Net Neutrality
-
I haven't heard about long distance charges since I exited my time pod.
When was that? (Or should I say, 'when' was that?)
-
The monopolies that existed with the phone company and with internet companies (where they exist) are because the government did that. So clearly the solution is more government.
I'm tired of this "more government/less government" false dichotomy crap that people pull. You know what's better than bad regulation? Good regulation.
Inb4 hurr that's an oxymoron.
-
You know what's better than bad regulation? Good regulation.
Inb4 hurr that's an oxymoron.
I won't go quite that far. And who wouldn't love them some good regulation? But no regulation is usually better than bad regulation. And bad regulation is very common. The worst part about it is how difficult it is to get rid of.
Still, no one has come up with a convincing argument that the stuff proposed by Net Neutrality is good regulation.
-
-
The people calling me have no way (aside from me telling them) that my number is a mobile phone. I'm paying them for the connection to the phone system.
The weirdest thing for me is my mobile phone plan is $15 per month, which includes "$300 credit" (works out to be about 300 minutes, outgoing only, incoming free, never gone over) plus 1GB data. But my land line costs me $23 with no included credit ("pay as you go" calls), plus another $40 for ADSL2+. I only have the landline for the Internet.
So I can be anywhere in Australia to make calls and only pay $15/month, or be stuck at home and pay ~$300 for the same amount of calling. The difference is mobile phone companies have real competition but landline does not.
And most countries do have dedicated prefixes/area codes for mobile phones, whether they are charged differently or not.
-
And most countries do have dedicated prefixes/area codes for mobile phones, whether they are charged differently or not.
In the UK, if the area code starts07, it's a mobile.
To bring this back to the original subject: does anyone actually understand what net neutrality actually means? I've probably seen about 349320.673 different definitions, none of which truly agrees with any other.
-
does anyone actually understand what net neutrality actually means?
Whatever people think it means, practically, it currently means that the FCC writes up (supposedly) 300 pages or so of regulations in secret. But hey, Comcast isn't happy with the process, so full speed ahead!
-
The weirdest thing for me is my mobile phone plan is $15 per month, which includes "$300 credit" (works out to be about 300 minutes, outgoing only, incoming free, never gone over) plus 1GB data. But my land line costs me $23 with no included credit ("pay as you go" calls), plus another $40 for ADSL2+. I only have the landline for the Internet.
So I can be anywhere in Australia to make calls and only pay $15/month, or be stuck at home and pay ~$300 for the same amount of calling. The difference is mobile phone companies have real competition but landline does not.
Now that's a messed up phone billing system.
-
I live in a metropolitan area of around a million, and we only have two providers if you're in the right part of town. Even then it's not really a competition because you can get 100 Mbps cable, or 700k DSL.
I also live in a metropolitan area of over a million people and my choices are Comcast or dial-up. DSL is very spotty in this area, to the point that my neighbors across the street can get DSL but I cannot. For me it is Comcast or smoke signals. So yeah, for most people there is no choice...
Also, I live in an area where there is no excuse for there not being more competition. I am not in the middle of BFE, I live 15 minutes from the center of downtown in an area with huge lots and no impediment to running new infrastructure. There is still effectively no competition.
-
In the UK, if the area code starts 07, it's a mobile.
Even worse, that area code indicates you're about to talk to a British person.
-
Not everyone living in the UK is British
-
Not everyone living in the UK is British
<!-- Emoji'd by MobileEmoji 0.2.0-->
no, but the best ones are.
the doctor has an awesome british accent.
and then there's sir patrick stewart and both the best 007 agents!
-
-
-
Sean Connery and Daniel Craig?
I always liked Roger Moore. Those two are good, of course, but Moore was more about keeping his cool and staying a step ahead.
-
i always put brosnan ahead of craig. but that's mostly because i like brosnan's accent better.
-
Brosnan is good, but Craig is the best Action Bond.
-
Brosnan is good, but Craig is the best Action Bond.
QFT
@accalia said:the doctor has an awesome british accent.
Which one? Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker (T), Davidson, Baker (C), McCoy, McGann, Ecclestone, Tennant, Smith, Hurt, Capaldi?
-
Even worse, that area code indicates you're about to talk to a British person.
Every "world travel SIM" I've seen comes with a number in this (+44 7) range, so it doesn't mean anything
In the UK, if the area code starts 07, it's a mobile.
It's 04 here. With the option to overflow into 05 when there are over 4 numbers per person.
Now that's a messed up phone billing system.
I blame the government, breaking up the monopoly telco in a way that maintained its monopoly. The "other" government tried to address this but got voted out because of corruption of the current government, which is giving even more monopoly power to the monopoly telco.
