Can someone explain what this means? The term "net neutrality" has been muddled so much that I can't tell if it means what it actually says, or if it's distorted doublespeak that actually means the opposite.
Is this decision good or bad for us?
Is this decision good or bad for us?
"No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates."
This is a good thing. Big telcos have been trying to gut the FCC of its power ever since they issued their Open Internet Order: https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet
Next stop is the supreme court if they continue to push back against it.
That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
[0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
Comcast sued and the FCC spent the next eight years fighting.
[0]http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political
> Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late?
Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.
[0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-63A1.pd... (para. 38)
During the day now: 72 Mb/s In the evenings: 7Mb/s In the evenings, with my employer's VPN turned on: 66Mb/s
(I'm on Comcast)
7 hu-0-10-0-1-pe04.56marietta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.182) 22.233 ms 11.978 ms 10.577 ms
8 a104-72-128-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com (104.72.128.31) 11.783 ms 11.075 ms 18.287 ms
While this happens with many providers, Comcast is about the worst offender. They are quite happy to allow peering links to remain full at peak indefinitely - it's a way to put pressure on the content networks to pay for access to their routes over a private peering session. If you're a major web hosting operation, your customers will demand great performance to Comcast. They don't really care that Comcast is strong-arming paid peering agreements via those demands. It's especially awesome because Comcast generally charges more for bits to their tiny portion of the Internet, than what you pay for bits to a major backbone for the full table.
Basically certain ISPs refuse to increase connection capacity with backbone providers like level3. Instead they (Comcast) is trying to get Netflix to connect directly with them and charge them a premium in doing so.
Peering agreements have never really been part of a truly "neutral" Internet.
There basically isn't. Otherwise they just underprovision the default link so that anything using it is de facto throttled and the only alternative is peering.
> This ruling doesn't mean Comcast must allow Netflix to put servers in Comcast's datacenters.
Peering doesn't require putting servers in your datacenter. Peering means Netflix brings fiber to Comcast's datacenter and Comcast plugs it into one of their network ports.
There probably should be some regulation of ISP peering but it just doesn't fall under net neutrality. If anything it's sort of against net neutrality. A small startup would have pay for a CDN or a transit and netflix gets it for free? Just because they are big.
They don't get anything for free that the little guy doesn't. They're just doing their own transit instead of paying somebody else to do it. Nobody is saying Netflix can peer with Comcast in California for Comcast customers in New England. They have to bring the traffic into the region, whether by paying someone for transit or by building their own transit network. Comcast just can't charge them for access to the last mile, and neither can it charge anybody else (like the transit providers who provide service to the little guy).
And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. "Basically the same" doesn't pass muster when it comes to something like this, which is ruled entirely by subtlety and nuance.
No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers.
> And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint.
No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.
Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast.
Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement.
Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software.
So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.
So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic.
There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices.
Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.
The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast.
I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing.
To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia:
> Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0]
> In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
Not throttling and peering arrangements (with unrestricted bandwidth) are completely identical. Or if you want to be pedantic, not peering (or peering at limited bandwidth) is a type of throttling.
That's what throttling is. A device between two fast pipes that lowers the speed they can exchange data.
That's also not at all what peering agreements are.
Which part of it did they not do?
> That's also not at all what peering agreements are.
Peering agreements mean plugging the pipes into the device. Not having peering agreements means unplugging some of the capacity, which has the effect of throttling.
I'm not really sure why you're so insistent on this sophistry. There are pipes with enough capacity from Netflix to Comcast. There are pipes with enough capacity from Comcast to its customers. Anything they do in that Comcast building which prevents the traffic from flowing at full speed is going to be equivalent to throttling.
You claimed this wasn't true, and you are wrong. I don't want anyone to get the incorrect idea that what you're saying is correct, because it is in no way true. No one (not Netflix, Comcast, the US government, or Wikipedia) but you considers peering agreements (or not having them) to be "literally the same" as throttling.
This ruling was about whether the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs as telecommunications carriers. It seems that they do. Which presumably means that the FCC could require last mile providers to do free peering. And they should, even though they haven't yet.
