Support Net Neutrality Petition

[Crow T R0bot]

A friend of mine brought this petition to my attention. I worry I jumped the gun by signing it, but it seems important enough, given that it's the Friggin' FCC trying to put an end to Net Neutrality. It's met only a quarter of its 100,000 signature goal.

Here it is, for those who care.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Their classifying it as the "1%" having their way is rather odd when you look at the corporations in favour of net neutrality, and that we are talking about broadband internet in the first place.

I’ve been looking slightly askance at this whole debate over net neutrality. For I fail to see any particular reason why charging different suppliers of content different amounts for their packets moving through the intertubes could be quite the horror that some seem to be portraying it as. We’re not worried that people pay different amounts to have things shipped around by truck or railroad, are entirely comfortable with the idea that the faster arrival of airfreight leads to higher prices than the slower and cheaper sea shipping. So I don’t see the larger societal problem with either net neutrality or its absence.

However, I can absolutely see why content providers will be very keenly in favour of net neutrality and the backbone and bandwidth suppliers very much in favour of its abolition. For the current system of neutrality means that the backbone and bandwidth suppliers are stuck in a commodity market, while the end of it would enable them to undertake product differentiation. And that would mean a move of revenues and profits from the content producers to those bandwidth and cable suppliers. So of course on group is fighting for it and the other against:

More than 100 technology companies including Google GOOGL +1.99%, Facebook, Twitter TWTR -0.59% and Amazon have written to US regulators to warn that proposed net neutrality rules pose a “grave threat to the internet”.

...

None of this really has any implication for the consumer: there’s the same amount of money flowing around the system under net neutrality or not. What does change is who gets some of that money: the content providers or the bandwidth ones. And that’s why the fight about it. And it’s also why you’ve got all of the content providers on the one side of the argument, they know that abandoning net neutrality and allowing differential pricing will bite into their revenues and profits.

It’s entirely possible to argue either side of this, that it’s right or wrong that there should be neutrality or not. But I do have to admit to a certain puzzlement about the argument for it. Why is it just and righteous that the content providers make more money than they would in a free market? And so what is the justification for a law that creates that situation?

Linky.

 

[PixyMisa]

Their classifying it as the "1%" having their way is rather odd when you look at the corporations in favour of net neutrality, and that we are talking about broadband internet in the first place.

When someone uses that expression it's a good indicator that they simply stopped bothering to think at that point. Like the word "spiritual" in other contexts.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

That link is dumb.

 

[xtifr]

I’ve been looking slightly askance at this whole debate over net neutrality. For I fail to see any particular reason why charging different suppliers of content different amounts for their packets moving through the intertubes could be quite the horror that some seem to be portraying it as.

That's not what's happening. If that were what was happening, it would indeed be no big deal. Netflix has an ISP, and they already pay for their bandwidth! This is about the last-mile ISPs who you pay trying to extort money out of people who aren't their customers! And using you and me as hostages in their little power play.

It also isn't about the backbone. The backbone runs on peering agreements, and those are still in place. Netflix is hosted by Level 3, a backbone company which is entirely behind Net Neutrality.

And it certainly isn't about service providers vs content providers. Unless you live in a world where Comcast isn't a content provider, and isn't directly competing with Netflix. And if so, I'd like to know where that world is.

Here's a link that isn't dumb: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

 

[Axiom_Blade]

There's a very good post on Reddit, which has a lot of useful things that can be done to support net neutrality. I don't think that petitions are completely useless, but they are at the lower end of activism, for sure. Perhaps a step up from clicking "Like" on a post. They're a good barometer of popularity, if nothing else, but there are a lot of better things you can do with your time to defend your freedoms.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's not what's happening. If that were what was happening, it would indeed be no big deal. Netflix has an ISP, and they already pay for their bandwidth! This is about the last-mile ISPs who you pay trying to extort money out of people who aren't their customers! And using you and me as hostages in their little power play.

It also isn't about the backbone. The backbone runs on peering agreements, and those are still in place. Netflix is hosted by Level 3, a backbone company which is entirely behind Net Neutrality.

And it certainly isn't about service providers vs content providers. Unless you live in a world where Comcast isn't a content provider, and isn't directly competing with Netflix. And if so, I'd like to know where that world is.