-
Which one? Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker (T), Davidson, Baker (C), McCoy, McGann, Ecclestone, Tennant, Smith, Hurt, Capaldi?
Yes.
-
Which one? Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker (T), Davidson, Baker (C), McCoy, McGann, Ecclestone, Tennant, Smith, Hurt, Capaldi?
Cushing.
[img]http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_rope_trick.gif[/img]
[img]http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_panic.gif[/img]
-
So, you guys do understand that it's weird to pay for something you were not the cause of. We're making progress here.
In the not-to-distant past, we used to pay for incoming text messages. At least you can refuse to answer incoming calls.
-
Oh and by the way, there is no fucking way this chart is accurate
If the chart is accurate, then it's evidence that net neutrality is bullshit
Oh, speaking of which, if you think that version's a lie, you should see the 2013 version of it:
I would like to direct everybody's attention to this part of the chart:
Where Providers Report
It's the ISPs doing the reporting. They have an extremely high incentive to misrepresent this information. So yeah, the charts are bullshit. They're lying their face off.
-
If we don't report that it's available in the census tracts we cover, the government will give money to people to come in and compete with us. If we do report it, then my tax money doesn't get spent for someone else to come in and put me out of a job.
Oh hey, here's hard evidence that the ISPs are lying for that chart.
-
Did we get anywhere with the "conflict of interest" line of argumentation?
Given that Comcast provides 'internet', and also provides its own line of TV shows, is it possible that Comcast might want to make it easier/cheaper for Comcast customers to receive Comcast shows instead of Netflix shows? Of course, if Netflix can always throw some money at Comcast, then maybe the problem goes away?
-
Did we get anywhere with the "conflict of interest" line of argumentation?
The evidence suggests that was tin foil hattism.
-
Now, I realize I have obvious bias, but I would call that evidence that the government is incentivizing reporting of numbers to say "oh look, we have good internets here"
-
Yep, I agree that the gvmnt is incentivizing the ISPs to lie for that chart. Which means three things:
- We should probably get rid of that incentive, it's encouraging weird behavior
- That chart is total BS
- We should get a new way to produce that chart
-
I'm just opposed to arguments that the government should regulate ISPs more so they can't block Netflix, when no ISP was ever blocking or otherwise slowing Netflix except for the ISP Netflix had selected to be their primary provider.
I agreed with most of your post, but this single statement is patently untrue.
Verizon refused to add more cables between them and Level3 to un-bottleneck the connection to Netflix. Comcast did something weird that resulted in throttling.
The Verizon situation is still going on. You can see for yourself:
- Do a speed test to Netflix (watch one of the test videos) on your home Verizon internet connection
- Set up a VPN and do the speed test again
Because the VPN routes around the bottleneck (which Verizon has refused to solve, even at pleading by L3), you get faster speeds and a better video.
There was a publicized event where L3 was like "We'll bring the cables, you just have to plug your side in." No Verizon techs showed up.
-
Well, the primary incentive to the FCC to create that chart was to justify getting to keep all their Universal Service Fund slush fund going. Once they diverted that funding to "Connect America" (the program to bring broadband to the unwashed masses that is why ISPs want to lie for that chart), they needed that chart to say "see, look, your Sugar Daddy brought you good Internets, just let us keep taking your money and we know what you need."
-
It's the ISPs doing the reporting. They have an extremely high incentive to misrepresent this information. So yeah, the charts are bullshit. They're lying their face off.
The way to fix this is through some independent audits of randomly chosen locations, with the penalty for failing the audits in a substantive way (not in a “99% of what they claimed” way) being a fine equivalent to the projected next 10 years of subsidy. If they've been lying their asses off, they'll get found out and have the consequences rammed down their throats.
That's why you have independent auditing; the more money involved, the more important it is. Because asshats. (I hate being audited, but I see the reason why it is necessary.)
-
The way to fix this is through some independent audits of randomly chosen locations
I get the impression that they're meeting the letter of the law here, but that's pretty meaningless for all the reasons described.
You might think that an agency that set up such a retarded system shouldn't be rewarded with the power to make more retarded systems, but you're wrong, because COMCAST.
-
The evidence suggests that was tin foil hattism.
Oh, that's disappointing. I had hoped for murky tales of intrigue, smoky backroom deals and men behind the men behind the power behind the heads of state. Guess I'll have to make do with House of Cards...
-
Going to deal with your post kind of in reverse, it's an interesting highlight of the semantics and legal minefields of the Net Neutrality debate.
The Verizon situation is still going on. You can see for yourself:
- Do a speed test to Netflix (watch one of the test videos) on your home Verizon internet connection
- Set up a VPN and do the speed test again
Because the VPN routes around the bottleneck (which Verizon has refused to solve, even at pleading by L3), you get faster speeds and a better video.
