Old School Rules
I knew Title II was old but didn't expect it to be around when the Romans built the first highways ........ Title II on the cable companies: the legislation was written in 193
Barack Obama has set the cat among the pigeons in the battle over net neutrality – by issuing a blunt demand that internet access be treated as a public utility in the United States. In a two-minute video, also given its own page on the White House website, Obama warns that "abandoning the principles" behind the internet's …
Kevin "Good riddance!"
Whoa there! A great deal of high quality pR0n is delivered quickly and efficiently by various Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). If one watches carefully, one can often see a "cdn" flash by in the address loading bar (YMMV), unless one is distracted by other things.
CDNs are generally considered to be Very Good Things.
Is there logic behind your reaction? Or is it just a 'Yay! Net Neutrality' reaction?
I worry that the banner of 'Net Neutrality' is sufficiently vague and poorly informed that it will be used as the name of convenience for a regime that nobody wants -- universally crappy bandwidth.
Traffic prioritization is pretty much a necessity to support a reasonably efficient network. However, the incumbents, if not forced to treat packets the same will end up treating packets unfairly and using their leverage to gouge consumers.
I am aligned behind 'Net Neutrality' because it is the lesser of a variety of evils. However, I wish to hell we could get a sane and sensible conversation on the go about making things actually right.
" I wish to hell we could get a sane and sensible conversation on the go about making things actually right."
I could make a dollar off that statement.
CableCO.CEO:
I could make $10,000,000 off my customers.
"sane and sensible" go out the window with the second comma. Hell in some cases with the first comma.
(grumpy sysadmin on a grumpy monday)
Net neutrality has nothing to do with traffic prioritization. Furthermore, I do not agree that traffic prioritization is a necessity (in the U.S anyway.) Capacity in the backbones is plenty good enough. The last mile probably needs upgraded because the larger ISPs have not maintained it or upgraded it over the years. And right now, very few if any packets have any QOS bits set so are you going to just wing it and guess a packets payload by it's IP address?
"I worry that the banner of 'Net Neutrality' is sufficiently vague and poorly informed that it will be used as the name of convenience for a regime that nobody wants -- universally crappy bandwidth."
But without the ability to prioritize, raw last mile bandwidth becomes a point of competition. If everyone is doling out universally-crappy bandwidth, the first to deliver universally-not-so-crappy bandwidth at decent rates is going to attract attention...and steal customers. You would think the incumbents would take notice at that point, much as how T-Mobile's audacity (pretty much forced being #3 in the mobile market) is making AT&T and Verizon take notice.
"...raw last mile bandwidth becomes a point of competition..."
Really? The link from our house to the C.O. is not just the "last mile", it's the last 2.5+ miles. It's FTTH, possibly shared with up to 16 other houses, and provides a dedicated 175 Mbps (repeatedly confirmed) just for our house. Even with four video + gaming heavy users, not an issue.
The solution to a bandwidth shortage is more bandwidth. Other ISPs can learn from Bell (Aliant) FibreOP. They're doing it correctly. Completely solved problem.
"It's not like the broadband providers were investing in better networks anyway…"
No of course not. That $25,000,000,000 Verizon spent on fibre was just imaginary money, digging up imaginary streets and laying imaginary cables. FiOS customers imagined they thought the internet went faster.
None of this really happened! Like the Moon Landings!
Eh, Net Neutrality. You bring out more weirdos than Halloween.
Sure they were. They were doing it everywhere Google rolled out its service which gave legacy providers actual competition.
Everywhere else the cable guys know the phone companies, like Verizon, are letting the lines rot and dumping the area on someone who will file chapter 11 shortly so no real worries about competition there.
@Eddy Ito
Verizon is very happy to rip out copper and install fiber in our area. My previously affordable $25.00 month Verizon DSL(copper) internet connection was replaced by the 'cheapest available' $65.00 month Verizon FIOS internet connection. And my only choices were Comcast or Verizon [shot or stabbed].
That would be the FiOS that Verizon has decided to stop expanding four years ago? The one that people can't even get in rural towns such as New York?
"That would be the FiOS that Verizon has decided to stop expanding four years ago? The one that people can't even get in rural towns such as New York?"
New York? That's an old city. Across the water, the same can be said of London. They share the same problem. They're old cities, meaning they're all built up and full of old infrastructure that's more or less still in use. That means you can't tear anything up for fear of tearing something up you're not supposed to (hint: New York does not allow implosion demolition in case the collapse messes up stuff underneath). So you have to ask yourself: how does New York put in new infrastructure without messing up all the old infrastructure (on which lives can depend) in the process?
Every City or Town or County here in the USA is mandated to maintain a single GIS map that places ALL facilities of any type either above ground, ground level or below ground, as built... these records are used by locators to mark what is above or below ground.
IMHO= big storm sewers make ideal fiber runs...RS.
Bell (Aliant) certainly is. Rolling out FTTH.
Seems to be mostly funded by their new FibreOP "Cable" TV service, making a 'triple play' that wasn't feasible with copper ADSL.
Last Mile and FTTH. It's a completely solved problem. T-Shirts available.
There should be, like, a cake or something.