Here's a link that isn't dumb: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

Your interpretation of Comcast is a bit silly. Yes, it is largely providers vs content. The EFF article even lists Comcast as an example of a provider breaking neutrality.

As for citing the EFF... Yeah. That link didn't even mention the last mile or the backbone. The notion of "every packet is treated equally... on the last mile" always felt like a reach. The EFF didn't like how the FCC was doing things anyway. This petition calls for reclassifying broadband as a utility to give the FCC further power, something the EFF would surely oppose, if I know them at all.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/why-the-fcc-cant-save-net-neutrality

 

[Aepervius]

Their classifying it as the "1%" having their way is rather odd when you look at the corporations in favour of net neutrality, and that we are talking about broadband internet in the first place.



Linky.

I can't speak for the 1% language, but the point I can explain you.

Bandwidth is not like transport freight.
1) Bandwidth from point A to point B is a fixed quantity
2) with the peerage system, ISP A pay ISP B or peer C for the exceeding data they download , compared to their upload

Let us tackle point 2 first. At the moment You have the following system :
Joe Q public <->ISP A <-> Peer 1 <->peer 2 <->ISP B<-> Content provider (let us say google)

Joe pay ISP A to have a link connection to internet.
Google pay ISP B to have a link connection.
So far so good.

But then ISP A suddenly says "well google, I think people are googling too much , so now unless you pay me , I will give a DEGRADED link to all my customer".

Note that that link and presumably bandwidth was already paid for and contracted between Joe and ISP A, but ISP A is now saying it want money also from a third party for the same bandwidth which was contracted.

That irk people to no end which see this as double dipping , and blackmail.


Let us go for point 1 then.
Baring burying more cable between peer, the bandwidth is fixed. Now if you have a normal internet , packet will be prioritized not on content but on protocol. So "everybody" share that bandwidth equally. If too many ask for data at the same time, it degrades gracefully for everybody (not true, but it is more a technical reason rather than a money reason).

But now ISP want to have a fast lane and a slow lane. But remember the BW is fixed. So they will have to reserve a portion of the existing BW for that fast lane, and leave a lower BW for the rest of the subscriber thus degrade the service further to everybody else. Since the BW is fixed there is no other way to do it.

in other word they degrade intentionally the service of existing contract to artificially create fast lane and force people to poney up more money to get the fast lane access.

To give you a road analogy , you have a private double road avenue, the road owner contracted people saying they can go up to 60 mph on that road, for them their invited people and shop delivery to them (practically between 18h and 22h you are going to go only 30 mph due to traffic). On that road user ask for pizza delivery by local pizzeria. 20% of the traffic on the road is pizza delivery. Suddenly the road owner decide two things : One of the lane will be a fast lane and the other a slow lane. On the fast lane will be going delivery with a special contract for pizzeria, and only one single lane will be allowed for all traffic. The owner will then ask for pizzeria money or they will be forced into the slow lane. So not only the normal traffic is slower for everybody, but the owner is also forcing the pizzeria with which he has no contract to give money and use the fast lane, or risk the pizza coming cold and losing the delivery money.

This is intentional degrading service for everybody in the name of forcing service delivery to poney up.

Both point 1 and point 2 That is the kind of shenanigan which most of us find terrible.

 

[Modified]

Quote:
I’ve been looking slightly askance at this whole debate over net neutrality. For I fail to see any particular reason why charging different suppliers of content different amounts for their packets moving through the intertubes could be quite the horror that some seem to be portraying it as. We’re not worried that people pay different amounts to have things shipped around by truck or railroad, are entirely comfortable with the idea that the faster arrival of airfreight leads to higher prices than the slower and cheaper sea shipping. So I don’t see the larger societal problem with either net neutrality or its absence.

You can ship stuff using a large choice of shipping methods and companies. I only have two choices of internet provider, and many people have only one. It's more like if only one shipping company were allowed to deliver to my house.

 

[Aepervius]

Yeah. That link didn't even mention the last mile or the backbone. The notion of "every packet is treated equally... on the last mile" always felt like a reach.

It is not a reach it is a fact. Packet are prioritized by protocol. Practically this is most invisible to the end user and never really what's at stake.

On the other hand you always had content neutrality.

An http packet on port 80 from google was treated with the same priority as an http packet on port 80 from yahoo.

