4 ms·

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is o

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC head, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with his appointee? 3) The language "lawful content and services" seems like the kind of opening that could be the death of services like Bit Torrent or Tor. 4) Holding up the old telephonic lines as having been improved by regulation seems specious. In fact, the telephone system has been frozen in amber for decades. Perhaps overregulation is part of the reason we get our high-speed internet via the much less regulated cable lines and not phone lines.

ryneandal 12y ago
What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue, was it not?
- 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
  Or Comcast blocking/throttling all bittorrent traffic? \ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorren...
  - cheald 12y ago
    That actually was a fast/slow lane issue, and you may remember that was resolved without additional regulation or legislation.
- nostromo 12y ago
  It's not clear to me that paid-peering agreements will change at all based on this announcement. The FCC said previously that it doesn't see such agreements as a net neutrality issue. http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/ http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement...
- cheald 12y ago
  The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a saturated links issue. Netflix wasn't being specifically throttled, their transit provider couldn't negotiate enough interlink capacity with last-mile providers to fulfill their obligations to Netflix.
acomar 12y ago
> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery. > 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with the executive's increased authority over the internet via the FCC? The FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet. It's trying to establish rules within the authority granted to it by the US Congress. > 3) The language "lawful content and services" to me seems concerning. Could this be the death of bit torrent? This does seem concerning, but there's some discussion up the thread about what this likely means. We won't know for sure though until the actual proposed rules are announced. This is more of "announcing an announcement" than anything else.
- nullrouted 12y ago
  I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."
  - wtallis 12y ago
    It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.
    - nullrouted 12y ago
      It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
non-existent? telcos have blocked all kinds of apps on mobile, from Facetime to tethering, and of course throttled Netflix. http://lifehacker.com/5933152/the-right-to-tether-what-the-verizonfcc-settlement-means-to-you http://lifehacker.com/5933152/the-right-to-tether-what-the-v... http://www.savetheinternet.com/att-facetime http://www.savetheinternet.com/att-facetime
zurn 12y ago
FWIW Nixon has a pretty good record compared to, and was more liberal than Obama. Nixon created the EPA, made peace on multiple fronts, instituted many pivotal social justice programs etc. Obama himself said Nixon was more liberal than him (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/03/obama_in_a_lot_of_ways_richard_nixon_was_more_liberal_than_i_was.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/03/obama_in_a...) Obama on the other hand has failed to turn around most of the worst Bush era policies. Not to belittle his archievements with health care (which Nixon also tried to pass).

ryneandal 12y ago

What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue, was it not?

0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
Or Comcast blocking/throttling all bittorrent traffic? \ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorren...
- cheald 12y ago
  That actually was a fast/slow lane issue, and you may remember that was resolved without additional regulation or legislation.
nostromo 12y ago
It's not clear to me that paid-peering agreements will change at all based on this announcement. The FCC said previously that it doesn't see such agreements as a net neutrality issue. http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/ http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement...
cheald 12y ago
The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a saturated links issue. Netflix wasn't being specifically throttled, their transit provider couldn't negotiate enough interlink capacity with last-mile providers to fulfill their obligations to Netflix.

acomar 12y ago

> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery. > 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with the executive's increased authority over the internet via the FCC? The FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet. It's trying to establish rules within the authority granted to it by the US Congress. > 3) The language "lawful content and services" to me seems concerning. Could this be the death of bit torrent? This does seem concerning, but there's some discussion up the thread about what this likely means. We won't know for sure though until the actual proposed rules are announced. This is more of "announcing an announcement" than anything else.

nullrouted 12y ago
I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."
- wtallis 12y ago
  It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.
  - nullrouted 12y ago
    It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.

RockyMcNuts 12y ago

non-existent? telcos have blocked all kinds of apps on mobile, from Facetime to tethering, and of course throttled Netflix. http://lifehacker.com/5933152/the-right-to-tether-what-the-verizonfcc-settlement-means-to-you http://lifehacker.com/5933152/the-right-to-tether-what-the-v... http://www.savetheinternet.com/att-facetime http://www.savetheinternet.com/att-facetime

zurn 12y ago

FWIW Nixon has a pretty good record compared to, and was more liberal than Obama. Nixon created the EPA, made peace on multiple fronts, instituted many pivotal social justice programs etc. Obama himself said Nixon was more liberal than him (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/03/obama_in_a_lot_of_ways_richard_nixon_was_more_liberal_than_i_was.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/03/obama_in_a...) Obama on the other hand has failed to turn around most of the worst Bush era policies. Not to belittle his archievements with health care (which Nixon also tried to pass).