Anyone upset by this mornings news? Net neutrality gone...

gbdavidx

U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

In its ruling against the FCC’s rules, the court said that such restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in which ISP they use.
BS argument by the judge, he obviously doesn't know how much major ISP's control the internet

the_Grinch

Choice in which ISP they use? Tell that to people who live in Philadelphia.

FloOz

REMOVED UNNECESSARY QUOTED REPLY FROM PREVIOUS POST

Wahhhhh I hate Comcast!

networker050184

I can see both sides of the argument, but I do agree that providers should be able to prioritize traffic on their networks as they see fit.

YFZblu

the_Grinch wrote: »

Choice in which ISP they use? Tell that to people who live in Philadelphia.

Pretty much this - I'd be more ok with it if the industry wasn't monopolized.

Ukimokia

networker050184 wrote: »

I can see both sides of the argument, but I do agree that providers should be able to prioritize traffic on their networks as they see fit.

Why?

So they can hurt other business by supporting another? Cause if if website company A pays an ISP to prioritize traffic to them instead of company B. That's basically killing competition through a degredation of service.

networker050184

So what, companies should not be allowed to make business deals on their own network that they build?

Claymoore

Unless those business deals become a barrier to entry. Say Comcast prioritizes their MoneyTalks conferencing application while relegating my MeetFree conferencing app to best effort status. Our apps can't compete in a fair market because they control the backbone. That's anti-competitive and the stuff that big lawsuits are made of.

Sometimes they argue it's about controlling torrent bandwidth hogs, but what about Netflix streaming traffic? What happens when people start dropping the cable provider's overpriced, one-size-fits-none channel package for straight internet access and a streaming service? FOX doesn't care if their revenue comes from HULU or TimeWarner, but it sure matters to TimeWarner.

networker050184

I just don't see the problem with offering better quality of service for more money. It's already done on the client side why not the content side? Or if a company builds their own network why can't they assign their own services to a higher quality of service? You better believe when it comes to VoIP this is already being done. You think your Skype call gets the same quality of service as a call from the providers VoIP service itself? No.

I guess what it comes down to is whether you see the internet as a business or not. These companies make money off of the networks they build. These networks cost lots of money to build and maintain and new streams of revenue will only lead to better networks.

blargoe

Claymoore wrote: »

Unless those business deals become a barrier to entry. Say Comcast prioritizes their MoneyTalks conferencing application while relegating my MeetFree conferencing app to best effort status. Our apps can't compete in a fair market because they control the backbone. That's anti-competitive and the stuff that big lawsuits are made of.

Sometimes they argue it's about controlling torrent bandwidth hogs, but what about Netflix streaming traffic? What happens when people start dropping the cable provider's overpriced, one-size-fits-none channel package for straight internet access and a streaming service? FOX doesn't care if their revenue comes from HULU or TimeWarner, but it sure matters to TimeWarner.

This is the scenario that I think the ISPs (a subsidary of the big media companies, most of them) will abuse. They are going to try to downgrade the user experience of streaming TV to entice people to come back and pay for the big cable packages.

DevilWAH

I use an ISP at work called Janet (https://www.ja.net/) they are an academic network and I am all for the fact they protorise VoIP traffic, it means we can save a packet on our SIP as we don't need separate connections to guarantee voice traffic to and from site. Now OK I know this ISP is not wuite the same as home broadband but it is a fact that we now live with two types of traffic RTP/Streaming and the rest. Allowing the ISP to protorise these means they can offer better streaming services to the end user and some thing that needs to be done if we are going to have good voice and video services (that we all want) over networks contested with people browsing the net and downloading huge files via P2P.

If I am a company already I can pay to get a faster connection, If I purchase a guaranteed bandwidth through a ISP then that's what I get and the poor guy at home suffers with there contention. Why cant ISP do the same for priority, rather than cost just for more bandwidth be able to split and sell high priority and low priority services.

Remember the vast % of income to ISP is via the public user, and they are not dumb or stupid when it comes to business, they will make business pay who want high priority and they will make sure to keep there users from jumping ship.

