5 ms·

I'm a tad skeptical of the electrons vs bits (packets) analogy. Electrons are commoditized and generic - and they don't suffer from prioritization issues excep

I'm a tad skeptical of the electrons vs bits (packets) analogy. Electrons are commoditized and generic - and they don't suffer from prioritization issues except during brown-outs/black-outs. When you receive a stream of bits you are routing very specific non-generic packets via various network interconnects from very specific content providers. The routing and interconnect/bandwidth costs will vary significantly depending on the content provider, content type, and consumer usage. It's my understanding that the ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can offer premium guaranteed/prioritized QoS for specific content types from premium partner providers (e.g. real-time applications such as medical/security devices, VoIP, video conferencing, and streaming audio/video). You can't do this with electrons.

kazagistar 9y ago
Correct. Except this has nothing to do with "specific types of content" and everything to do with "specific large incumbents paying providers to make their competitors slow". If it was just about broad traffic categories, then maybe it wouldn't be as awful of a plan. Really, ISPs don't want to just be a utility. Imagine if instead of having to charge for service provided, they could have large companies like Netflix and Hulu bid for the exclusive privilege among video providers to not be throttled; the profits would start raining in without having to even innovate on actual product or service provided. How wonderful.
- garmaine 9y ago
  Ehhh, not really. I’m pro net neutrality as much as anyone on HN, maybe more so. But recognize that there is a real business point: content delivery cohosted at the ISP is “free” other than electrical cost of the server, which is probably paid for by the content provider, and is a profit center even without kickbacks. Bits routed to other networks cost money and are a cost center. With last mile speeds increasing but backbone data rates not dropping fast enough it can be a real problem. People who torrent or run bitcoin full nodes are probably costing ISPs large amounts of money.
  - techdragon 9y ago
    The simple way to solve this is charge larger customers more. Usage caps have been 100% the norm in Australia since the end of the dial up era. Of course we have other unrelated internet issues, (NBN CVC usage cost crippling ISPs, etc) I pay $69.99 AUD for the ability to transfer 1TB of data in total, up and down, over my ADSL2 connection at “full speed” before the ISP will throttle me down to something like 128 or 256 kbps which either way is uselessly slow (insert web page bloat rant here) until the end of the calendar month when the counters reset. If I ran a torrent client uploading lots of bits, all I would do is “burn my allotment faster” thereby creating an incentive for me to not abuse their network, at the same time as me paying a rate proportional to my use of their network capacity.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      Usage caps make no sense. In normal countries the actual cost to the ISP of higher usage is negligible. Having capacity and not using it doesn't save any money, and the same equipment that allows for higher instantaneous transfer speeds (the thing they market) also supports more total capacity. The actual cost to the ISP of a customer using 100% of their connection the whole month is not very large. If only a small minority do that then the amortized cost per customer is negligible. If everyone starts to do that then the ISP is still fine as long as they price plans appropriately -- a 100Mbit plan costs more than a 20Mbit plan. Bandwidth caps are ridiculous. It's like saying some people drive more than others so to reduce traffic congestion, after you've driven more than 500 miles in a month you can only drive 8MPH for the rest of the month. What kind of sense does that make unless you have some weird agenda like getting people to take a "free" bus which happens to only travel directly to your own store? In theory they could charge more for higher usage, except that if they charged their actual cost for additional bandwidth then it would be so close to zero as to make little difference, e.g. an extra $5/month for full 24/7 usage. Passing traffic is really not that expensive. The cost of getting and maintaining a wire into your house to begin with absolutely dwarfs it.
      - fjsolwmv 9y ago
        You can't simple ignore fixed overhead costs (including capacity to avoid congestion) just because they aren't marginal costs.
throwawayjava 9y ago
No. ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can vertically integrate their content and delivery products, mostly because their content offerings are utter crap and can't compete in a free market. The intent here is patently obvious; the industry analysts working for major ISPs don't even pretend anymore. Also, medical devices?! Hospitals can/do buy dedicated lines with QoS guarantees and then monitor their own networks' use of those lines; all of that is 100% allowed under NN... so unless your argument is that it would be a net good to add medical devices to the Internet of Crap ecosystem, this is a fantastic argument in favor in net neturality ;-) > You can't do this with electrons. Huh?! yes, you absolutely can. We happen to mostly use photons these days, but I'm having a really hard time seeing why this distinction between "you can only use the electron for x,y,z" and "you can only use the photon for x,y,z" is anything but completely arbitrary. If I happen to use a tranmission medium that uses electrons instead of photons, does that suddenly mean my ISP should be bound by NN regulations? Thats... rather confusing. Or, more succinctly, "you can't microwave Netflix(R)-brand Popcorn with bits"
- vertis 9y ago
  I think he mean electrons as in power, not as in the joyous copper phone line that gives me barely usable internet at times. Hi from Australia.
  - murftown 9y ago
    The electrons don't know the difference!
  - nojvek 9y ago
    All hail Telstra! After all the billions poured in Broadband act.
- ankushnarula 9y ago
  > ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can vertically integrate their content and delivery products, mostly because their content offerings are utter crap and can't compete in a free market. This is certainly true as well. But we've seen with T-Mobile's zero-rating that it's faster and cheaper to acquire/retain new customers through partnering and network management. To your point, and to compete with Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, I believe T-Mobile announced a TV-related acquisition today. > Also, medical devices?! Hospitals can/do buy dedicated lines with QoS guarantees and then monitor their own networks' use of those lines; all of that is 100% allowed under NN... so unless your argument is that it would be a net good to add medical devices to the Internet of Crap ecosystem, this is a fantastic argument in favor in net neturality ;-) Hospitals are already being addressed, as you say, with dedicated lines and VPNs. I'm referring to the millions of device endpoints sitting on consumer-grade (NN limited) wired/wireless networks. Rescinding NN will allow the ISPs to sell premium prioritized QoS to medical and security services companies who can bundle access to their customers. I'm not sure how this will play out in practice though. > You can't do this with electrons. The point is that for an ISP, Internet packets are routed via dozens of network interconnects and millions of content sources on a variable QoS consumer demand basis. On the contrary, electricity is generic and is (ideally) sourced on a lowest cost basis and QoS is strictly determined on a supply/demand dimension. > If I happen to use a tranmission medium that uses electrons instead of photons, does that suddenly mean my ISP should be bound by NN regulations? I'm not advocating against NN. I'm just pointing out that the electricity analogy is inaccurate. I'm also pointing out that the ISPs want to offer premium Qos and, yes, their own content offerings.
grahamburger 9y ago
> It's my understanding that the ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can offer premium guaranteed/prioritized QoS for specific content types from premium partner providers (e.g. real-time applications such as medical/security devices, VoIP, video conferencing, and streaming audio/video). You can't do this with electrons. This is actually allowed under current net neutrality rules. As an ISP I can use QoS to make VoIP more reliable, for example. What I can't do is make one specific VoIP provider more reliable than another. If that's the argument that large ISPs are making then they're not being truthful. I have worked at small ISPs for the last 15 years or so and worked on systems that did these things. FWIW I strongly support net neutrality and I'm especially annoyed with any rhetoric that suggests net neutrality is bad for small ISPs. It's really not.
- grahamburger 9y ago
  Adding more precision: current net neutrality rules allow for some traffic prioritization if the network is at capacity. When the network is not at capacity, bits flow through at line speed but when a network hits it's capacity queues start to fill up. QoS doesn't do anything until queues start to fill up. So if I'm an ISP and I add QoS rules to prioritize VoIP over browsing traffic so that when the network gets congested VoIP calls don't drop (at the expense of web browsing speed) then that's ok - as long as I'm not artificially slowing things down and as long as I'm not prioritizing one company over another (Vonage over Skype, for example.) Removing net neutrality allows ISPs to make deals with VoIP providers (or anyone, really) so that their VoIP always works the best (or even so other VoIP services work poorly or not at all.)
  - freedomben 9y ago
    This is a great message to get out as it addresses what I perceive as one of the stronger arguments against NN.

