8 ms·

>So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels

by seynb 12y ago

>So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels and that means content. The big players are always going to have more clout in negotiating the best rates for their bundled channels because they have the most subs (subscribers). Even if FCC mandated unbundling of the CableCos' HFC plant and the Telcos' FTTx plant, no one will be able to compete with the big boys on content. Also, alot of these plants were not designed for interoperability with other vendors' equipment and troubleshooting would be difficult to impossible. It's no longer as simple as a 2-wire local loop (twisted pair) that you can break out from a split bank to your own frame and DSLAM. The technologies share the same physical media -- think bus topology like a token ring. One faulty ONT in a B-PON or G-PON network can impact service for ~30 customers. What the FCC could do is mandate the reselling of data services like UNE-P with POTS, and the reseller (e.g. Netflix) could then bundle their own pure VoD product for video over the carrier's data platform So, deregulation (unbundling - platform) is one option. Otherwise, there would have to be a mandated and fair policy for exchange data between ISPs either at free or at tariffed rates across the board, just like voice trunks. Data is the new voice and the FCC needs to weigh in and start (de)/regulating or this is what the internet is going to look like 10 years from now. a.pomf.se/qtkuqv.jpg

danielweber 12y ago
That JPG is one of the worst arguments on the Internet. It's popular because it works up the rage of "this might happen" netizens, but "might" has been reduced to "doesn't violate the laws of physics."
- seynb 12y ago
  But, it's not just FUD. https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- Taxpayer subsidies helped build the telco network, not dime one of which has been repaid. Meanwhile, they https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-Kill-Copper-Since-Youre-Not-Using-It-126145 https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-K... rip out the copper because it's no longer as profitable (as a regulated service) as video and wireless. Cablecos that have a captive market raise their rates as much as their consumer base will bear. As soon as carriers can find a way to monetize something, they won't stop. Value-added services, fees, rate-hikes. It's rent-seeking behavior, like the railroad tycoons. Cable & telco greed is practically a law of physics. That's why we have regulated service for electricity and telephone, because we recognize how essential it is to modern life. And it should be no different for internet.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Even if I bought all your negative emotions about ISPs[1], none of your scare scenarios are at all about the ISP charging more money to the customer depending on what websites they go to.[2] Even right now, with whatever asshattery Verizon is doing, they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon. "These people do bad things, so you should believe these other bad things I say they might someday do." Lots of people have made very good careers out of enraging the rabble that way. [1] Your first link uses a bunch of Google searches as evidence, so I can't be 100% sure what it's talking about. But there's a decent chance it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 forex [2] The second article is about AT&T wanting to get the hell out of the wired communication business. Investors hate the wired business. One way or another you have to pay for that infrastructure, and talking about applying utility-level regulation to the companies eager to leave is not going to draw in new dollars.
    - mbreese 12y ago
      It isn't that the ISPs will force their customers to pay more for access to third-party services, but rather that they will selectively manage their network so that certain third-party services will have sub-optimal data rates. I'm sure that Verizon would rather those customers use their PPV service (or another more-favored service) rather than use Netflix. And because Verizon is making it more painful for people to use Netflix, that is likely happening. This entire thread started out talking about how Netflix is informing their mutual customers where exactly the blame for their degraded service should fall. To use Comcast as an example, now Netflix is paying Comcast for a connection to their customers as opposed to Cogent (which should have had good bandwidth between them and Comcast). As a result, Netflix will have to charge their customers more. So, don't think that just because the ISPs won't be charging doesn't mean that the customers won't have to pay more. Now, you could make an argument that