30 ms·
GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
- notyourday 9y agoYes, those fast lanes are called PNIs between content providers and eyeball networks. They have been in existence since the time Excite@Home went to the exchanges.
- coldcode 9y agoIf it allows paid fast lanes, then clearly it allows degradation.
- croon 9y agoThe GOP didn't expect us plebs to see through that.
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoI dunno. Given their recent fondness for passing statute at GOP-held level N that preempts statute at non-GOP level N-1, they seem pretty brazen to me. Federalism is out the window, districts are gerrymandered, packing the courts, etc.
- pjc50 9y agoThey're in charge. Their supporters will vote for them no matter what so long as the guns and abortion issues are untouched, because they get their news from a parallel system in which this is all presented as a good thing. They don't depend on floating voters because there aren't any.
- wavefunction 9y agoThe GOP most certainly depends on floating voters. There are many independent/non-affiliated voters in the US, more than either the registered Republican or Democrat voter base. And there were plenty of people who voted for President Obama but voted for Trump. 13% of 2012 Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/ http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-h... I strongly agree with the rest of your post.
- soundwave106 9y agoI don't know, the polls seem to suggest that 3 out of 4 Republicans polled support net neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.318924241880 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...). I suppose it boils down to where in the priority list this falls for the average voter. I think you could easily give supporters in this realm, that aren't quite aware of the worst case scenarios people fear about net neutrality repeal, food for thought using news as an example. Comcast for instance owns NBC Universal. If Comcast, often the de facto Internet provider in some areas, decides to favor vertical integration in news and "prioritize their outlets"... let's just say that the news outlets NBC Universal owns tend to be exactly opposite of the "parallel news system" outlets you are talking about. :)
- rhino369 9y agoPriorization and throtting aren’t exactly the same. Throttling implies rate limiting even if there is surplus bandwidth. Prioritization would only occur when bandwidth was limited. Think of it as QoS based on a list of sites provided by the ISP.
- sametmax 9y agoBut throttling is really hard to prove. They can always downsize some hardware to "prioritize" and "retarget their budget", but effectively they just throttle. Basically they can do whatever they want with the proper wording now.
- rhino369 9y agoSabotaging their network just to throttle just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago...except for it already happening in other countries without protections.
- haZard_OS 9y agoYou call it "sabotaging", I call it "enhancing monetization powers". Either way, it's sabotaging the public's access.
- wtallis 9y ago> Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side. White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
- sametmax 9y agoIf you had sane competition, maybe. But you don't, so they can do whatever they want and you'll pay for it unless you don't want internet at all.
- murph-almighty 9y agoLiterally my concern with this. Everyone gets the same coverage except premium customers. Then degrade that base degree of coverage. Boom.
- sametmax 9y agoMost of the time when somebody is selling "premium service" in IT, it doesn't mean "better service", but "regular service while we artificially make any other ones worst". Regular customers will just see their quality drop for the same price. Web sites will have to pay for the bandwith their customer already paid for to their ISP. It's going to suck. Hope this never happens in France, but our leaders love to copy the worst decisions taken in the US so...
- g00gler 9y agoIs that definitely the case? I interpreted this as meaning that although you pay for 10mb/s Internet, Comcast can offer a special package that allows you to stream Netflix in 4K.
- wanderingbort 9y agoThat is objectively false. Degrading the "slow" lanes is only one way to produce a fast lane. Direct peering arrangements and co-location of services are two ways to create "fast" lanes without having to degrade anything. They are also not free, so it makes sense that business-to-business deals would be made to establish them (aka paid fast lanes). The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As things fan out to individual users you may have capacity for 100+mbps but no way to consume it because upstream there is a bottleneck. In many cases that bottleneck exists at the edge of an ISP or farther upstream of it. Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
- dahart 9y agoYou've missed the point. The very existence of fast lanes means that whatever's left is a degradation. This has been the point NN proponents have been making all along. Proposing to ban slow lanes but allow fast lanes effectively does nothing for NN proponents. It doesn't have to be "actively" slowing down traffic to be degraded. If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation. One of many forms the degradation could come in is ISPs failing to build out faster networks until people are paying higher prices. Service can be allowed to degrade over time by simply not doing anything unless you pay more money.