As you noted, the VPN is routing around the bottleneck. It's not "fixing" Netflix by making it so Verizon can't tell the packets are Netflix, it's taking a completely different route across the Internet. (I think it's worth risking harping on this just a bit, in case someone wants a bit more understanding on how the Internet works). Because Netflix only routed traffic through a single CDN provider (first Level 3, and later Cogent -- based on whoever gave them the cheapest bandwidth), all traffic to customers of a given ISP had to come through their direct connection with Netflix's upstream provider. This happened because BGP, the routing protocol for the Internet, will always choose the path that goes through the fewest distinct networks.
It'd be like if you were planning a road trip somewhere -- you might choose your route based on the fewest changes of route (just get on Route 66 and ride it all the way to glory, baybay!), or you might try to route based on shortest physical distance, or fastest expected time, or avoid toll routes, or avoid expected potential congestion. Except, on the Internet, the only choice for intra-network traffic (from Netflix to Level 3 to Verizon) is to take the path with the fewest changes of route. So as long as a Level 3 <--> Verizon link exists, traffic will never take any other path (like Level 3 <--> Hurricane Electric <--> Verizon), even to route around congestion. A VPN provides a technical work around to the problem by causing the Netflix "to you" traffic to go to the VPN endpoint in Hurricane Electric's network, and then a separate connection from HE's network to get to you (taking the direct HE -> Verizon path).
Verizon refused to add more cables between them and Level3 to un-bottleneck the connection to Netflix. Comcast did something weird that resulted in throttling.
There was a publicized event where L3 was like "We'll bring the cables, you just have to plug your side in." No Verizon techs showed up.
As referenced upthread, both Level 3 and Cogent ran into troubles because they changed to being heavy senders of data but wanted to avoid the standard interconnection terms (read: interchange payments) that went along with being heavy senders of data. My opinion is, since they knew they were in the wrong in terms of the existing practices of the industry, they decided to go full court press in the media to create a crisis and use the strong arm position of "Verizon is breaking people's Netflix" as a negotiating tactic.The argument that Verizon is blocking/throttling Netflix by refusing to provide Level 3 a free service that is extraordinary in the industry would be the same thing as arguing that you are responsible for your neighbor getting fired from work because you refused to go 10 miles out of your way for free to take him to work when his car broke down. Once your neighbor refused to pay your reasonable and customary request for gas money to offset the extra mileage, it's certainly not your fault he couldn't get to work.
(Or, more in line with a recognized legal principle: unless you are actually a medical professional, you cannot be charged with manslaughter if you refuse to provide first aid to someone who is injured and winds up dying before the ambulance you called got there -- as long as you perform the reasonable and customary step of calling 911, you're in the clear even if you choose not to try to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation).
-
And since I can fit one more reply to myself in before I get toastered...
[Level 3 and Cogent] changed to being heavy senders of data but wanted to avoid the standard interconnection terms (read: interchange payments) that went along with being heavy senders of data
For those that don't know, this (and, really, the Internet pricing model as a whole) actually is exactly the same standard practice that exists in the telephone world. While you pay for your monthly phone service (and potentially per-minute for long distance calls, or those 1-900 porn calls), your carrier has to pay for any outgoing calls you make, via the Carrier Access Billing System (CABS). Basically, every call results in a certain cost being paid per minute by the originating carrier (your provider, when you dial the call) to each carrier in the path of the call, depending on the type of call, whether the other carrier was forwarding or terminating the call, etc.
In the Internet world, the same principle has been applied, with the industry determining that Netflix (or whoever is "uploading" the data) is responsible for the traffic. So while you may "request" the Netflix movie, the transit networks presume that if Netflix's service didn't exist, that traffic would have never happened, so Netflix is the "originator" of the traffic and their carrier should pay the necessary transit fees.
Of course, the whole thing gets muddied up because ISPs usually shrug their shoulders and don't mess with the interconnect payments in cases where traffic is "somewhat close" -- possibly even as much as 2:1 imbalanced. But when 30% of The Internet's total traffic moves from one carrier to another, it's definitely going to bend a few noses out of joint and result in a lot of "hey, you owe me money now!"
-
So while you may "request" the Netflix movie, the transit networks presume that if Netflix's service didn't exist, that traffic would have never happened, so Netflix is the "originator" of the traffic and their carrier should pay the necessary transit fees.
It's easier to think about that in terms of packets; while there's some sort of agreement between the consumer and Netflix, the ISPs don't care about that. They just see a lot more packets (and a lot larger packets) flowing from Netflix to the consumer than the other way round. (Arguably, it might be worth it for Netflix to use several different ISPs at different datacenters so they can spread the load more effectively. But that's their business…)
Of course, this also appears to be not the only WTF in the area, nor the largest one. There remains the problems to do with over-high charges to customers and under-investment in capacity so that customers can get what they want. That Netflix is the highly desirable service that has triggered things doesn't really change that; if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. There will be further bandwidth hogging services coming too — no idea what they are, but assuming that they won't happen is absurd.