What ISP are trying to do now is break that.

 

[xtifr]

Your interpretation of Comcast is a bit silly. Yes, it is largely providers vs content.

No it's not. Level 4 is a provider, and they're on the other side. So it's clearly not providers vs content!

As for citing the EFF... Yeah. That link didn't even mention the last mile or the backbone. The notion of "every packet is treated equally... on the last mile" always felt like a reach. The EFF didn't like how the FCC was doing things anyway. This petition calls for reclassifying broadband as a utility to give the FCC further power, something the EFF would surely oppose, if I know them at all.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/why-the-fcc-cant-save-net-neutrality

You clearly either didn't read that very carefully, or didn't understand the context. That article was about the recent court case, not the new "fast lane" proposal, and the context was the FCC trying to allow potential copyright infringement as one of the reasons why an ISP might regulate its traffic. Also, the FCC not allowing any exceptions in their rules for small, non-commercial ISPs (like your home wifi router).

Note that the solutions they suggest on the very page you linked to are:

- Foster a genuinely competitive market in end-user ISPs. (A great idea, and my preferred solution, but there's no easy way to get from where we are to that point. Pure deregulation encourages mergers in order to benefit from economies of scale, which only increases monopoly. And of course, the industry lobbyists will fight tooth and nail.)
- Legislation mandating net neutrality! (mentioned as probably very difficult in the face of industry lobbyists), or
- Allow users to sue if they determine their ISP is violating net neutrality. (A dubious proposition, as it requires people with little or no money to mount expensive lawsuits against extremely wealthy corporations.)

And if you look at the court filing linked from that page, you'll see that it's almost entirely focused on the issue of using potential copyright infringement as an excuse to violate net neutrality principles. Absolutely nowhere do they suggest that net neutrality is a bad thing or something that shouldn't be a primary goal! In fact, it clearly is one of their primary goals.

Yeah, the EFF doesn't trust the FCC. The FCC already made a huge mistake when they stopped classifying ISPs as common carriers, and then, they tried to have their cake and eat it too by trying to enforce some common carrier rules but not others. I doubt you can find a single place where the EFF objects to classifying ISPs as common carriers, because it's a perfectly sensible idea.

But the bottom line is: just because the EFF objected to things the FCC did in the past does not mean they support this new "fast lane" proposal! In fact, they are unequivocally opposed! And suggesting otherwise, or suggesting that they don't think this is an important issue is disingenuous at best.

The EFF is 100% in favor of net neutrality, and if you don't understand why, you need to look into the situation more.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No it's not. Level 4 is a provider, and they're on the other side. So it's clearly not providers vs content!



You clearly either didn't read that very carefully, or didn't understand the context. That article was about the recent court case, not the new "fast lane" proposal, and the context was the FCC trying to allow potential copyright infringement as one of the reasons why an ISP might regulate its traffic. Also, the FCC not allowing any exceptions in their rules for small, non-commercial ISPs (like your home wifi router).

Note that the solutions they suggest on the very page you linked to are:

- Foster a genuinely competitive market in end-user ISPs. (A great idea, and my preferred solution, but there's no easy way to get from where we are to that point. Pure deregulation encourages mergers in order to benefit from economies of scale, which only increases monopoly. And of course, the industry lobbyists will fight tooth and nail.)
- Legislation mandating net neutrality! (mentioned as probably very difficult in the face of industry lobbyists), or
- Allow users to sue if they determine their ISP is violating net neutrality. (A dubious proposition, as it requires people with little or no money to mount expensive lawsuits against extremely wealthy corporations.)

And if you look at the court filing linked from that page, you'll see that it's almost entirely focused on the issue of using potential copyright infringement as an excuse to violate net neutrality principles. Absolutely nowhere do they suggest that net neutrality is a bad thing or something that shouldn't be a primary goal! In fact, it clearly is one of their primary goals.

Yeah, the EFF doesn't trust the FCC. The FCC already made a huge mistake when they stopped classifying ISPs as common carriers, and then, they tried to have their cake and eat it too by trying to enforce some common carrier rules but not others. I doubt you can find a single place where the EFF objects to classifying ISPs as common carriers, because it's a perfectly sensible idea.

