Video: Net Neutrality is gone, where do we go from here?

[NaffNaffBobFace]

No doubt, I think the point we can all agree on is the need for additional ISPs. The status quo with net neutrality does not allow for it.

How did Net Neutrality stop multiple ISPs working in the same area? As far as I am aware nothing about Net Neutrality stopped multiple ISPs and everything about "Competition" and "Free Market" did. Why let your competitors use your network and why build a costly rival network where one already exists and has all the customers.

To give you an example of what I mean I can only tell you what I know from a UK point of view because that's where I happen to be.

Here we used to have LOADS of independent phone companies - But in the 30's going onwards the GPO (General Post Office) bought most of them up and ran them as a single entity. Smiles all round, it was an efficient way of running a network. Then the GPO became British Telecom and they had the monopoly almost everywhere, then they became a private company at some point and were told no monopoly you naughty boy so multiple ISPs. Taa-daa. BT were even given a telling off a while back for favoring their customers when it came to repairs on the telecoms network over independent ISP's customers, which caused them to separate that part of the business from their ISP business.

So far so good, I'm with an independent ISP and the service is wonderful.

I say "Most of" because there is a place in a far off corner of this sceptered isle called "Hull", a place of excitement and wonder which has telecoms company called Kingston Communications which runs nowhere else but Hull and the nearby area. This company started in the 20's and resisted being bought out by the GPO. They own all the telecoms in Hull because they set it up and maintain it. It's a bit of an anomaly in the UK and yep you guessed it it's a one horse town, other ISP's can run there on license but would you believe it, it doesn't work out a decent enough deal to make it worth it. Lucky for the residents of Hull it's not a bad service but you can get cheaper elsewhere which pisses them off a bit.

We have Net Neutrality or something like it in the UK, almost all of the UK can be served my most providers assuming the infrastructure is right for them to operate there (like if there is no fiber there are no fiber providers).

So it isn't whether you have a neutral net or a throttled one, it's whether the people who own the infrastructure allow or offer terms favorable enough to have multiple ISP's.

I don't know this for 100% sure, but it looks like Americas ISP issues are because Company Z set up shop in town first and they aren't going to let any other provider run on their network even under license.

Considering the US Government offered intensives to these private companies to roll out broadband to the tune of about $300 billion you'd think "well sod it it's practically the people of Americas infrastructure outright anyway, we'll buy the infrastructure off them and maintain it ourselves and everyone can have the provider of their choice" but hey, free market man, competition makes it work... yeah, just like competition makes it work in Hull.

 

[ColdDog]

How did Net Neutrality stop multiple ISPs working in the same area?

Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean, is it was stopping innovation, reasons to jump into the market; it protected the status quo. Yes, it was tidy but it did not give important financial reasons to invest in bigger and better ideas.

In 2000, Quest Communication bought US West to form Qwest... it was a huge merger. They controlled most of Colorado, had the infrastructure, they had the fibre. Qwest is struggling right now because other providers do a better job. In telecom, they called this "the last mile" where the service met the customer. Qwest was the big kid on the block and acted like it. What happened you may ask? Someone invented the cell phone. All that infrastructure for land line phone service became obsolete. The moral of the story, is times change... we've gone from landline, to cellular, to wifi. We went from 24k modems, 56k, 256k, and so on.

IEEE - is the standard for my business. Here is a link to upcoming technologies.

https://www.comsoc.org/blog/top-10-communications-technology-trends-2017

By the way, a one horse town... is not necessarily bad... if you're community is happy with the service. If not, you're SOL.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean, is it was stopping innovation, reasons to jump into the market; it protected the status quo. Yes, it was tidy but it did not give important financial reasons to invest in bigger and better ideas.

In 2000, Quest Communication bought US West to form Qwest... it was a huge merger. They controlled most of Colorado, had the infrastructure, they had the fibre. Qwest is struggling right now because other providers do a better job. In telecom, they called this "the last mile" where the service met the customer. Qwest was the big kid on the block and acted like it. What happened you may ask? Someone invented the cell phone. All that infrastructure for land line phone service became obsolete. The moral of the story, is times change... we've gone from landline, to cellular, to wifi. We went from 24k modems, 56k, 256k, and so on.

IEEE - is the standard for my business. Here is a link to upcoming technologies.

https://www.comsoc.org/blog/top-10-communications-technology-trends-2017

By the way, a one horse town... is not necessarily bad... if you're community is happy with the service. If not, you're SOL.

