5 ms·

This is an interesting read: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A4.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Dail

This is an interesting read: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A4.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017... Specifically, I think it makes much more sense from a technical and consumer perspective for an internet connection to be classified as a Title II common carrier than a Title I information service. Technically, it's a network connection that can carry data. Information services, classified as "making available information via telecommunications," sounds much more like a broadcast service than a bidirectional network connection. From a consumer perspective, and in my experience, we are always better off with unfettered access to a connection, whether it be electricity, water, or internet connectivity, rather than the programming on that connection, for example cable television. Also: > I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and autonomous car technology over cat videos, benefits I anticipate the House Hearing will highlight. Again, that's not really how the internet has traditionally worked, and I'm not sure we really want content-based prioritization, outside of existing QoS standards that aren't guaranteed across public internet connections. There's no reason QoS definitions couldn't be reviewed to re-prioritize specific IoT or autonomy protocols, but I don't see how the FCC should be making content decisions for consumers of internet bandwidth.

tgb 9y ago
I don't know the details of Title II law, so can anyone say whether the "telemedicine over cat videos" concern was legitimate for it? My impression is that title II would still allow for Comcast to charge more for low latency, high reliability, high bandwidth service. It would just have to charge the same amount to everyone and not care about whether someone really just wanted to get their cat videos fast. But this is basically speculation on my part.
shard972 9y ago
> Again, that's not really how the internet has traditionally worked, and I'm not sure we really want content-based prioritization, outside of existing QoS standards that aren't guaranteed across public internet connections. There's no reason QoS definitions couldn't be reviewed to re-prioritize specific IoT or autonomy protocols, but I don't see how the FCC should be making content decisions for consumers of internet bandwidth. I read this over and over but I don't understand. We have content-based prioritization with QoS and if the Title 1 classification went ahead wouldn't the FCC be in the position of regulating those QoS standards which as you point out, are managed privately at the moment. Maybe im confused but I believed based on the arguments made by the FCC under Obama that the FCC was looking to regulate QoS rules set by ISP's and potentially other network providers.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > We have content-based prioritization with QoS and if the Title 1 classification went ahead wouldn't the FCC be in the position of regulating those QoS standards which as you point out, are managed privately at the moment. The Internet as it currently exists has DiffServ markings, the meaning of which is not clearly defined, and the markings themselves are not reliably preserved end-to-end. In practice they are not usable for connections passing through multiple networks with different owners. The markings could be set by the endpoints to request what amounts to content-based prioritization, but the markings aren't tamper-proof. There are no other QoS technologies that are available and supported on the public Internet. ISPs may be doing things behind the curtain, but there's no transparency or control available to their users. Recent years have brought a renaissance to the QoS technologies available for users to deploy in their own gateway routers and new congestion control algorithms to use on their own endpoints, but the former isn't being adopted by ISPs and the latter can't be. However, those new QoS technologies have shown that need for DiffServ-style QoS on the public Internet is largely fictitious, driven by ignorance of the advances in QoS methods since the early 1990s. It is now clear that outlawing ISPs' use of discriminatory DiffServ or port-based QoS rules can be justified on purely technical grounds, without even bringing up the business conflicts of interest involved. Content-based prioritization rules don't hold the record for best-performing QoS system, even when the rulesets are carefully curated.
Spooky23 9y ago
This argument has been going on for 20-30 years. See: Netheads vs Bellheads. https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ The cat video example was chosen very deliberately and isn’t a frivolous statement. Telcos want to distinguish between telemedicine and cat videos for a good reason — the requirements for delivering both are the same, but insurance companies have money, and the telco will have a higher tariff for “important” things like telemedicine. Look at a company like Verizon. They are literally allowing billions of dollars of valuable assets (the POTS network) rot and have shed millions of customers with a high margin service. Some states (like NY) offered them billions of dollars of matching funds for capital investments. Verizon told them to fuck off. Why? Verizon isn’t dumb. They know the politicians have no appetite for big Federal government investments in infrastructure, and isn’t going to for decades. They know that there’s more money to be made being toll takers, and as the internet players consolidate, there is plenty of cream to skim. 5% of Facebook or Google or Amazon is an unimaginable fortune, and they could eventually get the hands in that till.
- drvdevd 9y ago
  So do you think they have strategies or technologies already in place to categorize traffic based on specific content types, eg DPI of some sort with machine learning? Or do you believe it will just be a sort of gateway tariff, eg hitting Google or Amazon? Do you think their next move will be to try and fight encryption? Also, and perhaps most importantly, if the controllers of the last mile are to get their hands in this till, do you think they have the engineering prowess to do all of this and put together a robust infrastructure? Or will we end up with Clown Car Internet in most areas of the US?
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > they have strategies or technologies already in place Yes > Do you think their next move will be to try and fight encryption? If they can filter for origin or destination, they don't have to. In any case, the government can fight it for them. > will we end up with Clown Car Internet Yes. As long as you have no option, it'd be fine for them.
  - 9y ago
pdkl95 9y ago
The absurdity of this "prioritization" framing is obvio9us when you get away from technology: > I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of [shipping medicine to doctors] and [the shipping needs of new high-tech businesses] over [your personal letters talking about your cat] The personal letters were not blocking shipments of medicine, because they are both paying for their own carriage, Businesses have always paid for the level of service they needed. In any other service industry, customers wanting to use your service all the time is good. You probably even offer them volume discounts. Comcast, however, has successfully used a lot of confusing language to reframe Netflix making their business a lot more popular as a some sort of problem. This is like UPS/FedEx complaining about how many fo their shipments are from Amazon.