I see it as a necessity to run a network as big as the internet that is heavily over subscribed, if you want to use this for real time applications both home users and businesses. If companies start to use this to demote spam/****/and piracy to a scavenger class, by simply not allowing mass mailing and demoting p2p by default to a lower service level than just that would be a huge step forward. Yes there are ligament personal and business usages for p2p and mass mailing, but 99% of people could survive with a slight drop in service, and for individuals and and businesses who cant then you sign up an agreement with the IP and pay a little more. I recall back in the late 90's paying £5 a month extra for having a static IP address.

As long as they don't get silly and block traffic but simply pritorise then I can't see an issue. When I turned on QOS at work on a congested link and dropped the users web traffic to the bottom of the queue, not a single one noticed, I can in graphs that its having an effect and during busy period slowing down web browsing. but that's because I have a GUI that shows me. the few 10th's seconds it takes a page to load, or extra 60 seconds to download a 500mbyte file is not even noticed by the end user.

ISP want to make money and you make money by doing what your user base want as much as possible. Piss them of and they disappear and you money drys up. This ruling gives them the opportunity to bring along new services, the ISP that get the balance right will be the ones still around in 20 years. the ones who push it to far will go the same way so many others have.

SteveLord

"Quality of service" and [insert any major ISP here] do not go in the same sentence.

eansdad

These companies already profit into the billions and we are just seeing fiber ran in parts of the country. We just got fiber to the home in our part of NJ less than 5 years ago and most of our county isn't due to get it for another 5 if at all. The ISPs lease access to a public domain (the internet). Instead of competing with each other for customers by making their access better through faster speeds, longer up-time and better price they want to band together to offer an inferior product with the ability to stuff competition from non advertisers or partners. Also in-case people haven't read the entire ruling the ISPs are able to block content all together. So your ISP might not allow access to sights like Amazon Prime Steaming, Hulu or Netflix.

These ISPs chose to get into the business of selling access now they want to be able to control that access. All for what? So some rich guy can get an extra penny or 2 on his investment?

Things are going in the wrong direction here. Other contries are making their backbones faster/cheaper while we allow ours to charge more for a lot less.

networker050184

eansdad wrote: »

These ISPs chose to get into the business of selling access now they want to be able to control that access.

Well, yeah. They spent the billions of dollars to build these networks and now they shouldn't be able to control what they do with them? Obviously the courts think they should be able to and that is beyond the scope of the FCC.

DevilWAH

networker050184 wrote: »

Well, yeah. They spent the billions of dollars to build these networks and now they shouldn't be able to control what they do with them? Obviously the courts think they should be able to and that is beyond the scope of the FCC.

So I fail to understand why people don't get this. An ISP is not a public bit of infrastructure, a company has paid for it and owns it and sells a service from that. If they want to squease it for every last bit of cash they can get why should a law be put in place to stop them?? If I run a Pub I am allow to set a dress code at the door, its my business and I get to chose what I do with it. If I set a dress code as purple swimming hat, and pink dotted shorts and charge £50 a drink, I might find the pub dose not do so well (or at least its going to be a very niche business). If I let any rifraf in and charge £2 that's a different business model and may work out better. Why cant we expect to see the same from ISP's.

My feeling is that if we don't like how its run now, then work hard and get in a position where we have a direct say in how its done. its a competition out there and no ISP is going to shoot its self in the foot by implementing something that cuts of a huge segment of its market. The ruling its self is not a defeat for net neutrality, there are lots of benefits to the common person that could come from it, and there a big argument that with out it the cost to keep improving the speed delivered to end used will have to be passed on to those end users. If all I want to do is watch Netflix why should I have to pay so my ISP can support all bandwidth for the spam/****/piracy and other rubbish on the internet?

