5 ms·

It would be a stinging defeat for their expensive lobbyists, who will be fired. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon won't change much. A lot of people for

It would be a stinging defeat for their expensive lobbyists, who will be fired. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon won't change much. A lot of people forget that AT&T, Verizon, and Google put forth Net Neutrality legislation that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless. That was like three or four years ago, so the argument at the time that we couldn't wait for wireless regulation is completely insolvent, since we also still don't have wireless regulation, and Title II is unlikely to cover wireless services, at least in this round - though I could be proven wrong. Look, I'm an anti-capitalist, anti-corporate activist, but most people, fellow engineers included, have no idea what they're talking about with Net Neutrality. Most people are protecting the interests of Netflix, who is a major corporation with a massive technology budget dwarfed only by its' massive budget for paying the MPAA. But please, keep regurgitating Netflix's talking points about how noone will be able to start a company in their basement ever again - an odd complaint, since before Comcast throttled Netflix to something like 70% of the total Comcast network, Netflix themselves may have been causing problems for people trying to launch companies from basements or garages, or just check their e-mail. Title II is a victory for the internet, it should be a utility, I've been saying this for the entire 20 years of my career since I was involved in Time Warner's beta test of Roadrunner and noticed that as an entertainment service, it wasn't regulated like my ISDN line. But the way this is all going down, it's clear to me that something is happening behind the scenes, and I think it looks like Netflix pouring water into a bucket with a few drops of Net Neutrality.

mrfusion 12y ago
What do you mean about netflix pouring water?
- justizin 12y ago
  I'm implying that they are "watering down" the legislation. If you aren't a native english speaker, this may not have come across clearly. My implication is that Netflix is trying to accomplish something in their interest which will be "flavored" as "Net Neutrality" (let's call it 'regulated internet', since I don't think purely neutral, unconfigured networks will yield our goals), and that they are using sympathetic arguments with little connection to the actual legislation or substantial issues at question to distract us all, as an act of misdirection, like a magician. The unfortunate result may be that we have something that looks and smells like Net Neutrality, but is empty, serves corporate interests, does not address the things on the protest signs everyone is posting on Facebook, and we will have paid for it with our own misguided moral outrage.
  - slang800 12y ago
    In that case, someone should read through the legislation that Netflix is actually proposing, and explain how it isn't really about Net Neutrality... then we can blame Netflix for misdirecting us and propose some real, useful legislation.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > someone should read through the legislation that Netflix is actually proposing Has Netflix proposed legislation? AFAICT, they've not proposed specific legislation or regulation, but filed formal comment [0] on the last FCC proposal opposing its approach and advocating regulation under Title II authority (but without specifically advocating details of what the regulations should be adopted under Title II authority.) [0] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521491186 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521491186
dragonwriter 12y ago
> A lot of people forget that AT&T, Verizon, and Google put forth Net Neutrality legislation that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless. > That was like three or four years ago People probably "forget" that because that didn't actually happen -- even ignoring the subject "perfectly good" description, AT&T, Verizon, and Google did not propose net neutrality legislation 3-4 years ago; in fact, four-and-a-half years ago Google was supporting and AT&T opposing an alternative discussed at the FCC to use Title II. [0] [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/few-neutrals-in-debate-over-third-way-net-neutrality-plan/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/few-neutrals-in-d...
- justizin 12y ago
  Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the ensuing time since four and a half years ago, other things than the singular event you linked have happened. Those three companies definitely put forth a proposal with language designed to address 'fast lane' type of concerns, though that tired metaphor is very difficult to accurately apply, since internet traffic is more like water than cars. Look, I'm not here to say, "Hey the market will take care of this and AT&T and Verizon and Google are Good Actors(tm)", I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services. That happened, and at the time, everyone was up in arms about it only being wireline. After that juncture, rarely was Net Neutrality discussed, esp in non-technical circles, until the Netflix debacle.
  - iends 12y ago
    Never heard of this, do you have a link to a source?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Well, no, the fact that what you describe didn't happen means it didn't happen. I've found the details of something that did happen on the same general subject, and involving some of the same actors, at about the time you describe [0][1], but it differs from your description: > AT&T, Verizon, and Google Just Verizon and Google. > put forth Net Neutrality legislation They actually put forth a set of "key elements" that they argued should be included in net neutrality legislation. [0] > that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless. It was limited to wireline services (but for the transparency provision), and, in addition, allowed any provider that provided wireline services complying with the neutrality provision unlimited permission to offer any non-neutral services so long as they were distinguished in "scope and function" from the neutral service. [0; "Additional Online Services"] So, it didn't so much require wireline broadband neutrality as require wireline providers to offer a neutral service at some price point as a precondition for offering non-neutral services. It also explicitly denied the FCC rulemaking authority, limiting the FCC to case-by-case enforcement and issuing reports to Congress. [0; "Case-by-Case Enforcement"] Also, the temporary part is not entirely accurate. The stated reason for not including wireless services was conditions at the time, but there was nothing temporary about the exclusion (that is, the "key elements" proposed did not include any conditions for imposing wireless neutrality.) [0; "Wireless Broadband"] > I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services. The things for which the proposal was criticized at the time for included: 1) Moving from the then-existing FCC rules "fixed" vs. "mobile" distinction where stronger neutrality rules existed for fixed and some, but weaker, neutrality rules existed for mobile to a "wireline" vs. "wireless" distinction where no neutrality rules applied to wireless. (Many neutrality proponents were also criticizing the existing FCC rules for the weaker mobile rules, but this was seen as even worse.) 2) Explicitly including a "key element" permitting wireline operators to offer any non-neutral services so long as they also provided a service meeting the neutrality rules, and expressly limiting the FCC's authority to deal with such additional services to issuing reports. [2] 3) Imposing all the rules and loopholes through statute and including a "key element" expressly limiting the FCC rule to case-by-case enforcement and excluding rulemaking. And proposing encouragement of non-governmental dispute resolution in the framework. [3; "Meaningful harm"] [0] http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislativ... [1] http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/google-verizon-unveil-net-neutrality-lite-to-government/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/google-verizon-un... [3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/googleverizon-we-do-loopholes-right/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/googleverizon-we-...
wtallis 12y ago
> "But please, keep regurgitating Netflix's talking points about how noone will be able to start a company in their basement ever again - an odd complaint, since before Comcast throttled Netflix to something like 70% of the total Comcast network, Netflix themselves may have been causing problems for people trying to launch companies from basements or garages, or just check their e-mail." If Comcast's networks are configured sanely, then no amount of Netflix streaming would be able to interfere with email or any other sparse flows, because the packets being dropped at congestion points would belong mainly to the heaviest bandwidth users - the Netflix streams themselves. Netflix cannot possibly do anything to interfere with non-Netflix traffic on Comcast's network in a way that is not primarily Comcast's fault, just like it's not Bittorrent's fault that it revealed a bunch of network problems.
- justizin 12y ago
  Yes, we could go far down that road, I just think Netflix makes for a poor example case. They have stirred up a lot of this discussion, which is not about them at all. Furthermore, "configured sanely" would not be neutral, IMO. I'm in favor of regulating, but you just described why neutral networks are bad. ;)
  - wtallis 12y ago
    You're presenting a horrible false dichotomy here. There are options other than racketeering or having all your equipment limited to large dumb FIFO queues. Active queue management strategies can ensure that flows with different traffic patterns cannot starve each other, without explicitly classifying them based on protocol or customer; all ports and IPs get the same rules applied to them. VoIP and streaming video and email and everything else can coexist automatically just like interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers. Furthermore, good AQM/SQM usually results in better performance for everyone - even the Netflix users - by eliminating unnecessary retransmissions and other harmful side-effects of poorly managed congestion. Nobody is advocating for a definition of "neutral" that would exclude such techniques except for people who are trying to make neutrality sound bad.