But the bottom line is: just because the EFF objected to things the FCC did in the past does not mean they support this new "fast lane" proposal! In fact, they are unequivocally opposed! And suggesting otherwise, or suggesting that they don't think this is an important issue is disingenuous at best.

The EFF is 100% in favor of net neutrality, and if you don't understand why, you need to look into the situation more.

I don't need to read more, you need to read my actual claim:

This petition calls for reclassifying broadband as a utility to give the FCC further power, something the EFF would surely oppose, if I know them at all.

I never suggested the EFF was in favour of the new "fast lane" proposal or opposed net neutrality. I said they would oppose granting the FCC expanded power by calling broadband a utility. Note that this solution, which is what the OP's petition is calling for, is not one of the EFF's listed proposals.

 

[xtifr]

I never suggested the EFF was in favour of the new "fast lane" proposal or opposed net neutrality. I said they would oppose granting the FCC expanded power by calling broadband a utility. Note that this solution, which is what the OP's petition is calling for, is not one of the EFF's listed proposals.

Oh, yeah, there's all kinds of silly petitions about NN out there. I just assumed OP's link was one of those. I haven't even looked at it. And the smart thing to do is ignore them all and follow the EFF's advice, which is why I posted the EFF link.

(I still don't think you'll find anywhere where the EFF objects to ISPs being classified as common carriers, but I suppose that's not quite the same thing.)

Mostly, though, I was addressing some of the points in that long thing you quoted from early in the thread, which seemed to express doubt that Net Neutrality was even something to worry about. That didn't seem to be you speaking, so I couldn't tell if you were endorsing it or not, but I assure you, as does the EFF, that Net Neutrality is something to worry about.

(And, of course, the so-called "fast lane" proposal should really be called a "slow lane" proposal, because that's what they're planning to add. Normally, network traffic goes at full speed, and they're not planning to add new lines to speed things up. They want to slow stuff down unless it comes from someone whose been extorted into paying for normal speed.)

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good news!

As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality
Last April, a dozen New York-based Internet companies gathered in the Flatiron Building boardroom of the social media website Tumblr to hear dire warnings that broadband providers were about to get the right to charge for the fastest speeds on the web.
The implication: If they didn’t pay up, they would be stuck in the slow lane.
What followed has been the longest, most sustained campaign of Internet activism in history, one that the little guys appear to have won. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote to regulate the Internet as a public good. On Tuesday, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, all but surrendered on efforts to overturn the coming ruling, conceding Democrats are lining up with President Obama in favor of the F.C.C

.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/t...y-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?emc=edit_na_20150224

 

[The Don]

I don't know how analogous network neutrality is to the UK position but the UK position sucks. We buy our phone and internet service from an ISP and as far as I can see there is a reasonable amount of competition in the marketplace. Our deal is one not offered by many (included unlimited international calls) but it's perfect for me working from home with German and US clients and for Mrs Don to keep in touch with her family.

The issue we have is that the crappy infrastructure is still managed by a monopoly provider so if something goes wrong they are responsible for fixing it but we have to go through our ISP (we cannot talk directly) and the ISP appears to have no influence over the infrastructure provider. There doesn't even seem to be adequate regulation or oversight - our local MP who is on various telecom committees in parliament describes the infrastructure supplier as unaccountable.

For all I know there is all kinds of redundancy in the core of the snazzy fibre-based system but the last mile (or in our case the last couple of miles because it takes a circuitous route across some fields) is still bits of damp string and tin cans.

 

[paulhutch]

I don't know how analogous network neutrality is to the UK position snip...

For cable and fiber, nothing in common, in the USA the line owner is the only ISP available. For DSL, in some places there are competing ISPs on the lines. Network neutrality, as being voted on by the FCC tomorrow, is not intended to change the monopoly situation. It simply recognizes the monopoly/duopoly situation and requires that they do not block or limit who a customer can connect to over the internet.

There is one side affect that may help improve the monopoly/duopoly situations. Now that ISP/line-owners will again be classified as common carriers the owners of telephone poles will be required to let new ISP/line-owners use the telephone poles. Currently they are under no obligation to allow pole access, this stalled Google fiber in Austin where 20% of the poles were not available to Google until they paid big bucks to AT&T.

 

[Almo]

Yay. I hope this works out.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There were a blue million law suits ready to go.