5 ms·

Paraphrasing > the FCC has no good solutions. Yes they do, declare broadband to be a common carrier. Force comcast to sell wholesale access to their retail p

Paraphrasing > the FCC has no good solutions. Yes they do, declare broadband to be a common carrier. Force comcast to sell wholesale access to their retail pipes to other companies who then compete for the end users. We've seen this show before and have good solutions to the problem. It's time to treat the Internet as a mature public utility and regulate it as such, i.e. regulate it to maximize social good

cdash 13y ago
That people are still fighting this I just can't believe. How can the internet not be viewed as an essential utility in the modern world is just crazy to me.
- btbuildem 13y ago
  Because they profit from it.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Stupidity and greed. Many people arguing about this at the Wall Street Journal, for example, are convinced that there are no such things as broadband caps or QOS levels and that everyone who uses Netflix streaming is freeloading without paying for the bandwidth they use. In their mind companies like Netflix and people who argue for net neutrality are identified with welfare cheats and socialism. I wish I were making this up.
  - espadrine 13y ago
    For the purpose of comparison, we have the same issue in France, although we do not have Netflix there. ISPs are slowing down Google services / Cogent / … and asking them to pay[1]. One went so far as to remove Youtube ads on-the-fly without telling (let alone asking) the consumers beforehand. And slowly, not limiting bandwidth becomes an argument for the customer to pay more, as well[2]. They are looking for a target to increase their revenue. Given the targets they pick, I'd say they're mostly driven by envy. [1]: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/09/20/free-attaque-pour-les-ralentissements-de-youtube_1763130_651865.html http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/09/20/free-a... [2]: http://imgur.com/aHxjUOz http://imgur.com/aHxjUOz
    - tim333 13y ago
      I think link 2 shows an ad for unlimited youtube over 4G wireless and presumably is referring to unlimited data usage, which is a different thing to wired broadband. I think all countries have similar restrictions - I don't know anywhere where you get unlimited mobile data on the cheap deals.
    - lucideer 13y ago
      Both referenced links deal with mobile broadband specifically.
- interstitial 13y ago
  Let me tell you about vested interest, rent-seeking, and regulatory capture. Three things that should be taught in elementary school, but never will be, because public education has all three in spades as well.
jcalvinowens 13y ago
YES
Aqueous 13y ago
There is no way in hell the aggregate interests of the telecom industry will allow broadband to be declared a common carrier.
- jimbokun 13y ago
  Unless the Internet companies (Netflix, Google, Amazon, Apple...) suddenly realize they, also, have their entire business models at stake and start lobbying just as hard as the telecom companies. Netflix is there. The rest don't seem to realize how screwed they are, yet.
  - digikata 13y ago
    Netflix is there, but what does the Comcast deal imply? Maybe Netflix's calculation is that they're big enough to sustain paying Comcast's toll, and that agreeing to pay it helps add a barrier to competitors behind them. If that's the case, then the consumers lose because they're paying higher, hidden, overhead vs what they would pay in a more competitive market. With insufficiently transparent choices for the end consumer, one big driver for efficiency disappears.
jedberg 13y ago
People keep saying this, but you have to dig deeper. Even the content producers don't want this. Common carrier means multiple things, but one of them is that it sets a floor on the price for peering agreements. This means that currently free peering will have to become paid peering, and no one wants that. It would actually give more money to the ISPs for something they are already doing.
- eggnet 13y ago
  You have to carve out the local access portions of the current ISPs into their own companies. Make those local access providers common carriers. I think that is roughly what the gp is saying.
  - kiallmacinnes 13y ago
    This is what happened in Ireland with traditional phone services and the infrastructure they depend on. Eircom split into Eircom Wholesale and Eircom.. The last mile copper and core network is managed by Eircom Wholesale, while end users subscribe to Eircom. The wholesale company offers its services to any phone or broadband company, with published (starting..) price lists. This seems to work well. In Europe, we also have the notion of Internet Exchanges like INEX, LINX and AMS-IX. These are non-profits, typically owned by their members, who provide switching fabric at the major datacenters for ISPs and other internet companies to exchange traffic - without any per-peer fees. You simply pay a membership fee typically based on the number and type of ports you want. This allows even the smallest companies to directly peer with the major ISPs. INEX requires members establish BGP peering with something like "at least 80% of other members".. Again, this seems to work well.
    - simonh 13y ago
      Sure, but that's Europe where non-profit != communism.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  I'd like to investigate the price floor claim more, you have a link?
Shivetya 13y ago
Hell no. We will go back to a day where whatever speed you get is all your ever going to see. I know people hate Comcast/etc but where I lived all I had was what the phone company, THE COMMON CARRIER, wanted to offer us until the cable companies came in. We got a wonderful choice of dial up, ISDN, and T1. Eventually they gave us DSL but the roll out was so slow and the initial installs so buggy it was mind boggling. Then one day I get a flier in the mail, try cable! Five times the speed and what do you know, the phone company suddenly cut their prices and offered deals to get people back. Common carrier means no competition at all. As in, your area may get an upgrade AFTER all the important people get theirs first, namely those with political connections or in tony neighborhoods. The rest of us, well its like waiting for the roads to be plowed.
- flaviusb 13y ago
  This is the opposite of the common carrier model. In the common carrier model, there are many companies that you can choose from as a consumer from the get go, because the network is unbundled from a single company.
  - jtc331 13y ago
    You're missing the point: the last mile network is shared across all of those companies. Ergo, the company that actually owns the last mile network has no competition on that last mile network and no incentive to upgrade that network.
    - pktgen 13y ago
      Ideally that last mile network would be point-to-point FTTP though, eliminating this entire issue.
    - flaviusb 13y ago
      Firstly, the last mile company still has QoS agreements with the companies that buy from it, and they can plausibly choose to simply go elsewhere if the last mile company does not give them good enough QoS terms; whether that means building their own network, or simply pulling out of that area. Basically, a small group of companies can more plausibly apply joint pressure to a single company than many millions of people can, purely because of coordination costs. Secondly, part of the common carrier model is that if the government is not convinced that the common carrier is acting in the public's best interest - for example, if they are delaying needed upgrades - then the government can simply confiscate the common carrier's assets, and sell them to a company that will actually meet its QoS and upgrade obligations, or spin the whole thing off as a SoE.