tgb 9y ago

I don't know the details of Title II law, so can anyone say whether the "telemedicine over cat videos" concern was legitimate for it? My impression is that title II would still allow for Comcast to charge more for low latency, high reliability, high bandwidth service. It would just have to charge the same amount to everyone and not care about whether someone really just wanted to get their cat videos fast. But this is basically speculation on my part.

shard972 9y ago

> Again, that's not really how the internet has traditionally worked, and I'm not sure we really want content-based prioritization, outside of existing QoS standards that aren't guaranteed across public internet connections. There's no reason QoS definitions couldn't be reviewed to re-prioritize specific IoT or autonomy protocols, but I don't see how the FCC should be making content decisions for consumers of internet bandwidth. I read this over and over but I don't understand. We have content-based prioritization with QoS and if the Title 1 classification went ahead wouldn't the FCC be in the position of regulating those QoS standards which as you point out, are managed privately at the moment. Maybe im confused but I believed based on the arguments made by the FCC under Obama that the FCC was looking to regulate QoS rules set by ISP's and potentially other network providers.

wtallis 9y ago
> We have content-based prioritization with QoS and if the Title 1 classification went ahead wouldn't the FCC be in the position of regulating those QoS standards which as you point out, are managed privately at the moment. The Internet as it currently exists has DiffServ markings, the meaning of which is not clearly defined, and the markings themselves are not reliably preserved end-to-end. In practice they are not usable for connections passing through multiple networks with different owners. The markings could be set by the endpoints to request what amounts to content-based prioritization, but the markings aren't tamper-proof. There are no other QoS technologies that are available and supported on the public Internet. ISPs may be doing things behind the curtain, but there's no transparency or control available to their users. Recent years have brought a renaissance to the QoS technologies available for users to deploy in their own gateway routers and new congestion control algorithms to use on their own endpoints, but the former isn't being adopted by ISPs and the latter can't be. However, those new QoS technologies have shown that need for DiffServ-style QoS on the public Internet is largely fictitious, driven by ignorance of the advances in QoS methods since the early 1990s. It is now clear that outlawing ISPs' use of discriminatory DiffServ or port-based QoS rules can be justified on purely technical grounds, without even bringing up the business conflicts of interest involved. Content-based prioritization rules don't hold the record for best-performing QoS system, even when the rulesets are carefully curated.

Spooky23 9y ago

This argument has been going on for 20-30 years. See: Netheads vs Bellheads. https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ The cat video example was chosen very deliberately and isn’t a frivolous statement. Telcos want to distinguish between telemedicine and cat videos for a good reason — the requirements for delivering both are the same, but insurance companies have money, and the telco will have a higher tariff for “important” things like telemedicine. Look at a company like Verizon. They are literally allowing billions of dollars of valuable assets (the POTS network) rot and have shed millions of customers with a high margin service. Some states (like NY) offered them billions of dollars of matching funds for capital investments. Verizon told them to fuck off. Why? Verizon isn’t dumb. They know the politicians have no appetite for big Federal government investments in infrastructure, and isn’t going to for decades. They know that there’s more money to be made being toll takers, and as the internet players consolidate, there is plenty of cream to skim. 5% of Facebook or Google or Amazon is an unimaginable fortune, and they could eventually get the hands in that till.

drvdevd 9y ago
So do you think they have strategies or technologies already in place to categorize traffic based on specific content types, eg DPI of some sort with machine learning? Or do you believe it will just be a sort of gateway tariff, eg hitting Google or Amazon? Do you think their next move will be to try and fight encryption? Also, and perhaps most importantly, if the controllers of the last mile are to get their hands in this till, do you think they have the engineering prowess to do all of this and put together a robust infrastructure? Or will we end up with Clown Car Internet in most areas of the US?
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > they have strategies or technologies already in place Yes > Do you think their next move will be to try and fight encryption? If they can filter for origin or destination, they don't have to. In any case, the government can fight it for them. > will we end up with Clown Car Internet Yes. As long as you have no option, it'd be fine for them.
- 9y ago

pdkl95 9y ago

The absurdity of this "prioritization" framing is obvio9us when you get away from technology: > I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of [shipping medicine to doctors] and [the shipping needs of new high-tech businesses] over [your personal letters talking about your cat] The personal letters were not blocking shipments of medicine, because they are both paying for their own carriage, Businesses have always paid for the level of service they needed. In any other service industry, customers wanting to use your service all the time is good. You probably even offer them volume discounts. Comcast, however, has successfully used a lot of confusing language to reframe Netflix making their business a lot more popular as a some sort of problem. This is like UPS/FedEx complaining about how many fo their shipments are from Amazon.