5 ms·

"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to no

by gojomo 12y ago

"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?

Terr_ 12y ago
When you buy power to toast some bread, do you pay a different dollar-per-watt rate, depending on whether your toaster was made by the same company that owns the power plant? The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
- fleitz 12y ago
  The problem with allowing special arrangements is that politicians can--and do--use regulations in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?
    - gojomo 12y ago
      Where that's true, antitrust action to create competition could make sense, or even perhaps specific regulations against abuses that actually happen. That is, focused on where choice is lacking, and tailored for particular abuses that are observed. But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures. By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.
      - Silhouette 12y ago
        I'm not in the US, so maybe I've got the wrong idea. However, based on numerous previous articles and discussions, I was under the impression that quite a high proportion of US households really did only have one wired ISP available, that the relatively small number of major ISPs operating in the US at all tended not to compete over territory in this respect, and that there had been significant legal games played to block attempts by both heavyweight competitors like Google and local initiatives to create alternative provision. In other words, almost all the evidence I've seen as an outsider suggests that much of the US does not, in fact, have a functioning competitive market for residential high speed wired Internet access, but rather a complete monopoly whose single provider will furthermore spend a fortune on legal manoeuvres to defend that position if necessary. The net neutrality movement and efforts to classify Internet access as an essential service subject to regulation seem to be the first serious moves at national level to counter some of the resulting problems.
  - quanticle 12y ago
    >They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. are willing and able to to lay down their own infrastructure, they're prevented from doing so by the government. If that doesn't make ISPs deserving of Title II regulation, I don't know what does.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      You seem to be counting only cable companies and the highest-end services to imply a 'monopoly' over internet service where none exists. Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools. Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly". We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? No, because it's discriminating against non-Netflix traffic. But there is certainly nothing wrong with paying the market rate for all your traffic to not count towards any caps (i.e. an uncapped connection).
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  Basically, the whole principle of Net Neutrality (as I understand it without knowing the details of the U.S. law, much less the European one) is: you bill data in the last mile to the consumer and you are not allowed to charge them based on the semantics or origin of the data. You do not charge the provider at all, unless they are the direct ISP you are peering with. You can however, give the customer a fast lane and a slow lane if you want, with different caps, and they can tell you which traffic they want you to get to them faster. As far as I understand it, nothing prevents the hospital to get: Connection 1: Availability guarantee 99.999%, bandwidth 150Gbps max with 50Gbps dedicated, RTT for last mile: <=80ms Connection 2: Normal, small business grade connection. Then the hospital can use connection 1 for critical medical equipment and connection 2 for everything else. But, they could do just the reverse (why would they?) and the ISP would need to abide by connection 1's guarantees regardless of content (assuming the upstream connection from the provider is also good enough).
  - klodolph 12y ago
    It might be easier for the hospital to buy one pipe and then do the prioritization in-house.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    The problem occurs if I, an entrepreneur, want to solve the hospital's problem for them, and sell them a single connection that meets their application-specific needs. I'd set it up so that I could always meet their demands, and a sensible way to do that would be with app-specific routing rules. Also, to help make that peak, application-specific offering possible, it would likely help for me to sell other nearby connections that have much softer throughput/lag requirements – users who don't mind if the hospital's needs occasionally stall their YouTube/Netflix, because they're getting such a good deal most of the time on most of what they use. NN regulations make such economically-sensible, mutually-beneficial business arrangements illegal. Everyone's got to buy the mandated, "neutral" service tiers – rather than other cheaper mixed-traffic-treatment formulas that could meet their needs.
rasz_pl 12y ago
caps? data caps? what is that - Europeans want to know :)
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  I think they're those funny little hats they wear over in Randistan.
beisner 12y ago
If the Netflix traffic was exempt from your data cap, you would be paying $(Netflix rate)/(Netflix usage) for Netflix, while you would be paying (monthly rate)/(other usage) other usage. That means different rates for different types of data. The core problem that net neutrality addresses is that, in allowing the ISP to charge different rates for different data, they can prioritize data based on their own interest, rather than what the consumer wants. Say your ISP decides that, instead of offering a flat rate to deliver Netflix service, it will launch its own content service which, when accessed, would not count towards your data cap. In this way, the ISP can undercut Netflix's service because they own a monopoly on the mode of transmission - that is, you can't get Netflix through any other mode of transmission. The same can be said about speed: if your ISP limits the bandwidth of Netflix's video streams so that you can only watch in standard definition, but places no such limits on its own service, then the ISP can again unfairly undercut Netflix (and this happened, actually - Netflix was strong-armed into paying a large sum so that an ISP wouldn't rate-limit Netflix content). Net Neutrality prevents such scenarios from arising, by forcing ISPs to treat all types of data equally. Therefore, it cannot leverage its monopoly on distribution to prevent innovation of Internet services by competitors.