kazagistar 9y ago

Correct. Except this has nothing to do with "specific types of content" and everything to do with "specific large incumbents paying providers to make their competitors slow". If it was just about broad traffic categories, then maybe it wouldn't be as awful of a plan. Really, ISPs don't want to just be a utility. Imagine if instead of having to charge for service provided, they could have large companies like Netflix and Hulu bid for the exclusive privilege among video providers to not be throttled; the profits would start raining in without having to even innovate on actual product or service provided. How wonderful.

garmaine 9y ago
Ehhh, not really. I’m pro net neutrality as much as anyone on HN, maybe more so. But recognize that there is a real business point: content delivery cohosted at the ISP is “free” other than electrical cost of the server, which is probably paid for by the content provider, and is a profit center even without kickbacks. Bits routed to other networks cost money and are a cost center. With last mile speeds increasing but backbone data rates not dropping fast enough it can be a real problem. People who torrent or run bitcoin full nodes are probably costing ISPs large amounts of money.
- techdragon 9y ago
  The simple way to solve this is charge larger customers more. Usage caps have been 100% the norm in Australia since the end of the dial up era. Of course we have other unrelated internet issues, (NBN CVC usage cost crippling ISPs, etc) I pay $69.99 AUD for the ability to transfer 1TB of data in total, up and down, over my ADSL2 connection at “full speed” before the ISP will throttle me down to something like 128 or 256 kbps which either way is uselessly slow (insert web page bloat rant here) until the end of the calendar month when the counters reset. If I ran a torrent client uploading lots of bits, all I would do is “burn my allotment faster” thereby creating an incentive for me to not abuse their network, at the same time as me paying a rate proportional to my use of their network capacity.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    Usage caps make no sense. In normal countries the actual cost to the ISP of higher usage is negligible. Having capacity and not using it doesn't save any money, and the same equipment that allows for higher instantaneous transfer speeds (the thing they market) also supports more total capacity. The actual cost to the ISP of a customer using 100% of their connection the whole month is not very large. If only a small minority do that then the amortized cost per customer is negligible. If everyone starts to do that then the ISP is still fine as long as they price plans appropriately -- a 100Mbit plan costs more than a 20Mbit plan. Bandwidth caps are ridiculous. It's like saying some people drive more than others so to reduce traffic congestion, after you've driven more than 500 miles in a month you can only drive 8MPH for the rest of the month. What kind of sense does that make unless you have some weird agenda like getting people to take a "free" bus which happens to only travel directly to your own store? In theory they could charge more for higher usage, except that if they charged their actual cost for additional bandwidth then it would be so close to zero as to make little difference, e.g. an extra $5/month for full 24/7 usage. Passing traffic is really not that expensive. The cost of getting and maintaining a wire into your house to begin with absolutely dwarfs it.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      You can't simple ignore fixed overhead costs (including capacity to avoid congestion) just because they aren't marginal costs.