it's good that Netflix customers will have to pay more for their service because they were clogging the pipes for everyone else. The problem is that this is a very slippery slope and could lead to a balkanization of the Internet, very similar to the tiered access presented in the JPG you so adamantly disagreed with. What happens when your ISP (because you only have one choice) doesn't have a peering agreement with the network hosting Service X? Sure, you could use Service X, but your experience wouldn't be very good. But good news for you! They do have an agreement with Service Y that will provide you with almost the same data as Service X, but it costs a little more. Did I mention that Service Y kicks back 20% of your monthly service fee back to your ISP for "hosting"? There are plenty of ways that the ISPs can get more of your money. Not all of it involves getting it from you directly.
- mhurron 12y ago
  You can't hear the fast lane/slow lane (or the hilarious fast lane and faster lane counter from the ISP's) and not see that they are indeed aiming for a tiered system can you?
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Consumer ISPs already sell different speeds to different customers. I understand that it's easy for you to believe that people who have done things you don't like in the past might do entirely different things you don't like in the future, because they do things you don't like. But for all the ISPs sins, they have never taken even one step down this particular road.
    - crusso 12y ago
      they have never taken even one step down this particular road Because they've been stopped from doing so? Isn't that what this whole fight over Net Neutrality is about? because they do things you don't like It's not just a random pattern of dislike. It's a specific monopolistic pattern of market control that content distributors have demonstrated over and over. How stupid would we have to be to not see where they would like to take this? I'm normally arguing with folks on HN from my pro-capitalist perspective, but treating monopolies like the major ISPs as players in a free market is a huge mistake.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        Because they've been stopped from doing so? This is straight out of the rabble-rousers' playbook when questioned "hey, before you get us worked up about the next disaster our enemies will bring out, why don't you tell us why the disaster you predicted last year didn't happen?" "Well, it's because we fought so hard against it!! Come on, how stupid do you have to be to not see this? Look at this next tragedy they are going to do, of course it was only because of our brave work stopping them that they couldn't continue." Then link to a cable comedy host agreeing with them as proof they were right.
    - mhurron 12y ago
- crusso 12y ago
  This is exactly the model that Comcast would like to see in effect. It's exactly how they manage their cable television service and they've been extremely resistant to even allowing customers to choose channels a la carte. Let's face it, this model works well for them. They aren't arguing with the FCC to change it. They're arguing with the FCC to change how they're allowed to manage their Internet traffic.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    "Comcast is bad people, and does bad things, so believe me about these bad things I say they want to do, even though they've never talked about it." Surely the ISPs have done enough actual bad things that we don't have to imagine bad things they might someday do.
    - crusso 12y ago
      I have no idea what you're talking about. Comcast is already pushing for the ability to create a multi-tiered Internet. That fact is even splashing over into popular culture, so I'm not sure which set of facts you're dealing with: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/john_oliver_s_net_neutrality_segment_speaks_the_truth.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
      - danielweber 12y ago
        If a comedian repeats it, it must be true? K. . . Seriously, though, when has Comcast indicated it wants to charge its ISP customers per-website? When has any ISP ever put a surcharge on someone connecting to certain websites?
        crusso 12y ago
        I had the option of putting an LA times link and several others that said the same thing, but the John Oliver link has the same information, draws conclusions without my having to repeat them, and is funnier. Fact is that Comcast is lobbying big time to allow multi-tiered Internet access. That's public, easily-googleable information, so I don't understand why you're arguing otherwise.
undersuit 12y ago
>Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video I don't think that's what they want. That what they are offered.