-
That Netflix is the highly desirable service that has triggered things doesn't really change that; if it wasn't them, it would be someone else.
YouTube hasn't triggered some of this net neutrality stuff? I'm willing to bet they have ;)
-
-
No, YT really hasn't triggered it, because Google actually built out their own CDN (and paid for it) instead of going to the press/government to pressure those mean ISPs into giving them free interconnects.
-
YouTube hasn't triggered some of this net neutrality stuff?
I think that people thought they were going to, but then Netflix did instead. I don't pretend to be wise enough to predict the Next Big Thing.
-
You haven't understood the problem. Netflix was shoving lots of data through Comcast. There was a bottleneck getting it all to get into Comcast stuff. New hardware arrangements (i.e., colocation) was needed in order to give that massive amount of traffic a better way to move.
He understands that. And he's saying that Comcast/Netflix customers are responsible for requesting that traffic, and that as Comcast customers, they have already paid for it. It Comcast doesn't have the technical capacity to make it happen, they need to pay for it. Because that is what we, as customers, gave them money for.
-
I disagree that that is what he's saying. In any case, if it is, as a Comcast customer, you may think you paid for it, but that was before some new infrastructure was required and someone needed to pay for it (which theoretically could have been Comcast, who would need to pass the cost along).
-
Yeah, I would agree that he understands the basic problem and he's arguing that the Netflix watcher is the "caller" and thus should pay for the call (thus meaning any necessary capacity upgrades should come out of his service fee paid to Comcast).
My question to @Rhywden is, would you be willing to see your service change to a "data capped" service where you pay per GB downloaded (or extra charges over a set base amount) if Comcast were prohibited from charging Netflix to send them traffic?
-
Rhywden: And someone, namely the customer, already paid for the traffic they requested. So why should the ISP collect money again for traffic their customers are the cause of?
Also, "we" not just customers. We're tax payers, and Comcast is a regional monopoly in many, many markets.
if it is, as a Comcast customer, you may think you paid for it, but that was before some new infrastructure was required and someone needed to pay for it (which theoretically could have been Comcast, who would need to pass the cost along).
This is silly and full of assumptions. In particular, Comcast is publicly traded, so it could get capital for improvement from the stock market. Or it could retain earnings (what the customers pay) in order to improve their infrastructure. Comcast posted profits. They don't need to pass along charges to the customer when they have profits. Comcast is also a regional monopoly and a lot of their infrastructure was paid for by tax payers. "New" infrastructure or "old" -- I paid for it.
If they can't provide what I paid for, they need to go out of business so somebody else can try.
-
Such a contrast to this side of the pond; we have so many ISPs and so much competition as a result, that if one of our ISPs tried the shit that Comcast is pulling, they'd go out of business in about six months.
-
This is silly and full of assumptions.
Fine, whatever. That doesn't really change that Comcast would pay money, however they came by it.
If they can't provide what I paid for, they need to go out of business so somebody else can try.
This is getting really tortured, since we're assuming counterfactuals, but I think your idea of "what you paid for" doesn't match reality.
-
Fine, whatever. That doesn't really change that Comcast would pay money, however they came by it.
That's the point! The infrastructure is their burden, and they're paid to maintain and expand it. I shouldn't have to pay for it again. Pushing costs onto my counter-party is just pushing costs onto me, after I've paid my bill.
-
The infrastructure is their burden, and they're paid to maintain and expand it. I shouldn't have to pay for it again.
TDEMSYR
-
Look, if you go to a store and buy your frosted flakes, you're paying for frosted flakes. And the store's electricity. And employees. And all their other costs. Very simple. It is the store's burden to manage paying their bills and employees and maintaining and expanding their infrastructure, but I paid for it.
Safeway/Comcast found a way to extract rent from Kelloggs/Netflix.
-
My question to @Rhywden is, would you be willing to see your service change to a "data capped" service where you pay per GB downloaded (or extra charges over a set base amount) if Comcast were prohibited from charging Netflix to send them traffic?
I don't think that there are any services left who are truly giving you unlimited traffic. At least that's the case in Germany. Granted, the limits are usually quite huge (my own ISP is talking about 60 GB per day) but the limits do exist.
![http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_rope_trick.gif[/img]](http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_rope_trick.gif%5B/img%5D){kind=link}
![http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_panic.gif[/img]](http://schend.net/images/animated/dr_who_panic.gif%5B/img%5D){kind=link}