This ruling was specific, and its specific nature did not preclude Comcast from continuing to enter into paid-for peering agreements with Netflix. You are wrong to say or imply that Netflix will now, as a result of this ruling, be able to peer with Comcast for free.
Objectively wrong.
> No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do.
What I don't see is anything from me that says "Netflix will now, as a result of this ruling, be able to peer with Comcast for free."
The closest you can come to that is this:
> Comcast just can't charge them for access to the last mile, and neither can it charge anybody else (like the transit providers who provide service to the little guy).
But that was in response to a post hypothesizing that Netflix getting free peering would be problematic, i.e. argued under the hypothetical that that policy was in effect.
You're arguing with a straw man.
This ruling upholds the FCC's prohibition on throttling content.
If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it.
Therefore, you are arguing that Netflix will be able to peer with Comcast for free, even if you aren't actually saying those words.
This is untrue. Netflix is not going to be able to peer with Comcast for free. You were and are wrong.
No strawman, just you trying very hard not to be wrong.
Not peering is still throttling.
> If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it.
They would be forced to peer with Netflix, not necessarily for free. That's the problematic part of the rule that needs to be fixed, because it allows Comcast to charge monopoly rents for peering even though peering has minimal costs.
Are you honestly arguing that if Comcast refused to connect Netflix (or anyone with sufficient bandwidth for Netflix) to Comcast customers at any price, that wouldn't be throttling and wouldn't get Comcast in trouble?
This ruling upholds the FCC's prohibition on throttling content.
If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it. Therefore, you are arguing that Netflix will be able to peer with Comcast for free, even if you aren't actually saying those words.
This is untrue. Netflix is not going to be able to peer with Comcast for free. You were and are wrong.
No strawman, just you trying very hard not to be wrong.
I haven't intended to take a position on what the FCC rule actually does because it's 200 pages of legalese, which is enough to make "objectively wrong" an impossibility. There is enough there for some pedantic jackass to argue anything about anything and the only way to sort it out is another court opinion about specifically that thing. What I don't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. What I've argued is that not peering is throttling, which it is, but not what the legal implications of that would be, which are open to interpretation.
However, the argument you've made that if not peering is throttling then Comcast would have to do free peering is not at all ridiculous. It's just not a sure thing. The ISP would be able to argue that they will do peering just not for free, and then it flips into paid prioritization since prioritization is the opposite of throttling.
That's more moving parts than I would prefer to see. Too many opportunities for the ISP to try to weasel out of it. It would be a lot simpler if the FCC would just say "last mile ISPs are required to do free peering with anyone" and avoid the whole mess. But it's a fair argument that could succeed, and if it did would fit entirely with the spirit of the rule.
Which you seem to think makes that outcome some kind of an impossibility, but with reasoning no more substantial than "you're wrong" over and over again with no coherent justification.
You can't sell 50Mbit to a thousand people and then only provide a 100Mbit backbone, just as an electrical utility can't sell you a 300A hookup and only wire up 30AWG, or have voltage drop to half when people in your neighborhood happen to turn on their dryer.
The ISP world right now is the fucking wild west, selling "up to 50Mbits" only to have 10 arrive (just based on line attenuation!), overselling capacity of shared networks like cable 100 times over causing consistent, measurable and repeatable drop at peak times, modifying network traffic to insert "supercookies" (can you imagine USPS opening all mail) and configuring default DNS servers that hijack NXDOMAIN for malware infected websites to make a quick buck.
Up to is fine; but how much will I get when everyone wants to use it at once? Be honest, tell me a 'safe' number (this means pad it just a little, at least).
Violating this number on a repeating, particularly repeatable basis, means that the portion of the bill which is going to pay for infrastructure upkeep (including expansion) needs to go to fixing this problem.
Failure to have an expedient plan (parts on order by the end of the next business week, maintenance scheduled 'soon') for resolving this should lead to daily fines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/0...
Maybe I'm wrong but we'll see.
More likely the next stop is Congress. Reversing basically everything the FCC has done with the internet and making sure the FCC does not do any such things again is a major goal of the Republicans and they currently have majorities in the House and the Senate.
Their presumptive presidential nominee, Trump, is also against net neutrality, seeing it as a liberal attack on conservatives: "Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media" [1].