I would like to have seen some better guide lines put in place, that suggested that data was never blocked, and/or a % of the ISP's backbone was kept nutrual so other ISP could route data through with out danger of loss of service. but to be honest this is going to happen any way, ISP will have contracts with each other and if ISP_A needs to use ISP_B to get to customers in ISP_C, they are going to have agreements that state that there data will be sent and allowed when they write up there contracts. ISP are driven by the users, so we just have to make sure we don't buy in to the ideas we don't like.

networker050184

I agree DevilWAH, but it seems people think the internet is some magic network that no one owns and these ISPs are trying to control something that isn't theirs.

tpatt100

It happened before and it will happen again. Some of us went from dial up internet that was charged by the hour/minute to a "unlimited model". Then we had data plans for mobile that was by the minute, unlimited to gain subscribers and then to data caps. Companies rely on tiered plans so they can charge more money for those willing to pay more knowing those who use way less pay for the privilege of just having access and those are the ones that make the ISPs money.

Broadband providers are only going to compete when forced and like mobile providers they watch each other and react accordingly. I got an antenna installed on my roof when I cut cable because I didn't want to rely strictly on cable streaming because it's already happened and will eventually happen where cable will become like mobile companies and just have different "all in one" plans. So the majority of my television watching is over the air to a Tivo but the price of my internet and basic cable plus internet is eventually going to be so close to each other the savings goes away due to the extra streaming channel benefits that come with cable subscription.

Cable and satellite companies work deals with the major networks I don't see what the difference is if they work deals with Amazon or Netflix because they are becoming just another network anyways.

I just figure I might as well enjoy my antenna and use that primarily and stream only what I cannot get on my Apple TV which is only a few shows per year.

googol

It is in the FCC's hands, its not over yet. What To Know About The Net Neutrality Ruling | Popular Science

antielvis

networker050184

I recall a few years ago a Canadian internet company tried to pull off something like this. They had started their own VoIP service so they did smoething technically that caused issues to Vonage. If you wanted the problem fixed I believe you had to pay an extra monthly fee. The ISP industry is an oligopoly and the bulk of providers are public firms who answer to shareholders, not customers.

I'll accept the end of net neutraility when we have a full open true free market in the internet services business. Until then no way.

@DevilWah: Your opinion on this makes sense..in a world that's actually capitalist, but this is not a capitalist system, it's a system built on mercantilism. Larger firms, with political influence, have a great deal of control and are often public firms. Public firms put more value in shareholders than in customers. To imagine they "care" is like believing in the tooth fairy.

FYI, this sort of inclusive stand of "we built it, we'll do what we want" was commonplace in the computer industry many years ago. Open standards didn't exist, everything was proprietary. It was a miserable failure and squelched out development. The internet needs to be open and free. It's good for us all.

networker050184

They aren't pulling something as in they are purposefully degrading one service in choice of another, they are just giving higher priority to one service for a cost. Purposefully degrading a service is a whole other conversation and nothing to do with this. This is something that already happens on the client side. You can buy 'gold' service for you companies traffic and you get priority over another company that bought 'bronze'. Bringing this to content side is going to make you as a user have a better experience if your content provider is willing to pay. If they aren't willing to pay for higher prioritization then hey people will switch services. That is the way it works in the business world.

I think the biggest issue is that people don't understand the technicality behind the internet and how traffic prioritization actually works. Reading what some people are saying about this on other non technical sites makes my head hurt. They just have no idea what they are talking about.......

And just an FYI this already happens on the cell side of the house and the world hasn't ended!

DevilWAH

antielvis wrote: »

The internet needs to be open and free. It's good for us all.

Then go build it, that's what the first pioneers did. No where in this ruling does it say you can't run a neutral internet, but as the experienced network engineers amongst us know they very notation of a neutral network is a fallacy wither its an internal network for a business or an ISP. Prioritising VoIP traffic on my network does not "block" users getting to watch there you tube clips. If a ISP has a 140Gig backbone and users are wanting to send 200gig through it then they have no option but to block traffic. If that ISP wants to offer VoIP services to its customers then its only option is to upgrade its backbone to support peek traffic flow. Now this costs money, lots of money and who is going to pay, well its going to be shared out across all there users??