mrfusion 12y ago

What do you mean about netflix pouring water?

justizin 12y ago
I'm implying that they are "watering down" the legislation. If you aren't a native english speaker, this may not have come across clearly. My implication is that Netflix is trying to accomplish something in their interest which will be "flavored" as "Net Neutrality" (let's call it 'regulated internet', since I don't think purely neutral, unconfigured networks will yield our goals), and that they are using sympathetic arguments with little connection to the actual legislation or substantial issues at question to distract us all, as an act of misdirection, like a magician. The unfortunate result may be that we have something that looks and smells like Net Neutrality, but is empty, serves corporate interests, does not address the things on the protest signs everyone is posting on Facebook, and we will have paid for it with our own misguided moral outrage.
- slang800 12y ago
  In that case, someone should read through the legislation that Netflix is actually proposing, and explain how it isn't really about Net Neutrality... then we can blame Netflix for misdirecting us and propose some real, useful legislation.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > someone should read through the legislation that Netflix is actually proposing Has Netflix proposed legislation? AFAICT, they've not proposed specific legislation or regulation, but filed formal comment [0] on the last FCC proposal opposing its approach and advocating regulation under Title II authority (but without specifically advocating details of what the regulations should be adopted under Title II authority.) [0] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521491186 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521491186

dragonwriter 12y ago

> A lot of people forget that AT&T, Verizon, and Google put forth Net Neutrality legislation that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless. > That was like three or four years ago People probably "forget" that because that didn't actually happen -- even ignoring the subject "perfectly good" description, AT&T, Verizon, and Google did not propose net neutrality legislation 3-4 years ago; in fact, four-and-a-half years ago Google was supporting and AT&T opposing an alternative discussed at the FCC to use Title II. [0] [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/few-neutrals-in-debate-over-third-way-net-neutrality-plan/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/few-neutrals-in-d...