[1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
Well, if by "next" you mean "previous, current, next, and always"; Republicans in the Congress have been pushing to explicitly prohibit FCC Open Internet action since before the 2010 Open Internet Report and Order. The only thing they've gone after more has been the Affordable Care Act.
But that's a different track than the legal challenges, which have been the only place where neutrality opponents have had concrete victories in the past.
In the absence of a clear definition of "favor", this could also make it difficult for ISPs to host CDNs, or caching servers provided by content providers. If you put Netflix's caching box on your network, in some sense that "favors" Netflix traffic. And yet doing so is good for Netflix, the ISP, and the customer.
For that matter, there's nothing wrong with a CDN giving an ISP money to host a server on their network, if the balance of costs between the CDN and the ISP works out that way. An early-stage CDN or site-specific CDN might well have to do that to get started.
a) The ISP's own systems do not discriminate for or against the traffic from that edge server (i.e. no rules on Comcast's routers to slow down netflix.com while speeding up nbc.com).
b) The ISP offers the same edge server hosting deal to anyone who wants it.
Big ISPs now own content companies, so even if they don't lease space to Netflix, they would still have edge caching servers on their networks--their own. The neutrality rule seeks to ensure that they don't shape their network traffic to degrade content from other providers who don't own the wires and routers.
Also, T-Mobile is arguably violating non-netrality with its Binge service. The FCC has thus far refused to rule against them. T-Mobile claims this cannot be throttling because you can opt-out of it at any time and upstream providers are not being charged. Seems like this could a slippery slope for wired ISPs to follow.
On top of that, I'm a AT&T u-verse customer who recently cut his TV service with U-verse. I was told that I now have a strict data cap, when before I had unlimited because of that. I would like to see the FCC address these situations as cord-cutting becomes popular. I have a FireTV now with Playstation Vue and HBO Now for at least 1/2 the price of U-verse tv.
The actual "net neutrality" win is nice, but this means that the FCC has power to tweak the regulations in the future when Verizon/Comcast/AT&T come up with some new shitty way to monetize their customers.
But these net neutrality rules won't really make the Internet "better" in the U.S., until the ISPs get much better competition, mainly at the local level. Right now this is often not possible because of "other regulations" that essentially give exclusive rights/monopoly to an ISP over a certain area.
If you want "better Internet", eliminating those local monopolies should be the main goal for policy changes going forward. It's something Republicans should vigorously support as well (free market!), but for some reason (read: campaign donations) they do not.
Cable TV Franchises as Barriers to Video Competition
Typically, ISPs in the US are either small and barely-profitable or large and with little appetite for business or technical innovation. The largest content providers already effectively share revenue with the largest ISPs through paid-peering and other arrangements. The smaller players, those that with success could grow and advance the market, are too small to justify the time of content providers that are also very worried about setting a dangerous precedent by extending the same deals to them that they extend to the AT&Ts and Comcasts.
Sure, as consumers we get additional protections, but I fear this mostly ensures that the industry as a whole stays put.
That was 100% the point of Net Neutrality. It is so that the Internet doesn't change. Otherwise we will have a barrier of entry for all the small businesses. The Internet is a free market that needs to stay that way.
The whole idea of net neutrality is that content creators can't pay ISPs for preferential treatment. This means that the large ISPs won't be receiving payouts from Netflix and suchlike, and therefore won't have an advantage in this area over smaller ISPs.
If you really want to push for competition, there are other options. I don't know much about the situation in the US, but in the UK we have local-loop unbundling (LLU), which has proven to be a success in driving forward competition in the ISP market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
LLU helps smaller ISPs to compete with larger ISPs, as it allows them to build up their infrastructure without duplicating the work of laying cables. From the Wikipedia page I just linked to it appears that LLU is at least legal in the US, I'd be interested to learn about how popular it is.
Ah, I see where you've got things mixed up now. Net neutrality stops the need for content providers to share revenue with ISPs. They have no financial interest in doing so, therefore the practice won't continue, it will stop.
(Ok, so some people on here would argue that any regulation on internet is a slippery slope, but I wouldn't worry about that from the FCC. Now, if congress starts weighing in, that's a different story.)