- notyourday 9y agoIt is not. If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone. [Edit: Post more downvotes] Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?
- wtallis 9y ago
- notyourday 9y agoNot needed: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/029251.html https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/0292...
- wanderingbort 9y agowhats interesting is that nothing about the current net-neutrality discussions addresses concerns like these. They may or may not be substantiated concerns. The graphs don't show intent so, that much is assumed.
- notyourday 9y agoThat's because NN proponents have no idea what they are talking about. Cure for SVitis is make everyone do a stint racking servers, running fiber and opening tickets with a telco to undo effects of grooming on your circuits.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gravy 9y agoHow is this different from me paying for more for faster internet?
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoBecause the last mile is (sometimes) truly bandwidth limited. But the trunk lines aren't. Now they just get to extort money from us or artificially throttle us. Worse, they'll likely (as they have everywhere else) extort money for websites they have no connection to (like Facebook or Twitter) just because they can. Like an entrepreneurial thug standing outside a club and extracting an extra fee to let folks in. Or paying protection money to the mob. Like that.
- notyourday 9y agoExactly opposite. Last line is not bandwidth limited - FTTH exists. FIOS and even comcast do that. 100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers. [Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid] 1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartments would require $50,000 a month in IP transit costs. This does not include costs of the long distance fiber, locations for PNI and gear that can do 48x 100Gbit/sec ports. So your Interwebz is going to cost you either > $600 a month or you get congestion and that congestion would be coming from the core, not from the edge
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoSure the last mile is arguable - not for me, as I live in the country and DSL is what I get. But we could invest and do better there too. Still its nothing compared to the extortion racket, holding websites hostage .
- wtallis 9y agoYou're replying to a comment about the current state of existing infrastructure by talking about the theoretical possibility of new infrastructure that could be deployed with today's technology, but largely isn't being deployed.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIt's funny how they always vehemently advocate for states rights unless these states rights get in the way of their agenda.
- e40 9y agoCame here to say this. It shows the GOP doesn't really stand for anything. They just say what they need to say, in the moment, to get what they want. If Clinton were POTUS and Russian ties like had been found to the Trump administration, she would have been impeached already. But it's their man, so let's look the other way. Same with State's rights.
- ictoan 9y agoThis! "They just say what they need to say, in the moment, to get what they want" And Trump is the magnification of the GOP. We need to hold them accountable!!!
- jessaustin 9y agoOMG you're serious. Partisans are so cute.
- ictoan 9y agoYes I am serious. And how is this partisanship when pointing out the need to hold politicians accountable for what they say vs what they do? Care to explain your comment? Why is accountability a sign of partisanship?
- throwanem 9y agoI agree with the sentiment that there's nothing to choose between the parties when it comes to favoring intellectual and moral consistency in governance over whatever will keep a given party's officials, appointees, and elected representatives in their jobs. But cheap, contemptuous condescension adds nothing to the conversation. The temptation is strong at times, I know. But please try not to succumb to it.
- ryanlol 9y agoCorrect me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we always had paid fast lanes available? At least for VOIP this stuff hasn’t seemed very uncommon.
- Brockenstein 9y agoNot in the sense of: Dear Netflix, if you want to service our customers you need to pay us a $10 million dollars a year. Dear Customer with 30mbps service, Netflix takes a lot of bandwidth and we're just a poor multi-billion dollar ISP and can't afford to shoulder the burden. But if you pay an additional $9.99 a month we can probably scrape up the bandwidth to let you watch Netflix in HD ($29.99 for 4k) Also see our other premium options. Have the freedom to pick which services are right for you! Hulu: $9.99 Amazon Video: $9.99 Apple Music: $5.99 YouTube: $7.99
- ryanlol 9y agoHow would this actually work in the somewhat competitive and very low-margin ISP market? What you’re describing just sounds like suicide.