justizin 12y ago
Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the ensuing time since four and a half years ago, other things than the singular event you linked have happened. Those three companies definitely put forth a proposal with language designed to address 'fast lane' type of concerns, though that tired metaphor is very difficult to accurately apply, since internet traffic is more like water than cars. Look, I'm not here to say, "Hey the market will take care of this and AT&T and Verizon and Google are Good Actors(tm)", I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services. That happened, and at the time, everyone was up in arms about it only being wireline. After that juncture, rarely was Net Neutrality discussed, esp in non-technical circles, until the Netflix debacle.
- iends 12y ago
  Never heard of this, do you have a link to a source?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Well, no, the fact that what you describe didn't happen means it didn't happen. I've found the details of something that did happen on the same general subject, and involving some of the same actors, at about the time you describe [0][1], but it differs from your description: > AT&T, Verizon, and Google Just Verizon and Google. > put forth Net Neutrality legislation They actually put forth a set of "key elements" that they argued should be included in net neutrality legislation. [0] > that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless. It was limited to wireline services (but for the transparency provision), and, in addition, allowed any provider that provided wireline services complying with the neutrality provision unlimited permission to offer any non-neutral services so long as they were distinguished in "scope and function" from the neutral service. [0; "Additional Online Services"] So, it didn't so much require wireline broadband neutrality as require wireline providers to offer a neutral service at some price point as a precondition for offering non-neutral services. It also explicitly denied the FCC rulemaking authority, limiting the FCC to case-by-case enforcement and issuing reports to Congress. [0; "Case-by-Case Enforcement"] Also, the temporary part is not entirely accurate. The stated reason for not including wireless services was conditions at the time, but there was nothing temporary about the exclusion (that is, the "key elements" proposed did not include any conditions for imposing wireless neutrality.) [0; "Wireless Broadband"] > I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services. The things for which the proposal was criticized at the time for included: 1) Moving from the then-existing FCC rules "fixed" vs. "mobile" distinction where stronger neutrality rules existed for fixed and some, but weaker, neutrality rules existed for mobile to a "wireline" vs. "wireless" distinction where no neutrality rules applied to wireless. (Many neutrality proponents were also criticizing the existing FCC rules for the weaker mobile rules, but this was seen as even worse.) 2) Explicitly including a "key element" permitting wireline operators to offer any non-neutral services so long as they also provided a service meeting the neutrality rules, and expressly limiting the FCC's authority to deal with such additional services to issuing reports. [2] 3) Imposing all the rules and loopholes through statute and including a "key element" expressly limiting the FCC rule to case-by-case enforcement and excluding rulemaking. And proposing encouragement of non-governmental dispute resolution in the framework. [3; "Meaningful harm"] [0] http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislativ... [1] http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/google-verizon-unveil-net-neutrality-lite-to-government/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/google-verizon-un... [3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/googleverizon-we-do-loopholes-right/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/googleverizon-we-...

wtallis 12y ago

> "But please, keep regurgitating Netflix's talking points about how noone will be able to start a company in their basement ever again - an odd complaint, since before Comcast throttled Netflix to something like 70% of the total Comcast network, Netflix themselves may have been causing problems for people trying to launch companies from basements or garages, or just check their e-mail." If Comcast's networks are configured sanely, then no amount of Netflix streaming would be able to interfere with email or any other sparse flows, because the packets being dropped at congestion points would belong mainly to the heaviest bandwidth users - the Netflix streams themselves. Netflix cannot possibly do anything to interfere with non-Netflix traffic on Comcast's network in a way that is not primarily Comcast's fault, just like it's not Bittorrent's fault that it revealed a bunch of network problems.

justizin 12y ago
Yes, we could go far down that road, I just think Netflix makes for a poor example case. They have stirred up a lot of this discussion, which is not about them at all. Furthermore, "configured sanely" would not be neutral, IMO. I'm in favor of regulating, but you just described why neutral networks are bad. ;)
- wtallis 12y ago
  You're presenting a horrible false dichotomy here. There are options other than racketeering or having all your equipment limited to large dumb FIFO queues. Active queue management strategies can ensure that flows with different traffic patterns cannot starve each other, without explicitly classifying them based on protocol or customer; all ports and IPs get the same rules applied to them. VoIP and streaming video and email and everything else can coexist automatically just like interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers. Furthermore, good AQM/SQM usually results in better performance for everyone - even the Netflix users - by eliminating unnecessary retransmissions and other harmful side-effects of poorly managed congestion. Nobody is advocating for a definition of "neutral" that would exclude such techniques except for people who are trying to make neutrality sound bad.