by seynb 12y ago

danielweber 12y ago

That JPG is one of the worst arguments on the Internet. It's popular because it works up the rage of "this might happen" netizens, but "might" has been reduced to "doesn't violate the laws of physics."

seynb 12y ago
But, it's not just FUD. https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- Taxpayer subsidies helped build the telco network, not dime one of which has been repaid. Meanwhile, they https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-Kill-Copper-Since-Youre-Not-Using-It-126145 https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-K... rip out the copper because it's no longer as profitable (as a regulated service) as video and wireless. Cablecos that have a captive market raise their rates as much as their consumer base will bear. As soon as carriers can find a way to monetize something, they won't stop. Value-added services, fees, rate-hikes. It's rent-seeking behavior, like the railroad tycoons. Cable & telco greed is practically a law of physics. That's why we have regulated service for electricity and telephone, because we recognize how essential it is to modern life. And it should be no different for internet.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Even if I bought all your negative emotions about ISPs[1], none of your scare scenarios are at all about the ISP charging more money to the customer depending on what websites they go to.[2] Even right now, with whatever asshattery Verizon is doing, they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon. "These people do bad things, so you should believe these other bad things I say they might someday do." Lots of people have made very good careers out of enraging the rabble that way. [1] Your first link uses a bunch of Google searches as evidence, so I can't be 100% sure what it's talking about. But there's a decent chance it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 forex [2] The second article is about AT&T wanting to get the hell out of the wired communication business. Investors hate the wired business. One way or another you have to pay for that infrastructure, and talking about applying utility-level regulation to the companies eager to leave is not going to draw in new dollars.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    It isn't that the ISPs will force their customers to pay more for access to third-party services, but rather that they will selectively manage their network so that certain third-party services will have sub-optimal data rates. I'm sure that Verizon would rather those customers use their PPV service (or another more-favored service) rather than use Netflix. And because Verizon is making it more painful for people to use Netflix, that is likely happening. This entire thread started out talking about how Netflix is informing their mutual customers where exactly the blame for their degraded service should fall. To use Comcast as an example, now Netflix is paying Comcast for a connection to their customers as opposed to Cogent (which should have had good bandwidth between them and Comcast). As a result, Netflix will have to charge their customers more. So, don't think that just because the ISPs won't be charging doesn't mean that the customers won't have to pay more. Now, you could make an argument that it's good that Netflix customers will have to pay more for their service because they were clogging the pipes for everyone else. The problem is that this is a very slippery slope and could lead to a balkanization of the Internet, very similar to the tiered access presented in the JPG you so adamantly disagreed with. What happens when your ISP (because you only have one choice) doesn't have a peering agreement with the network hosting Service X? Sure, you could use Service X, but your experience wouldn't be very good. But good news for you! They do have an agreement with Service Y that will provide you with almost the same data as Service X, but it costs a little more. Did I mention that Service Y kicks back 20% of your monthly service fee back to your ISP for "hosting"? There are plenty of ways that the ISPs can get more of your money. Not all of it involves getting it from you directly.
mhurron 12y ago
You can't hear the fast lane/slow lane (or the hilarious fast lane and faster lane counter from the ISP's) and not see that they are indeed aiming for a tiered system can you?
- danielweber 12y ago
  Consumer ISPs already sell different speeds to different customers. I understand that it's easy for you to believe that people who have done things you don't like in the past might do entirely different things you don't like in the future, because they do things you don't like. But for all the ISPs sins, they have never taken even one step down this particular road.
  - crusso 12y ago
    they have never taken even one step down this particular road Because they've been stopped from doing so? Isn't that what this whole fight over Net Neutrality is about? because they do things you don't like It's not just a random pattern of dislike. It's a specific monopolistic pattern of market control that content distributors have demonstrated over and over. How stupid would we have to be to not see where they would like to take this? I'm normally arguing with folks on HN from my pro-capitalist perspective, but treating monopolies like the major ISPs as players in a free market is a huge mistake.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Because they've been stopped from doing so? This is straight out of the rabble-rousers' playbook when questioned "hey, before you get us worked up about the next disaster our enemies will bring out, why don't you tell us why the disaster you predicted last year didn't happen?" "Well, it's because we fought so hard against it!! Come on, how stupid do you have to be to not see this? Look at this next tragedy they are going to do, of course it was only because of our brave work stopping them that they couldn't continue." Then link to a cable comedy host agreeing with them as proof they were right.
  - mhurron 12y ago
crusso 12y ago
This is exactly the model that Comcast would like to see in effect. It's exactly how they manage their cable television service and they've been extremely resistant to even allowing customers to choose channels a la carte. Let's face it, this model works well for them. They aren't arguing with the FCC to change it. They're arguing with the FCC to change how they're allowed to manage their Internet traffic.
- danielweber 12y ago
  "Comcast is bad people, and does bad things, so believe me about these bad things I say they want to do, even though they've never talked about it." Surely the ISPs have done enough actual bad things that we don't have to imagine bad things they might someday do.
  - crusso 12y ago
    I have no idea what you're talking about. Comcast is already pushing for the ability to create a multi-tiered Internet. That fact is even splashing over into popular culture, so I'm not sure which set of facts you're dealing with: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/john_oliver_s_net_neutrality_segment_speaks_the_truth.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
    - danielweber 12y ago
      If a comedian repeats it, it must be true? K. . . Seriously, though, when has Comcast indicated it wants to charge its ISP customers per-website? When has any ISP ever put a surcharge on someone connecting to certain websites?
      - crusso 12y ago
        I had the option of putting an LA times link and several others that said the same thing, but the John Oliver link has the same information, draws conclusions without my having to repeat them, and is funnier. Fact is that Comcast is lobbying big time to allow multi-tiered Internet access. That's public, easily-googleable information, so I don't understand why you're arguing otherwise.

undersuit 12y ago

>Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video I don't think that's what they want. That what they are offered.