Even if for 99% of the time the traffic is below 140gig they need to meet peek traffic to insure voice quality not average, Putting QOS across there network means they can grantee traffic with out investing in larger pipes, by splitting there bandwidth in to guaranteed and best effort. Now he difference is that they are able to say what traffic might be dropped, not what traffic is dropped. Just like with in a business I monitor my bandwidth, I look for the peek high priority, my formula for bandwidth required on a link is now. Peek high priority traffic must never exceed 30% of total bandwidth. So in the above example the IPS having a 140gig can support up to 42gig peek high priority. As long as the ISP keep the ratios reasonable, then every one stays happy and net neutrality remains.

The reason blocked is used in the case and not priorities is that it is a much clearer legal term. If a link has 140gig and you want to put 150gig data across it, data gets dropped/Blocked, with out priority this is random. As soon as you introduce priority the ISP is making a choice what traffic is dropped so in legal terms it is getting "blocked" due to policies applied by the ISP.

ptilsen

DevilWAH wrote: »

So I fail to understand why people don't get this. An ISP is not a public bit of infrastructure, a company has paid for it and owns it and sells a service from that.

Actually, it is a piece of public infrastructure. The ISP generally pays to lay the lines and maintain them, but they do so across public and private lands at the permission of local governments and property owners. And once they do so, they have a tremendous amount of power in the local Internet market. They are able to price as high and/or provide the lowest quality services that will keep customers coming to them without allowing another competitor to build competing lines. The barriers to entry in an ISP market are huge, between the consent of the owners of the property (generally the public) the lines go on and the cost of actually laying them. And realistically, we don't want a bunch of ISPs laying competing lines of the same technology because it's terribly inefficient and there's not much differentiation between providers using the same technology.

So sure, ISPs own the lines and the back-end, but it's not like they pulled their networks up from their own bootstraps and built them out of moxie, entrepreneurship, and fairy dust and the FCC is coming to steal their hard-earned property. They're using a public good (the land on which the lines are laid) with the permission of the public, and there's absolutely no reason the public has to or should allow them complete control of their networks. As it stands, local governments already allow private companies to build these lines and limitlessly profit off of them when they could, in fact, build public ISPs and provide a better service for less money or restrict their profit. We're not talking about cars or software here; ISPs provide a very commoditized, generic service. They generally only differentiate on price, latency, and bandwidth. ISPs aren't much different than utility providers, which with very few exceptions are either run with strict price and profit controls or by a government or public entity. The Internet isn't quite as important as heat, water, and electricity, but I don't see that as a good reason to let ISPs control and profit from a unique public good with no restrictions.

networker050184

Private companies pay to lay their own lines too. Should we control how they prioritize traffic on them? They go through public land as well. Once they pay to build the lines I think their debt there is payed off.

Claymoore

DevilWAH wrote: »

So I fail to understand why people don't get this. An ISP is not a public bit of infrastructure, a company has paid for it and owns it and sells a service from that. If they want to squease it for every last bit of cash they can get why should a law be put in place to stop them??

And that's what the FCC got wrong. They failed to classify the ISPs as a common carrier (like local phone companies) which subject them to a whole different set of regulations. The networks exist because we allow them to exist.

Why can't I charge monthly rent on the water and fiber optic lines that run under my yard? Why can't I charge a fee every time the electric company walks through my yard to access the power pole? I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for my property, I should be able to squeeze all the money I can out of that investment. I can't because of laws regarding easements and utility right of way. Qwest built their network using right-of-ways from the rail lines Anschutz owned. Williams built their network using decommissioned pipelines and the original right of way that went with them. Verizon and other baby bells built theirs on top of access granted 100 years ago. The networks exist because we believe that they serve a public good and so we created laws to facilitate their buildout. A gentlemen's agreement 100 years ago allowed AT&T to operate as a monopoly without being regulated as a utility. Once that agreement was abused and broke down, AT&T was broken up.

Do you trust your ISP to treat everyone fair, or do you think Redbox Instant by Verizon will stream better on FIOS than Netflix?

ptilsen

DevilWAH wrote: »

Then go build it, that's what the first pioneers did.