- gojomo 12y ago
  I think that's a long way of answering my question, "no". Net neutrality advocates do want to restrict what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer". (Additionally, if I were to start a competitive ISP somewhere, use non-neutral routing as part of my value proposition, and attract willing customers to my service, the regulators would come and fine me, and then perhaps impound my assets and imprison me, because my service doesn't match their formulas.)
  - rawrRAWR 12y ago
    You're not allowed to pay someone to kill yourself as well.
igl 12y ago
Data caps do not exist for non-mobile Internet connections in Germany. The speed of the Internet is still increasing. We are at a point where i don't even care about getting more. Bandwidths of 250mbit are announced to come to the market in the coming years. I can live with stable 50mbit. The real problem are rural areas where people are stuck with 2mbit/256kbit lines and throwing away net neutrality will not change a damn thing about this. Laying kilometers of fibreglass into the ground for less than 500 customers will never be profitable. Even if they can charge half of them with a premium fee.
- krylon 12y ago
  During my training I knew a guy whose ISP sent him a letter threatening to cancel his contract if he kept taking the "flat rate" literally. Admittedly, that was one of the really cheap ISPs whose business model was selling "flat rate" accounts to people who would most likely never make substantial use of them. Also, some ISPs have at least the option in their contracts to throttle the bandwidth after a certain amount of traffic. AFAIK, no ISP has used that option yet, so it has not been challenged in court. People living in rural areas do have problem, indeed. I know a woman who until a year ago was stuck with freaking ISDN. There are many cases of rural communities pretty much begging the Telekom (Germany's largest ISP, I think) to hook them up with DSL, the Telekom ignoring their requests until the moment those communities start talking with some other ISP. The moment that happens, Telekom will hook them up with DSL faster than anyone can say "Internet".
  - igl 12y ago
    So far i only heard of o2 (telefonica) having bandwidth throttles and when you can choose o2 you can usually choose other providers. Most cities have local providers with really good connections, stable rates and no overly expensive prices. Kabel Deutschland is a problem. Their 100mbit is a joke and not better than 16mbit from a proper provider. I wonder if its just the cable technology or them throttling traffic randomly. They alsp give me horrendous international routing. Websites not located within europe go through 300 hops are slow and unenjoyable. I had better experiences in the same city with other ISPs. This is really bad for rural communities. Not only for having not internet but alos for their Economy. I know a company who are stuck with 1mbit and after experimenting with satellite internet and mobile-internet they are pretty much on the brick to move towards the city. Is everyone left behind is suppose to grow potatos for a job?
soong 12y ago
Are you willing to trade the warranty that every protocol that you are EVER going to use will be treated equal for a better TV reception NOW ?
- gojomo 12y ago
  If such a unequivocal "every protocol ever" warranty is such a good idea, let it be offered by the market, not imposed on every provider, and every consumer, even if they'd prefer another cheaper or more-flexible arrangement. Here in the US, I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco). Can I and my chosen ISP opt out of this new set of constraints from DC lawyers/lobbyists/politicians?
  - soong 12y ago
    >let it be offered by the market 1) But that is the whole point: It is warranted, because it is imposed on the providers( at least until law changes). It is quite obvious that ISPs have no interest in doing so by them selves. Netflix was slow because Verizon throttled their traffic, not because they didn't have the capacities to route it properly. They simply wanted a piece of the Netflix Pie. So net neutrality will prevent that not cause it. 2) This is not about the big content providers at all. They would simply pay the ISPs a fee and pass it on to their customers. So net neutrality actually prevents increased consumer fees. >I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco) 3) The fact that you can choose from so many ISPs in SF is good for you, but you are probably well aware that in more rural parts of the country this is not the case. What will people in those areas do, if their only ISP decides to throttle a protocol that is important to them? 4) Most importantly, the traffic we create is growing constantly. Not only Downstream but Upstream. Especially since more and more "services" become decentralized. Decentralizing architectures is one of the biggest challenges we face today as internet citizens. Decentralized search engines, social networks and who knows what will come in the next decades. Decentralized Systems are more democratic, enable people to actively take part and give us back a piece of independence from the goverment (no, i am not an Anti-Gov't lunatic) as well as corporations. But for that we need to have our packets routed from A to B without being throttled, because some ISP cannot make a quick buck out of it. Thank You for Your time!
madaxe_again 12y ago
In every topic you seem to argue in favour of corporate rights, and against humans. Why do you hate yourself so much?
rakoo 12y ago
Sure, just don't call that Internet -- Internet is about transporting any type of bytes wherever they may come from.
- gojomo 12y ago
  The proposed NN rules would be much less harmful if they allowed providers and consumers to consciously opt-out, as you seem to propose, by simply using different clear language.