cdash 13y ago

That people are still fighting this I just can't believe. How can the internet not be viewed as an essential utility in the modern world is just crazy to me.

btbuildem 13y ago
Because they profit from it.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Stupidity and greed. Many people arguing about this at the Wall Street Journal, for example, are convinced that there are no such things as broadband caps or QOS levels and that everyone who uses Netflix streaming is freeloading without paying for the bandwidth they use. In their mind companies like Netflix and people who argue for net neutrality are identified with welfare cheats and socialism. I wish I were making this up.
- espadrine 13y ago
  For the purpose of comparison, we have the same issue in France, although we do not have Netflix there. ISPs are slowing down Google services / Cogent / … and asking them to pay[1]. One went so far as to remove Youtube ads on-the-fly without telling (let alone asking) the consumers beforehand. And slowly, not limiting bandwidth becomes an argument for the customer to pay more, as well[2]. They are looking for a target to increase their revenue. Given the targets they pick, I'd say they're mostly driven by envy. [1]: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/09/20/free-attaque-pour-les-ralentissements-de-youtube_1763130_651865.html http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/09/20/free-a... [2]: http://imgur.com/aHxjUOz http://imgur.com/aHxjUOz
  - tim333 13y ago
    I think link 2 shows an ad for unlimited youtube over 4G wireless and presumably is referring to unlimited data usage, which is a different thing to wired broadband. I think all countries have similar restrictions - I don't know anywhere where you get unlimited mobile data on the cheap deals.
  - lucideer 13y ago
    Both referenced links deal with mobile broadband specifically.
interstitial 13y ago
Let me tell you about vested interest, rent-seeking, and regulatory capture. Three things that should be taught in elementary school, but never will be, because public education has all three in spades as well.