I used to wonder if we (the US) would be better off if the internet companies were treated just like the water/electric utilities and highways.
Then I remembered deregulation in which several (many?) states started privatizing electric utilities because government service was spotty and pricing was crap. Then I also remembered that, at least in my state, there are several large highways that are converting (or have converted) over to Toll Roads owned by foreign agencies because the states can't figure out how to maintain them. - This stuff happens when taxes originally marked for highway construction/maintenance are funneled into other services.
I know that Internet service needs packet prioritization for proper functioning. However I also know that the US telcos are horribly opaque to the point that normal people consider ads with pricing to be outright lies; their "contracts" seem to say "we'll give you whatever service we want and will change it whenever we want, but if you leave then you will be ripped a new one."
The right answer would be that ISPs do what they can to ensure that traffic is properly delivered at the speeds they advertise. However that seems to be near impossible to legislate. So a better answer would be: force the bastards to compete with each other.
The fact that most areas of the US only have a single choice in ISP is problematic. The top action item should be for the FCC to come up with whatever rules are necessary to force competition. My business is paying around $500/month for 20Mb service. I pay $100/month for 100Mb service at my house. The difference? I have a choice of 3 providers at my home and there is only 1 provider at my business. If there was competition, I guarantee the pricing would change.
"My business is paying around $500/month for 20Mb service. I pay $100/month for 100Mb service at my house. The difference?"
The difference is, in part, that you're a business. Therefore, you pay for "business class" services, which basically means F%$& you, the telcos can charge what they want because you'll still pay it (this is the same reason airline tickets are more expensive last minute; business travelers often buy last minute and will pay more for the privilege... because they can pay more for the privilege). With Comcast, that means, technically, that you don't have a usage cap, and legally, that your ass is covered (allowed to run servers and buy the connection as a business without violating the ToS).
I'm not disagreeing per se, just saying that it's not a straightforward apples-to-apples comparison.
Home and Business service is the same in the USA per the FCC universal service policy... all except Static IP's are the same... Home gets single dynamic IP as default... it goes from a single to 5 statc IP's for either Home or Business internet ( recommended 2 up, 2 down, and 1 maint port IP for servers)... apparently Business subsidises Home as Home is always cheaper for like service.
caveiat= as a retired Telco type, be assured it is NOT any Telco's policy in the USA to not offer customer service out of hours - it simply isn't done... if anyone hare experienced this, a documented call to your repair service supervisor will get you a return letter telling what happened and why... a copy to your State PUC will end that nonsence (eg= E9-1-1 is not a daytime only service, and you pay for it to be 24x7-365)...RS.
Anyone who has worked for an ISP knows that residential customers do not have the same Service Level Objectives (SLO) as business customers. Business customers have higher demands for uptime and pay accordingly, even when multiple ISPs offer services in the same area. That's not rocket science, just economics. Residential customers will certainly scream loudly, but no one on residential services can expect the same uptime, packet delivery, or throughput as a business customer (the later accommplished mostly through oversubscription, which inherently assumes congestion will occur and thus not all packets can be treated the same).
The entire discussion of Net Neutrality has nothing to do with protecting consumer rights and everything to do with forced consolidation of the industry. These regulations will force out smaller ISPs so that we're all left with Comcast/TWC, Verizon, AT&T, and Google (and probably InterNIC, but not for home use). Carriers have to be able to differentiate services. What the fuck would anyone go into business to become a utility? I guess 300 years of economics have taught us nothing.
Nope
Homes don't necessarily get a static IP address.
And ISP can block mail servers , DNS servers if you're running a SOHO on a home network.
They can also throttle your use of the network easier.
Call after hours... see how fast you get a call back.
Those differences themselves may be the value delivered for difference in price (cost of running a 24/7 customer service center + employees awaiting asleep or watching late night telly/Netflix while endless pizza's arrive) but it doesn't explain the reduction of bandwidth to businesses for the price. Since they can generally anticipate a consistent usage from the business side, they can reasonably "guarantee" you won't have any service degradation (or certainly won't notice it). COS management has already removed most any "net neutrality" from application... pretty much everywhere. Treating it as Title II is just opening the court doors for judges (mostly lawyers, tho) to bring definitions of "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services" into the 21st century. That quote describes the pandora's boxes which have already been opened. I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome *neutrality... seems a bit late. It would create a hell of a lot of govmnt. jobs to attempt to enforce it, tho. <snicker>
...in my state, there are several large highways that are converting (or have converted) over to Toll Roads owned by foreign agencies because the states can't figure out how to maintain them.
I truly loathe toll roads, but the comparison is not apt unless you consider that pretty much the entire internet is currently made up of toll roads. It seems intuitive that in today's world, an ISP occupies the same place in society as telcos did 25 years ago. The only thing preventing them from being regulated in the US as such is politics (that is to say, "money").
Whether you are in favor of reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act or are in opposition to it, it's time to let your opinions be known by making two short phone calls:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: 1-202-418-1000
President Barack Obama: 1-212-456-1111
FYI... Obama is the kiss of death to any issue these days.
But here's the rub.