throwawayjava 9y ago

No. ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can vertically integrate their content and delivery products, mostly because their content offerings are utter crap and can't compete in a free market. The intent here is patently obvious; the industry analysts working for major ISPs don't even pretend anymore. Also, medical devices?! Hospitals can/do buy dedicated lines with QoS guarantees and then monitor their own networks' use of those lines; all of that is 100% allowed under NN... so unless your argument is that it would be a net good to add medical devices to the Internet of Crap ecosystem, this is a fantastic argument in favor in net neturality ;-) > You can't do this with electrons. Huh?! yes, you absolutely can. We happen to mostly use photons these days, but I'm having a really hard time seeing why this distinction between "you can only use the electron for x,y,z" and "you can only use the photon for x,y,z" is anything but completely arbitrary. If I happen to use a tranmission medium that uses electrons instead of photons, does that suddenly mean my ISP should be bound by NN regulations? Thats... rather confusing. Or, more succinctly, "you can't microwave Netflix(R)-brand Popcorn with bits"

vertis 9y ago
I think he mean electrons as in power, not as in the joyous copper phone line that gives me barely usable internet at times. Hi from Australia.
- murftown 9y ago
  The electrons don't know the difference!
- nojvek 9y ago
  All hail Telstra! After all the billions poured in Broadband act.
ankushnarula 9y ago
> ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can vertically integrate their content and delivery products, mostly because their content offerings are utter crap and can't compete in a free market. This is certainly true as well. But we've seen with T-Mobile's zero-rating that it's faster and cheaper to acquire/retain new customers through partnering and network management. To your point, and to compete with Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, I believe T-Mobile announced a TV-related acquisition today. > Also, medical devices?! Hospitals can/do buy dedicated lines with QoS guarantees and then monitor their own networks' use of those lines; all of that is 100% allowed under NN... so unless your argument is that it would be a net good to add medical devices to the Internet of Crap ecosystem, this is a fantastic argument in favor in net neturality ;-) Hospitals are already being addressed, as you say, with dedicated lines and VPNs. I'm referring to the millions of device endpoints sitting on consumer-grade (NN limited) wired/wireless networks. Rescinding NN will allow the ISPs to sell premium prioritized QoS to medical and security services companies who can bundle access to their customers. I'm not sure how this will play out in practice though. > You can't do this with electrons. The point is that for an ISP, Internet packets are routed via dozens of network interconnects and millions of content sources on a variable QoS consumer demand basis. On the contrary, electricity is generic and is (ideally) sourced on a lowest cost basis and QoS is strictly determined on a supply/demand dimension. > If I happen to use a tranmission medium that uses electrons instead of photons, does that suddenly mean my ISP should be bound by NN regulations? I'm not advocating against NN. I'm just pointing out that the electricity analogy is inaccurate. I'm also pointing out that the ISPs want to offer premium Qos and, yes, their own content offerings.

grahamburger 9y ago

> It's my understanding that the ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can offer premium guaranteed/prioritized QoS for specific content types from premium partner providers (e.g. real-time applications such as medical/security devices, VoIP, video conferencing, and streaming audio/video). You can't do this with electrons. This is actually allowed under current net neutrality rules. As an ISP I can use QoS to make VoIP more reliable, for example. What I can't do is make one specific VoIP provider more reliable than another. If that's the argument that large ISPs are making then they're not being truthful. I have worked at small ISPs for the last 15 years or so and worked on systems that did these things. FWIW I strongly support net neutrality and I'm especially annoyed with any rhetoric that suggests net neutrality is bad for small ISPs. It's really not.

grahamburger 9y ago
Adding more precision: current net neutrality rules allow for some traffic prioritization if the network is at capacity. When the network is not at capacity, bits flow through at line speed but when a network hits it's capacity queues start to fill up. QoS doesn't do anything until queues start to fill up. So if I'm an ISP and I add QoS rules to prioritize VoIP over browsing traffic so that when the network gets congested VoIP calls don't drop (at the expense of web browsing speed) then that's ok - as long as I'm not artificially slowing things down and as long as I'm not prioritizing one company over another (Vonage over Skype, for example.) Removing net neutrality allows ISPs to make deals with VoIP providers (or anyone, really) so that their VoIP always works the best (or even so other VoIP services work poorly or not at all.)
- freedomben 9y ago
  This is a great message to get out as it addresses what I perceive as one of the stronger arguments against NN.