- fzeroracer 9y agoSame reason why ISPs pushed out data caps despite it being a 'somewhat competitive' market and people coming out hard against it. Because it's not competitive at all.
- Velchronus 9y agoNo, you're right. The FCC's Net Neutrality rules excluded private offerings such as MPLS circuits.
- natch 9y agoGOP (“Grand Old Party”) == US Republican Party in case it wasn’t obvious from the apparent shortsightedness of the proposed law.
- djschnei 9y agoCan someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
- djschnei 9y agoYes, yes... don't explain, just downvote.
- paulmd 9y agoExplanation: you have not even done a bare minimum of attention or research on a pivotal internet-freedom issue that has been slow-boiling over the past 3 months and you are still weighing in as if your opinion is informed (let alone intellectually significant) in any respect whatsoever. It's not like it's a real deep and multi-faceted issue or anything here, you just didn't bother to do even a bare minimum of research. Maybe consider doing the google before weighing in on a major issue before demanding that it be spoon-fed to you. This sort of post is actually subtly demeaning to everyone else on this forum and lowers the level of discussion here. Try to elevate it instead.
- djschnei 9y agoYup, I don't hold your opinion so I am uninformed. Asked for your POV, but I'm too dumb to even attempt to explain it to. Must revert to personal slights and putdowns. Ahhhh, politics in 2017.
- paulmd 9y agoJoke's on me, you were only pretending to be an idiot! You were actually just a sealioning libertarian all along!
- djschnei 9y agoDude, I am trying to understand your POV. F&$%# me right? People paying more for something that costs more to provide seems completely logical to me. The anti-competitive nature of the regional monopolies isn't fair and turns all the normal rules on their heads, I understand that. I wish we would fix that rather than regulating the monopolies.
- djschnei 9y agoBreaking news Law proposed which would allow EvilCorp to charge more money for the services which cost more to provide.
- 24gttghh 9y agoHere [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to. >“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it? >“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services. >“(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section. Ah those might be a problem... [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682/text?r=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682...
- ensignavenger 9y agoI was going to ask if anyone had actually read the proposed bill. It isn't very long, and I didn't see anything about "paid" prioritization, though that might be considered a "specialized" service. From what I can tell, this bill puts give a lot of power to the FCC to determine what types of specialized services would "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section". So the FCC could still potentially prevent prioritization that would degrade broadband internet service. Of course, I am not a lawyer.
- 24gttghh 9y agoAnd neither am I, but I could see how the paid prioritization may be considered a "specialized" service. I am leaning towards reading it as double-speak.
- ensignavenger 9y agoBut even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section" So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.
- mancerayder 9y agoIsn't one of the issues the increasingly close relationship between ISPs and media owners? I mean they are literally the same in some cases.
- ep103 9y agoFrom now, until the day I die, I will never vote or donate to the republican party again. This last year was the straw that broke the camel's back. This isn't the party of small businesses and tax cuts any more. This bill is a handout to large ISPs at the expense of the economy, and the tax bill last night raises my taxes so people making 100k+ more than me can see a tax cut. I'm done with them.
- prklmn 9y ago“We’re the party of small businesses” has been a guise for decades.
- BeefySwain 9y agoGood thing you will likely be districted in a way that prevents your vote from mattering for the rest of your life, and your donations are paltry in comparison to corporate ones.
- afinlayson 9y agoIt's the party of “The party of small businesses”™ not the party of small businesses. It's been a trademark in the same way McDonalds uses "Grade A"™ beef.