Suppose you're the ISP and you have all of this traffic from Netflix going across your pipes to another peering partner. In short, it costs you money to maintain and carry the traffic. Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money. Not to mention that you can't prioritize your customer's traffic. What then?
The point is that net neutrality isn't as simple as some try to make it out to be.
"Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money. "
Your customers are paying you for internet connectivity, and they expect to be able to access services, like Netflix. Is that payment of "no benefit" to you? Did you expect them not to use the service they are paying for?
"all of this traffic from Netflix going across your pipes to another peering partner"
Netflix will offer you free caching proxies to alleviate that traffic. They will even offer direct peering in some cases. The question is, should you be able to throttle Netflix to force them into a separate peering arrangement, then charge Netflix for that f#ckery?
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
The traffic is crossing your network, meaning NO BENEFIT TO YOUR CUSTOMERS. IN FACT SAID TRAFFIC IS COMPETING WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS' TRAFFIC.
Sorry to shout.
But the peering agreements are based on the assumption that the traffic will flow in both directions and the difference will even out over time.
Video and Music streaming... breaks that assumption.
"Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money"
Consumer ISPs have paying customers. The more service (i.e. data transferred to customers), the more revenue (at least, that is how it should be - service must be paid for). For the customers to want the service, there must be people whose data the customers want to get. I.e. Netflixes etc.
ISPs should praise those data producers, buy them flowers, and maybe even share some of their revenue with them. Not demand money from them.
This is how it is when there is no monopoly.
should nevr be allowed to own the physical networks. The network must be built out to carry the demand and there is no impetus (Other than the threat of title II regulation) for the carriers or ISP's to increase the bandwidth of the network.
The buildout of bandwidth should be regulated by the government as should minimum bandwidth.
If you carry ANY phone or data traffic, you are a telco. As far as I am concerned this does not matter if you are wired or wireless or an ISP.
The wireless providers have tried to separate themselves from the wired phone providers for this very reason. They thought they could get away with not suppporting and repairing the infrastructure like the wired providers are supposed to. (This Maintenance Tarrif costs you and I roughly $5.00/month FOREVER for wired lines and they are STEALING THE MONEY)
But that is not even good enough as the wired phone companies have a HUGE lead contamination liability to look forward to and they REFUSE to fix the infrastructure that THEY built and are trying to go bankrupt instead. Every main multi-conductor phone cable in many places has LEAD shielding around it. Disposal is required when they touch it so they are NOT REPAIRING IT!
Give them all hell, they deserve it and there is not one provider out there that is not a crook.
The cable companies originally WEREN'T ISPs or telcos. They just got into it because they found that they could enter new markets if their existing cable infrastructure was upgraded.
As much as I dislike big cable's stance on net neutrality, I dont think its reasonable to ask them to divest their cable networks that still provide more than half their revenues.
Dan Paul "This is why the Carriers and ISPs should never be allowed to own the physical networks. ... no impetus ... to increase the bandwidth of the network."
And yet, Bell (Aliant) FibreOP does exist.
A counterexample.
A telco that is also an ISP.
Spent and spending many millions of dollars to roll out FTTH.
We chose 175 Mbps just because. Previously 1.4 Mbps ADSL on copper.
The secret impetus is that the telco is now able to offer 'cable' TV service.
Haven't seen any lead. That must be a very old neighbourhood. Traditionally telcos rely on twisted pairs, not so much on lead shielding.
Yes, though on the other hand Obama is now deeply hated by many people, above all for being a sellout to corporate interests, and had he made his "bold" statement before the election, the GOP might have taken a more oppositional stance, just because they want Obama's party out.
Unfortunately, most Americans seem to have only a vague understanding of the whole issue of net neutrality, and are thus easily persuaded by anybody channeling for the industry flacks.
Verizon and the like are already being paid by their customers, the end users, to provide them with access to the Internet — all of it. Whether said customers want to watch YouTube cat videos or Wikipedia articles, Verizon's job is to deliver.
The only reason they can get away with this is that they are essentially a monopoly in most areas where they offer their services.
Here in an average corner of Suburban USA....
1.= Telco is fiber to the node...
2.= Cable is analog fiber to the curb...
3.= Verizon is wireless broadband / TV / phones...
4.= ATT is wireless broadband / TV / phones...
suprise, they all manage to charge a lot for their services even if only item 1. (telco) is title II...even if telco's TV service is DIRECTV... the State PUC will rubberstamp any telco rate for service if Telco sez they need it to maintain universal servfice...
Q= can someone tell me how the other 3 services manage to have rates that no one either State or Federal gets to look at all (extremely good unfettered business plans)...??
caveiat= in 1987 the local Cable company got us all new remotely controlled set top boxes, and celebrated that by denying service from Dec.20 to Dec 31 if the currant month's bill was not on their desk by Nov 31st...small problem, those of us that paid the under USD $20 monthly bill every other month weren't notified...calls to everyone by the thousand of us who had the Christmas Season ruined was to no avail... the Cable company was sold the next year w/1k less customers, we all cut a 10 ft piece out of the incoming pole-house drop and wrapped it around the set top box and returned both to the cable co's service desk... cable is not an option here...RS.