by gojomo 12y ago

Terr_ 12y ago

When you buy power to toast some bread, do you pay a different dollar-per-watt rate, depending on whether your toaster was made by the same company that owns the power plant? The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.

fleitz 12y ago
The problem with allowing special arrangements is that politicians can--and do--use regulations in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
gojomo 12y ago
Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Where that's true, antitrust action to create competition could make sense, or even perhaps specific regulations against abuses that actually happen. That is, focused on where choice is lacking, and tailored for particular abuses that are observed. But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures. By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.
    - Silhouette 12y ago
      I'm not in the US, so maybe I've got the wrong idea. However, based on numerous previous articles and discussions, I was under the impression that quite a high proportion of US households really did only have one wired ISP available, that the relatively small number of major ISPs operating in the US at all tended not to compete over territory in this respect, and that there had been significant legal games played to block attempts by both heavyweight competitors like Google and local initiatives to create alternative provision. In other words, almost all the evidence I've seen as an outsider suggests that much of the US does not, in fact, have a functioning competitive market for residential high speed wired Internet access, but rather a complete monopoly whose single provider will furthermore spend a fortune on legal manoeuvres to defend that position if necessary. The net neutrality movement and efforts to classify Internet access as an essential service subject to regulation seem to be the first serious moves at national level to counter some of the resulting problems.
- quanticle 12y ago
  >They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. are willing and able to to lay down their own infrastructure, they're prevented from doing so by the government. If that doesn't make ISPs deserving of Title II regulation, I don't know what does.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    You seem to be counting only cable companies and the highest-end services to imply a 'monopoly' over internet service where none exists. Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools. Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly". We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? No, because it's discriminating against non-Netflix traffic. But there is certainly nothing wrong with paying the market rate for all your traffic to not count towards any caps (i.e. an uncapped connection).

lazaroclapp 12y ago
Basically, the whole principle of Net Neutrality (as I understand it without knowing the details of the U.S. law, much less the European one) is: you bill data in the last mile to the consumer and you are not allowed to charge them based on the semantics or origin of the data. You do not charge the provider at all, unless they are the direct ISP you are peering with. You can however, give the customer a fast lane and a slow lane if you want, with different caps, and they can tell you which traffic they want you to get to them faster. As far as I understand it, nothing prevents the hospital to get: Connection 1: Availability guarantee 99.999%, bandwidth 150Gbps max with 50Gbps dedicated, RTT for last mile: <=80ms Connection 2: Normal, small business grade connection. Then the hospital can use connection 1 for critical medical equipment and connection 2 for everything else. But, they could do just the reverse (why would they?) and the ISP would need to abide by connection 1's guarantees regardless of content (assuming the upstream connection from the provider is also good enough).
- klodolph 12y ago
  It might be easier for the hospital to buy one pipe and then do the prioritization in-house.
- gojomo 12y ago
  The problem occurs if I, an entrepreneur, want to solve the hospital's problem for them, and sell them a single connection that meets their application-specific needs. I'd set it up so that I could always meet their demands, and a sensible way to do that would be with app-specific routing rules. Also, to help make that peak, application-specific offering possible, it would likely help for me to sell other nearby connections that have much softer throughput/lag requirements – users who don't mind if the hospital's needs occasionally stall their YouTube/Netflix, because they're getting such a good deal most of the time on most of what they use. NN regulations make such economically-sensible, mutually-beneficial business arrangements illegal. Everyone's got to buy the mandated, "neutral" service tiers – rather than other cheaper mixed-traffic-treatment formulas that could meet their needs.

rasz_pl 12y ago

caps? data caps? what is that - Europeans want to know :)

madaxe_again 12y ago
I think they're those funny little hats they wear over in Randistan.

beisner 12y ago

If the Netflix traffic was exempt from your data cap, you would be paying $(Netflix rate)/(Netflix usage) for Netflix, while you would be paying (monthly rate)/(other usage) other usage. That means different rates for different types of data. The core problem that net neutrality addresses is that, in allowing the ISP to charge different rates for different data, they can prioritize data based on their own interest, rather than what the consumer wants. Say your ISP decides that, instead of offering a flat rate to deliver Netflix service, it will launch its own content service which, when accessed, would not count towards your data cap. In this way, the ISP can undercut Netflix's service because they own a monopoly on the mode of transmission - that is, you can't get Netflix through any other mode of transmission. The same can be said about speed: if your ISP limits the bandwidth of Netflix's video streams so that you can only watch in standard definition, but places no such limits on its own service, then the ISP can again unfairly undercut Netflix (and this happened, actually - Netflix was strong-armed into paying a large sum so that an ISP wouldn't rate-limit Netflix content). Net Neutrality prevents such scenarios from arising, by forcing ISPs to treat all types of data equally. Therefore, it cannot leverage its monopoly on distribution to prevent innovation of Internet services by competitors.

