you understand that there are actual costs associated with providing differentiated QoS?
Selling based on latency is no different than computer manufacturers pricing on GhZ, RAM and any number of other factors.
They should definitely be able to discriminate on the QoS that you want.
They should not be able to discriminate inherently on the content type.
If you buy 'low latency' you can use those packets for whatever you want. Gaming. Otherwise. And of course there can be no discrimination based on content vendor, i.e. game 1 vs. game 2.
But to suggest that vendors can't discriminate based on the service they provide you ... completely defies the notion of what business and entrepreneurialism is.
But this is a bald-faced lie, and the proof is in the public record; while there was en evolving approach to enforcing the open internet principles prior to the 2015 Title II rules (in large part because the prior approaches were struck down by the courts, forcing changes in approach), there is a long line of enforcement actions by the FCC against ISPs for actions that would be in violation of the 2015 rules. ISPs blocking legal P2P traffic, ISPs blocking legal VoIP services, etc.
That begs the question: Why then do they oppose the rules if only to start engaging in the practices they prohibit?
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
He is, for sure. I don't think Pai is an idiot, or a moron or ignorant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He realizes it's all bullshit and is selling this crap to the public anyway.
 "mug" v. slang (orig. Theatre). a. intr. To pull a face, esp. in front of an audience or camera, to grimace; to over-act.
"VTel wrote to say that 'regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.' The company went on to say that it's now 'quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.' Indeed, VTel just announced that it has committed $4 million to upgrade its 4G LTE service and to begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start its transition to 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity." 
edit: Okay, I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm legitimately curious to hear what Pai has to say about past violations. (Seriously, if anyone has a link, please feel free.)
You literally required less hardware with network neutrality because you didn't need any packet shaping routers.
Sure, they can, but what about in this specific scenario? How does NN deter small ISP's? The big ISP's already stomp out all small options anyway, I don't think NN is a problem.
I don't really want innovation from my ISP aside from investing in infrastructure. Their version of "innovation" is, in reality, "how to bilk our customers for more $$$ by delivering shit they neither want nor need."
I realize they've also claimed that they need more money to re-invest in infrastructure, but that claim appears to be a lie given their recent investments and prior statements.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a679f360-9890... (article from '08)
Credit to https://www.reddit.com/user/IncredibleTeacherMan
Where I live we have exactly two choices, and one is satellite based.
"Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." 
I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be.
If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?
There also might be new business models that are better for the consumer that doesn't actually cause the problems net neutrality proponents fear. For example, some of Tmobile's actions were probably not neutral, but Tmo wasn't really harming customers. In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful.
That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because they might be a good dictator. In the long run preventing ISP's abuses is going to be more beneficial than "beneficial" infringements on NN. Imho ISPs shouldnt have the power to determine which companies qualify for unlimited data streaming even if they aren't using that power to shut down competitors (yet)
I fully support net neutrality but some of these analogies are absurd.
Unchecked power of an ISP can do literally anything to your internet service, and only as long as you stay with that ISP. Unchecked and abused power of an ISP also leads to other ISPs competing on "not doing the X harmful thing that Y ISP does", meaning that in the aggregate the harmful ISP loses business anyway.
Isn't it because title 2 imposes a heavier regulatory burden than just net neutrality rules? Congress should just pass a net neutrality bill without using title 2 imho.
Here is a great quote from a 2017 music streaming case requiring all data to be counted against a user's data cap, regardless of its source:
"the aim [of] the decision was to encourage Internet service providers to compete on price, speed and network quality instead of acting as a gatekeeper." - Chairman of the CRTC, Jean-Pierre Blais
So clearly we have no established precedent(1) of this sort of behavior in the past and happening again before our very eyes.
Suggesting that these rules were conjured out of hysteria is not only wrong, it's insulting. But that's to be expected from a corporate shill.
"[F]lew to Barcelona to collect a bribe before passing this regulatory change" seems too strong a claim, but there should be serious questions after AT&T paid Cohen and also got a meeting that was off the record.
I don't imagine it actually changed Pai's opinion, but it seems unethical.
They are synonymous. Make no mistake, they all take favors and give favors. That's how you become a leader and stay a leader.
The bad ones simply double down on controlling the history books.
That being said I'm a US citizen that thinks about moving increasingly all the time.
As of June 2016, the State department's consular section estimated that there are 9 million non-military U.S. citizens living abroad, an increase from the 4 million estimated in 1999.
The above includes many retirees, who find their retirement incomes stretch further abroad. But, it also includes a lot of PHD students who have troubles finding academic jobs inside the US etc.