Ahaaa, so you're saying wait for wireless 4g or 5g and whatever else to outstrip the physical on-the-ground infrastructure in speed, then go with them knowing the physical networks will not be able to upgrade fast enough to compete with wireless and enjoy using those wireless options instead?

Okay, understood, a last question then based on that understanding: As Neutrality rules now no longer stand, when there is more than enough bandwidth to share around every service and every consumer what now exists to stop the owners of the new wireless infrastructures from throttling and controlling that system in exactly the same way we fear the ground-networks will do now there is no Neutrality.

 

[Tealwraith]

Ok, so this is the next crisis, huh? Please start posting how you've been hurt by NN going away. I don't want to hear how you are GOING to get destroyed without the NN shield protecting you. I want to hear how much your rates HAVE gone up, how much you HAVE been throttled, how many videos got demonetized/censored (oh, whoops, that was already happening under NN, nevermind), before I'm going to say that harm has been done. If you really want to get ahead of this, start petitioning the US guvmint to create a nationwide fiber service like they did the roads across the USA. If the internet is going to be so important to our lives in the future, we need to establish a national fiberoptic infrastructure to rival the electromagnetic spectrum control we already have over the airwaves, not try to put a one-size-fits-all government rule on a patchwork of who-knows-what ISPs. Go big or go home.

 

[ColdDog]

As Neutrality rules now no longer stand, when there is more than enough bandwidth to share around every service and every consumer what now exists to stop the owners of the new wireless infrastructures from throttling and controlling that system in exactly the same way we fear the ground-networks will do now there is no Neutrality.

This is going into the weeds a little... but here it goes, from my understanding. Ever service has a backbone... those pioneers like Quest (original Quest) invested in fibre. They gambled that the technology was the future. So, they ran fibre next to the rail road tracks all over the US. Other companies did the same, it's just I am familiar with Quest. So the backbones are owned by the major carriers - AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, etc. Mergers over the years have consolidated these players. Example - Qwest was bought by CenturyLink. Qwest had a backbone (That main pipe that allows for me to communicate with you in the UK) and controlled most of Colorado. So, I think the answer has to do with who controls the "flow", who controls the backbone and who leases from that backbone. Right now you can say the US has 4-5 major players who control the backbones.

In the old days, power came from those who ran the rail roads, now days, power comes from those who control the information. That is why I hope we can find new ways to distribute the information. This will always be a problem and that is why we have anti-trust laws (I dont have problems with Lawyers beating up Lawyers). There is no easy answer.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

[...]So, I think the answer has to do with who controls the "flow", who controls the backbone and who leases from that backbone. Right now you can say the US has 4-5 major players who control the backbones.[...]

[...]That is why I hope we can find new ways to distribute the information. This will always be a problem and that is why we have anti-trust laws (I dont have problems with Lawyers beating up Lawyers). There is no easy answer.

Okay, I think I'm nearly there with you.

So, considering the above relies on finding new ways of getting the data long distances, considering that it is Market Forces that appear to have been the stumbling blocks, considering in the glorious future hopefully there is a time when bandwidth coming out of everyones ears and there is much more than anyone could ever ever use... how was Net Neutrality anything to do with it?

You suggested NN stopped innovation because Lawyers were able to sue those attempting to innovate. By innovate I take it you mean find ways to get data long distances and basically find an alternate backbone? Do you have an example of this?

 

[Gauna]

Elon Musk has a solution for us.

LEO satellite internet and fast gigabit for everybody!

Exact! He is our only hope!

 

[Vavrik]

In the old days, power came from those who ran the rail roads, now days, power comes from those who control the information. That is why I hope we can find new ways to distribute the information. This will always be a problem and that is why we have anti-trust laws (I dont have problems with Lawyers beating up Lawyers). There is no easy answer.

This is not a question of controlling the information, or it should not be seen as that. The backbone or Tier 1 carriers are really the only ones who do. Net Neutrality was never really aimed at Tier 1. They can't really afford to throttle the traffic they carry because they would then be breaking their contract with the Tier 2 carriers that are their customers. For example, Comcast is a Tier 2 provider. There is also Tier 3, which are the "last mile providers", the local ISP's. (There is some overlap, for example, AT&T operates as in all 3 tiers, and Comcast operates as both Tier 2 and 3). If you work for a business, that has it's own internet connection, it is likely to a Tier 2 provider, and the business is it's own Tier 3 provider.