- 1024core 9y ago> and prohibit state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws. So much for "States' rights", huh? Fucking hypocrites. A man is known by the company he keeps, as the old adage goes. Anyone who supports Republicans in any shape and form is also a fucking hypocrite and a liar.
- meri_dian 9y agoTake a deep breath, you're being extreme. Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states. Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses, there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.
- haZard_OS 9y agoTake a deep breath, you're rationalizing away hypocrisy.
- rjdagost 9y agoDemocrats are not traditionally states' rights proponents. And yet they will wrap themselves in the banner of states' rights when it suits their agenda (gay marriage, drug laws, etc.). It is run of the mill political expediency- no more, no less.
- foobard 9y ago"States' rights" is a racist dog whistle. Nothing more.
- benjohnson 9y agoRepublicans broke "State's rights" a long time ago when they abolished slavery.
- pixelbill 9y agoCorporations exist only to increase profits and serve the shareholders. Any decisions made are made without thought given to human rights or what is fair, only what is legal and most profitable. Governments (in theory) exist to serve the people. They do things that are not profitable, and are objectively bad business decisions sometimes.. because what is most profitable is not always what is best for the people. What we have now is a government run like a corporation, with no checks in place to preserve what is best for the people.. only what is best for those at the very top.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- meddlepal 9y agoIt'll just be rewritten in five or ten years or whenever the other team is in power. I'm not sure why anyone gets worked up about this stuff anymore.
- wtallis 9y agoBecause it's not a pendulum. Net neutrality was how the internet worked de facto from its inception through approximately the end of the dial-up days. It wasn't necessary to impose net neutrality de jure until home broadband was widespread and capable of eating into traditional cable TV revenue. It wasn't necessary to regulate net neutrality for DSL carriers back when local loop unbundling applied to them. But between 2000 and 2010, the net neutrality situation got worse than it ever had been, the regulatory efforts from 2010 to 2015 were half-assed at best, and the 2015 regulations weren't in place long enough to even establish enough judicial precedent to tell whether they could work long-term. Partisan control of Congress definitely swings back and forth semi-regularly, but that's not what the history of net neutrality looks like.
- tmaly 9y agoIn regards to preempting state laws, did Congress forget about the 10th Amendment? I know they tend to skirt around it in law school according to my colleagues who are all attorneys.
- wtallis 9y agoRegulating Internet Service Providers ranks pretty low on the list of ways in which the Commerce Clause has been stretched.
- throw7 9y agoAs far I'm concerned, I've never had "net neutrality"... If I wanted to run a server (web/smtp/etc.) on my consumer level broadband account, I was not allowed to per TOS. For me, real "net neutrality" would've let me do this, but it's never been the case. I have to jump up to "Business" level account. This situation is what ISP and corporates want... to get you to pay more for a problem you don't have. And them the power to shut you down and force you to higher tier level of "support". Comcast pushed one step too far against Bittorrent (and was caught), but this is exactly the power that the big boys want and Title II weakens their argument that what they provide is a managed service not a pipe.
- neo4sure 9y agoThis is all I need to here. "SpaceX plans worldwide satellite Internet with low latency, gigabit speed.". We have to just bid our time and wipe out an entire class of cockroach enter prices.
- jessaustin 9y agoThat sounds great, but one expects FCC will be deployed to quash that as well. After all SpaceX would still use some portion of the over-regulated spectrum, and at those distances probably not wifi band. If we had reasonable spectrum regulation, various terrestrial WISPs would have replaced all of these horrible companies a long time ago.
- pawy 9y agoTruely I don't understand why the biggest aspect of this problem is not talked out. They are basically tempering with everyone's liberty to start a business on internet. Damaging US citizen capacity to create new internet opportunities and be able to compete with their favorites pets. Why the f* are you talking about slow and fast lanes ? It is true, but most importantly is this passes on. Any service that would like to be taken seriously would have to pay his way in. Why everybody has so gentle titles ? Fast / Slow lanes is very abstract.