gojomo 12y ago
I think that's a long way of answering my question, "no". Net neutrality advocates do want to restrict what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer". (Additionally, if I were to start a competitive ISP somewhere, use non-neutral routing as part of my value proposition, and attract willing customers to my service, the regulators would come and fine me, and then perhaps impound my assets and imprison me, because my service doesn't match their formulas.)
- rawrRAWR 12y ago
  You're not allowed to pay someone to kill yourself as well.

igl 12y ago

Data caps do not exist for non-mobile Internet connections in Germany. The speed of the Internet is still increasing. We are at a point where i don't even care about getting more. Bandwidths of 250mbit are announced to come to the market in the coming years. I can live with stable 50mbit. The real problem are rural areas where people are stuck with 2mbit/256kbit lines and throwing away net neutrality will not change a damn thing about this. Laying kilometers of fibreglass into the ground for less than 500 customers will never be profitable. Even if they can charge half of them with a premium fee.

krylon 12y ago
During my training I knew a guy whose ISP sent him a letter threatening to cancel his contract if he kept taking the "flat rate" literally. Admittedly, that was one of the really cheap ISPs whose business model was selling "flat rate" accounts to people who would most likely never make substantial use of them. Also, some ISPs have at least the option in their contracts to throttle the bandwidth after a certain amount of traffic. AFAIK, no ISP has used that option yet, so it has not been challenged in court. People living in rural areas do have problem, indeed. I know a woman who until a year ago was stuck with freaking ISDN. There are many cases of rural communities pretty much begging the Telekom (Germany's largest ISP, I think) to hook them up with DSL, the Telekom ignoring their requests until the moment those communities start talking with some other ISP. The moment that happens, Telekom will hook them up with DSL faster than anyone can say "Internet".
- igl 12y ago
  So far i only heard of o2 (telefonica) having bandwidth throttles and when you can choose o2 you can usually choose other providers. Most cities have local providers with really good connections, stable rates and no overly expensive prices. Kabel Deutschland is a problem. Their 100mbit is a joke and not better than 16mbit from a proper provider. I wonder if its just the cable technology or them throttling traffic randomly. They alsp give me horrendous international routing. Websites not located within europe go through 300 hops are slow and unenjoyable. I had better experiences in the same city with other ISPs. This is really bad for rural communities. Not only for having not internet but alos for their Economy. I know a company who are stuck with 1mbit and after experimenting with satellite internet and mobile-internet they are pretty much on the brick to move towards the city. Is everyone left behind is suppose to grow potatos for a job?

soong 12y ago

Are you willing to trade the warranty that every protocol that you are EVER going to use will be treated equal for a better TV reception NOW ?

gojomo 12y ago
If such a unequivocal "every protocol ever" warranty is such a good idea, let it be offered by the market, not imposed on every provider, and every consumer, even if they'd prefer another cheaper or more-flexible arrangement. Here in the US, I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco). Can I and my chosen ISP opt out of this new set of constraints from DC lawyers/lobbyists/politicians?
- soong 12y ago
  >let it be offered by the market 1) But that is the whole point: It is warranted, because it is imposed on the providers( at least until law changes). It is quite obvious that ISPs have no interest in doing so by them selves. Netflix was slow because Verizon throttled their traffic, not because they didn't have the capacities to route it properly. They simply wanted a piece of the Netflix Pie. So net neutrality will prevent that not cause it. 2) This is not about the big content providers at all. They would simply pay the ISPs a fee and pass it on to their customers. So net neutrality actually prevents increased consumer fees. >I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco) 3) The fact that you can choose from so many ISPs in SF is good for you, but you are probably well aware that in more rural parts of the country this is not the case. What will people in those areas do, if their only ISP decides to throttle a protocol that is important to them? 4) Most importantly, the traffic we create is growing constantly. Not only Downstream but Upstream. Especially since more and more "services" become decentralized. Decentralizing architectures is one of the biggest challenges we face today as internet citizens. Decentralized search engines, social networks and who knows what will come in the next decades. Decentralized Systems are more democratic, enable people to actively take part and give us back a piece of independence from the goverment (no, i am not an Anti-Gov't lunatic) as well as corporations. But for that we need to have our packets routed from A to B without being throttled, because some ISP cannot make a quick buck out of it. Thank You for Your time!

madaxe_again 12y ago

In every topic you seem to argue in favour of corporate rights, and against humans. Why do you hate yourself so much?

rakoo 12y ago

Sure, just don't call that Internet -- Internet is about transporting any type of bytes wherever they may come from.

gojomo 12y ago
The proposed NN rules would be much less harmful if they allowed providers and consumers to consciously opt-out, as you seem to propose, by simply using different clear language.