Net Neutrality was more targeted to Tier 2 and Tier 3, consumer services. There is a practice called "traffic shaping". That is, I can look at what my customers are doing, and shape my network accordingly to "maximize the efficiency of my network". Traffic shaping is a common practice. I can filter and throttle network traffic based on any combination of end point, protocol, or content. This is the way VPN's (i.e. purchased VPN's) can give throughput guarantees, for example. Your router also supports some limited traffic shaping. For example, you can often set limits or prevent internet access to certain of your devices, and prevent them from accessing certain services if you like, and set up preferred connections for gaming. (AKA "parental controls").

What the FCC has done is re-open the door to a practice that was beginning to become noticeably popular prior to 2015. That is to effect service oriented "traffic shaping". This, in *any* other media would be called censorship. Quite honestly, traffic shaping was never halted, it was just the prior rules put some limits on it. The problem now is that "to maximize the efficiency of the network" is what they're going to say in public. In board meetings, let me tell you it's not called that at all. It's called "Maximizing Shareholder Value". So in effect, they're allowed to employ censorship (restrictions on the information you can access) for profit. In reality is very very rarely has anything to do with network efficiency. They're now allowed to in effect, put parental controls on their internal routers, and force SOMEONE to pay to have them removed. Whether the models come down to you, or the services you use having to pay, is up in the air.

So as a censorship issue, it becomes a question of freedom. Your government has given into the pressures applied by a self-interest industry lobby group, over the interests of the majority of the people. Your freedom has been eroded, again. I don't remember if I wrote this before, but back in the 80's there was a bumper sticker that read: "Preserve Freedom, it's perishable". But protecting it takes effort. The question is, "Is the effort worth it?". Just for fun, if you think this is not a freedom issue, take a look at the criteria for the measure of freedom of Expression:
"Expression takes a wide array of forms. This category measures a broad range of freedom including that affecting personal expression, the press, and use of the Internet." -- The Human Freedom Index*.

*Note the USA is as of the last publication for 2016, 23rd, and unsurprisingly, falling. It's closest neighbor and ally is Canada: #6 and rising.

So you mentioned your ISP was a municipal electrical company in a previous post. Your municipal owned ISP is a Tier 3 ISP, not Tier 2. So while they might not engage in traffic shaping (my money is on, "Oh yes they do"), their Tier 2 provider can most certainly, and likely doesn't need to consult your city councilors to do so.

 

[Xist]

The dumb shits over at Fox news think it's perfectly acceptable to extort companies and that doing so is the way to "save" the internet:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/16/ending-net-neutrality-will-save-internet-not-destroy-it.html

 

[SeungRyul]

@Tealwraith This is an actual internet plan in Portugal. We all agree that firms primary purpose is to increase profits. In a free market they do this via competition (where consumers benefit). In S. Korea I have ISPs constantly offering me $100 cashbacks for signing up for their $20 gigabit plans. However U.S. being so large in landmass means there is no competition. Thus, it is profit-loss for ISP to invest in innovation/customer service when there is no net gain (customers are always there).

 

[Nightlane]

When engineers and lawyers work together we build great things.

DRM??

 

[ColdDog]

Net Neutrality was more targeted to Tier 2 and Tier 3, consumer services.

Ok... so I think you may be missing what I am saying. Providers "lease" from the backbone providers. If the backbone providers charge more then the service providers charge more. Look at the system... just like the term "follow the money".

-Edit
But you are right, tier 2 and 3 manage the distribution. If Tom's Internet Spaceship Emporium uses more bandwidth then, theoretically, they could charge more (if they choose to with NN). Just like buying a Prius vs Camaro. You're going to pay for more gas with the Camaro, but you knew that before you bought it. Like any good company, Tom's Internet Spaceship Emporium is going to cry foul and play the Lawyer game.

My argument, is that we are not going to expand our technology at the pace we need to if these restrictions are not lifted - yes, there are problems, but the problems go both ways. As the old adage goes, "its not a problem until it is". We want to go beyond... we want the next revolution to remove us from this one so we can fight the battles that arise with the new tech.

Side Note - this is one of the reasons I am so excited about Star Citizen, they are exploring these boundaries with AWS.

 

[ColdDog]

I like fox news! Yes, I suppose I am a dumb ass over educated hillbilly :slight_smile:

 

[ColdDog]

You suggested NN stopped innovation because Lawyers were able to sue those attempting to innovate. By innovate I take it you mean find ways to get data long distances and basically find an alternate backbone? Do you have an example of this?

