February 26, 201511 yr Author The issue seemed be about 'high bandwidth providers' like Netflix making deals with end-consumer ISPs (Comcast, Insight, TWC). I am not sure how this stops or regulates that. The internet is not just 'THE' Internet. It is actually a massive mesh of networks with their own bandwidth, switches, points of end user access and...peering interfaces to other IP-based networks. It is this peering function that seemed to drive this. Peering is critical since these peering agreements between different providers are the choke points of what we know as 'the internet'. Here are some links centering on the technical issue of peering and this (these?) new rules that have passed today: February 19, 2014: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/peering-soft-underbelly-net-neutrality May 21, 2014 Dan Rayburn On Net Neutrality, Netflix And Peering - Business Insider June 23, 2014: What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED July 28, 2014: https://www.benton.org/node/197702 Maybe its a moot point (see I read the thread on that!) since this passed today. But I want to catch-up since I was around the telecom world in the old 'tariff' days when the government regulated data communication links before the days of the internet.
February 26, 201511 yr The issue seemed be about 'high bandwidth providers' like Netflix making deals with end-consumer ISPs (Comcast, Insight, TWC). I am not sure how this stops or regulates that. The internet is not just 'THE' Internet. It is actually a massive mesh of networks with their own bandwidth, switches, points of end user access and...peering interfaces to other IP-based networks. It is this peering function that seemed to drive this. Peering is critical since these peering agreements between different providers are the choke points of what we know as 'the internet'. Here are some links centering on the technical issue of peering and this (these?) new rules that have passed today: February 19, 2014: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/peering-soft-underbelly-net-neutrality May 21, 2014 Dan Rayburn On Net Neutrality, Netflix And Peering - Business Insider June 23, 2014: What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED July 28, 2014: https://www.benton.org/node/197702 Maybe its a moot point (see I read the thread on that!) since this passed today. But I want to catch-up since I was around the telecom world in the old 'tariff' days when the government regulated data communication links before the days of the internet. Because it prevents ISPs from charging people\organizations for "fast lane" service to prioritize their content without the fear of slowdowns as punishment for refusing to play ball.
February 27, 201511 yr Author Because it prevents ISPs from charging people\organizations for "fast lane" service to prioritize their content without the fear of slowdowns as punishment for refusing to play ball. Doing my catch-up reading now. The July 28th link is good on the issue of paid prioritization vs. peering. What is paid prioritization and why are there efforts to ban it? Paid prioritization is a financial agreement in which a company that provides content, services, and applications over the Internet (an “edge provider”) pays a broadband provider to essentially jump the queue at congested nodes. Paid prioritization also covers the cases of broadband providers prioritizing their own content or that of an affiliate over the data from a competing edge provider (also called “vertical prioritization”). What might paid prioritization look like? One example, raised by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, is a broadband provider that also owns a sports network giving a commercial advantage to its own network over another competitive sports network trying to reach online viewers. In Verizon v. FCC (2014), the challenge to the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet rules, the D.C. Court of Appeals hypothesized that “Comcast might limit its end-user subscribers’ ability to access the New York Times website if it wanted to spike traffic to its own news website, or it might degrade the quality of the connection to a search website like Bing if a competitor like Google paid for prioritized access.”[1] So its the old 'content vs. pipe' issue that came with the advent of cable TV and has morphed into the internet world. Should the controller of the pipe also control the content and if they do and they can upgrade or degrade content delivery using their control of the 'pipe' on the last mile - should they be allowed to do so.
February 27, 201511 yr Net Neutrality in the FCC form isn't about helping the little guy. Its about big Internet companies like Facebook, Google (Youtube), Netflix, etc. wanting to avoid paying for the traffic their users (including me) hog. This is a bad move for consumers.
February 27, 201511 yr Net Neutrality in the FCC form isn't about helping the little guy. Its about big Internet companies like Facebook, Google (Youtube), Netflix, etc. wanting to avoid paying for the traffic their users (including me) hog. This is a bad move for consumers. The status quo wasn't optimal either as you have massive telecom giants running what amounted to protection rackets on these other companies. Not even taking into account their exclusive contracts with cities and their constant attempts to stifle competition which keeps our speeds slower and far behind the rest of the world. I would much rather have seen some relaxing of regulations on startup broadband providers to stimulate innovation and fiber networks. The current system and speeds we have in the U.S. are a joke compared to the rest of the developed world. No competition has completely stagnated growth in this industry.
February 27, 201511 yr The status quo wasn't optimal either as you have massive telecom giants running what amounted to protection rackets on these other companies. Not even taking into account their exclusive contracts with cities and their constant attempts to stifle competition which keeps our speeds slower and far behind the rest of the world. I would much rather have seen some relaxing of regulations on startup broadband providers to stimulate innovation and fiber networks. The current system and speeds we have in the U.S. are a joke compared to the rest of the developed world. No competition has completely stagnated growth in this industry. I agree, so much so that I'd favor a complete open market. Ditch the FCC altogether. Let the market sort it out. Hard wired ISP's are soon to be a thing of the past, anyway.
February 27, 201511 yr The status quo wasn't optimal either as you have massive telecom giants running what amounted to protection rackets on these other companies. Not even taking into account their exclusive contracts with cities and their constant attempts to stifle competition which keeps our speeds slower and far behind the rest of the world. I would much rather have seen some relaxing of regulations on startup broadband providers to stimulate innovation and fiber networks. The current system and speeds we have in the U.S. are a joke compared to the rest of the developed world. No competition has completely stagnated growth in this industry. We're 100% on the same page. Swamprat's post sufficiently sums up my thoughts.
February 27, 201511 yr This is a good thing. What people need to be concerned about is the blocking of the Keystone pipeline. Just follow the money on who opposes it, and ask why? If there isn't a thread about it when I get home I'll start one.
February 27, 201511 yr Someone please tell me if I'm wrong (because I very well might be), but what this net neutrality law is doing is essentially regulating my use of the internet? As far as I know, I am now unable to purchase faster internet if I am unhappy with the speed of my current one? I hope I'm at least in the ballpark. Also, who knew we could tag people with the "@" sign on BGP!? You used to be able to do that...The FCC won't allow it now. :lol2:
February 27, 201511 yr I heard on the radio this morning that one of the FCC directors was saying that the FCC was bought and paid for when it comes to this issue. I'd guess he won't be a director long.
February 27, 201511 yr I heard on the radio this morning that one of the FCC directors was saying that the FCC was bought and paid for when it comes to this issue. I'd guess he won't be a director long. Although appointed by the president (usually at the recommendation of the senate), the FCC is an independent agency and so the five board members say stuff like that all the time. They're oddly forthcoming about a lot of things. ... and they are bought and paid for.
February 27, 201511 yr Although appointed by the president (usually at the recommendation of the senate), the FCC is an independent agency and so the five board members say stuff like that all the time. They're oddly forthcoming about a lot of things. ... and they are bought and paid for. Interesting thing is that Wheeler used tonbe a lobbyist for the cable companies.
February 27, 201511 yr Interesting thing is that Wheeler used tonbe a lobbyist for the cable companies. His complete about-face on this has been really strange. He was the one who initially introduced the proposals that would have allowed prioritization and peering that caused all this mayhem back in the summer.
February 27, 201511 yr His complete about-face on this has been really strange. He was the one who initially introduced the proposals that would have allowed prioritization and peering that caused all this mayhem back in the summer. I wonder if the massive public pressure actually had an impact. Shutting down the FCC website with comments had to get their attention.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.