jcalvinowens 13y ago

YES

Aqueous 13y ago

There is no way in hell the aggregate interests of the telecom industry will allow broadband to be declared a common carrier.

jimbokun 13y ago
Unless the Internet companies (Netflix, Google, Amazon, Apple...) suddenly realize they, also, have their entire business models at stake and start lobbying just as hard as the telecom companies. Netflix is there. The rest don't seem to realize how screwed they are, yet.
- digikata 13y ago
  Netflix is there, but what does the Comcast deal imply? Maybe Netflix's calculation is that they're big enough to sustain paying Comcast's toll, and that agreeing to pay it helps add a barrier to competitors behind them. If that's the case, then the consumers lose because they're paying higher, hidden, overhead vs what they would pay in a more competitive market. With insufficiently transparent choices for the end consumer, one big driver for efficiency disappears.

jedberg 13y ago

People keep saying this, but you have to dig deeper. Even the content producers don't want this. Common carrier means multiple things, but one of them is that it sets a floor on the price for peering agreements. This means that currently free peering will have to become paid peering, and no one wants that. It would actually give more money to the ISPs for something they are already doing.

eggnet 13y ago
You have to carve out the local access portions of the current ISPs into their own companies. Make those local access providers common carriers. I think that is roughly what the gp is saying.
- kiallmacinnes 13y ago
  This is what happened in Ireland with traditional phone services and the infrastructure they depend on. Eircom split into Eircom Wholesale and Eircom.. The last mile copper and core network is managed by Eircom Wholesale, while end users subscribe to Eircom. The wholesale company offers its services to any phone or broadband company, with published (starting..) price lists. This seems to work well. In Europe, we also have the notion of Internet Exchanges like INEX, LINX and AMS-IX. These are non-profits, typically owned by their members, who provide switching fabric at the major datacenters for ISPs and other internet companies to exchange traffic - without any per-peer fees. You simply pay a membership fee typically based on the number and type of ports you want. This allows even the smallest companies to directly peer with the major ISPs. INEX requires members establish BGP peering with something like "at least 80% of other members".. Again, this seems to work well.
  - simonh 13y ago
    Sure, but that's Europe where non-profit != communism.
thatthatis 13y ago
I'd like to investigate the price floor claim more, you have a link?

Shivetya 13y ago

Hell no. We will go back to a day where whatever speed you get is all your ever going to see. I know people hate Comcast/etc but where I lived all I had was what the phone company, THE COMMON CARRIER, wanted to offer us until the cable companies came in. We got a wonderful choice of dial up, ISDN, and T1. Eventually they gave us DSL but the roll out was so slow and the initial installs so buggy it was mind boggling. Then one day I get a flier in the mail, try cable! Five times the speed and what do you know, the phone company suddenly cut their prices and offered deals to get people back. Common carrier means no competition at all. As in, your area may get an upgrade AFTER all the important people get theirs first, namely those with political connections or in tony neighborhoods. The rest of us, well its like waiting for the roads to be plowed.

flaviusb 13y ago
This is the opposite of the common carrier model. In the common carrier model, there are many companies that you can choose from as a consumer from the get go, because the network is unbundled from a single company.
- jtc331 13y ago
  You're missing the point: the last mile network is shared across all of those companies. Ergo, the company that actually owns the last mile network has no competition on that last mile network and no incentive to upgrade that network.
  - pktgen 13y ago
    Ideally that last mile network would be point-to-point FTTP though, eliminating this entire issue.
  - flaviusb 13y ago
    Firstly, the last mile company still has QoS agreements with the companies that buy from it, and they can plausibly choose to simply go elsewhere if the last mile company does not give them good enough QoS terms; whether that means building their own network, or simply pulling out of that area. Basically, a small group of companies can more plausibly apply joint pressure to a single company than many millions of people can, purely because of coordination costs. Secondly, part of the common carrier model is that if the government is not convinced that the common carrier is acting in the public's best interest - for example, if they are delaying needed upgrades - then the government can simply confiscate the common carrier's assets, and sell them to a company that will actually meet its QoS and upgrade obligations, or spin the whole thing off as a SoE.