Even if you could steal half an existing ISP's customers by providing net neutrality, it wouldn't be profitable to go lay your own lines for a competing network.

DevilWAH wrote: »

No where in this ruling does it say you can't run a neutral internet

The reality in the US today is that once the major ISPs can do something, they all can do so without significant competition. The ruling doesn't need to say that to make it true.

DevilWAH wrote: »

but as the experienced network engineers amongst us know they very notation of a neutral network is a fallacy wither its an internal network for a business or an ISP.

This really has very little to do with prioritizing protocols for quality or class of service. It's about prioritizing specific content providers and making extra money off of content providers who will now essentially have to pay twice to get their content to people, either at all or at the speeds both the provider and consumer were already paying for.

networker050184

Claymoore wrote: »

Do you trust your ISP to treat everyone fair, or do you think Redbox Instant by Verizon will stream better on FIOS than Netflix?

If as a business customer you can buy better service for more money on the internet why shouldn't they be able to sell better service to Netflix, Hulu etc? For your point I guess we should just go ahead and do away with any type of quality of service and have the entire internet best effort.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

Private companies pay to lay their own lines too. Should we control how they prioritize traffic on them?

To an extent, yes. They are using a unique public good. They should not get free reign to do so.

networker050184 wrote: »

They go through public land as well. Once they pay to build the lines I think their debt there is payed off.

It's not a debt that can be paid. To be allowed to provide a unique service using public lands, they need to do so in line with what the public expects of them. We don't let electricity companies charge whatever they want, either. They have to justify rate hikes and fees and are only allowed to profit to a certain extent because they're given a monopoly by the public.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

If as a business customer you can buy better service for more money on the internet why shouldn't they be able to sell better service to Netflix, Hulu etc?

Because they're not providing the service to those entities. They're providing it to you and to the ISPs to which they connect, who in turn provide service to their customers. Why should we have to pay other ISPs on top of our own for certain levels of access or service? Both sets of customers are already paying for a certain level of service.

networker050184

ptilsen wrote: »

This really has very little to do with prioritizing protocols for quality or class of service. It's about prioritizing specific content providers and making extra money off of content providers who will now essentially have to pay twice to get their content to people, either at all or at the speeds both the provider and consumer were already paying for.

How do you think they are going to prioritize these content provider's traffic? When it comes to the bits and bytes QoS is exactly how it is going to be done just like if you bought QoS guarantee for your business today. They will now be selling this to content providers and if you don't think ISPs already put their own traffic in a higher queue you are sorely mistaken.

ptilsen wrote: »

Because they're not providing the service to those entities. They're providing it to you and to the ISPs to which they connect, who in turn provide service to their customers. Why should we have to pay other ISPs on top of our own for certain levels of access or service? Both sets of customers are already paying for a certain level of service.

I don't think you are understanding how it is currently set up. Netflix does set up a connection to your ISP and serve directly from there. Netflix peers directly with pretty much every major ISP so it's not like you are paying for traffic that comes from Verizon to be prioritized on Comcast etc.

ptilsen wrote: »

To an extent, yes. They are using a unique public good. They should not get free reign to do so.

Wow, guess we will just have to agree to be on complete different ends of the spectrum here if you think private companies should have their leased lines controlled for traffic prioritization....

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

For your point I guess we should just go ahead and do away with any type of quality of service and have the entire internet best effort.

It's not just quality of service; it's access. Comcast could block Netflix entirely. It can use it's regional monopolies and near-monopolies on Internet access to force consumers to return to its other near-monopoly, context access via cable TV. That's not a farfetched hypothetical, either; Comcast, specifically, probably should block Netflix as a rational business decision, or at least charge Netflix as much as it's willing and able to pay.

networker050184

That is completely far fetched and hypothetical. No ISP is going to block Netflix just because they provide a similar service. Will they give their service higher priority on their own network? Of course, it's their network. They will allow Netflix to pay for similar service though. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? The courts agree with that and I can see why.