Appears I am on the hot seat... anyway... It boils down to special interests, both for and against. I know special interests have their say, they play both sides in order to win (Edit - Like test - we swing both ways - Pirates and Cops). This happens everywhere, so yes, until we have a new technology for the backbone we will have the same old interests duking it out. If that new "technology" removes the current limitation then bandwidth will no longer be a problem. But that new technology could come with other limitations, such as power consumption. Now you'd be paying 10 dollars a month more in power consumption... and then the green energy people would complain. As you know, this is how a democracy works.

 

[SeungRyul]

Appears I am on the hot seat... anyway... It boils down to special interests, both for and against. I know special interests have their say, they play both sides in order to win (Edit - Like test - we swing both ways - Pirates and Cops). This happens everywhere, so yes, until we have a new technology for the backbone we will have the same old interests duking it out. If that new "technology" removes the current limitation then bandwidth will no longer be a problem. But that new technology could come with other limitations, such as power consumption. Now you'd be paying 10 dollars a month more in power consumption... and then the green energy people would complain. As you know, this is how a democracy works.

We love good discussions! And good on you for standing up for your beliefs.

My question is why do you expect the ISPs to innovate and spend hard earned $$$ when they can just sit back enjoy their market shares. Comcast has been #1 most hated company in U.S. for the majority of the last decade but they don't change anything because it doesn't affect their bottom line.

Instead you got current market leaders stifling innovations as this threatens the current status quo where the big ISPs are raking in the dollars. This happens all the time, I work in the pharma industry where companies literally hoard next generation treatments until the patent expires on Treatment A. Then they introduce new and better Treatment B which was already ready for 10 years. Innovation suffers when there isn't proper competition.

 

[Vavrik]

Appears I am on the hot seat... anyway... It boils down to special interests, both for and against.

Heh. it's Ok usually it's me - and you're right that's basically what it boils down to is special interests.

Whatever happens, it's going to be an interesting couple of years for sure if you work in the network infrastructure industry. I'm hoping this will be the kick in the hind end that will finally put an end to 20th century telephony as the Internet network topology. Back in the early 90's when the public internet got going, it bothered me when phone companies got involved, then it bothered me when cable companies did. They were the only players with the infrastructure to do it, but it wasn't supposed to be like that.
We don't have the right technologies in place yet because of this, and that's part of the problem for sure. But we know what to do, and there are half a dozen technology proposals. Satellites are just one of them.

 

[ColdDog]

My question is why do you expect the ISPs to innovate and spend hard earned $$$ when they can just sit back enjoy their market shares.

I think the "OLD Guard" does not want innovation - NN allowed that protection - my opinion. They want to hold their own and keep customers for outside competition with minimal cost.

Really, how old is Comcast... CenturyLink... etc. They are companies that were formed in the last 30 years... they were the pioneers. Bell is gone from its former self... so like the rail industry in the early 20th century, they want to eliminate their competitors. That is where the special interests come in, the age of the "Robber Barrons" never left, power shifted to automobiles, oil, electricity, and now telecommunications. The landscape is becoming increasingly more complicated with more players lobbying congress. This is where politics come in... please stop reading if you do not want to be triggered by my statement. Ill say it on the line below.

****This is what draining the swamp in DC is all about.

 

[SeungRyul]

****This is what draining the swamp in DC is all about.

I completely agree, special interests from corporations have way too much power in DC. I don't think anybody here is denying that and should be triggered by that.

But then we have a lawyer from Verizon being placed as head of the FCC so I don't know whether the current administration is doing a great job of what they stated they would do (never mind all the other corporate special interests that have been inducted into the government since 2017....

 

[Bruttle]

Here's my $0.02

The first thing is, it's not over. There are quite a few massive companies that stand to lose over this. Sites like Netflix, Google, Facebook, and other bandwidth hungry services surely won't take this lying down. Just because it's overturned now doesn't mean it will stay that way. I suspect Ajit Pai and his lot are still playing checkers while the rest of the internet companies (and congress) are playing chess. The battle is lost, but the war is not over.

When it all comes down to it, the only thing this is going to drive, is customers to alternative sites. In the worst case scenario, I will own a subscription to Netflix to support them but stream the shows from pirate sites. It's actually what I did for a while when my media computer had issues running silverlight with the graphics drivers at the time. These "alternate" sites don't stay put forever. If ISP's block or throttle them, they will just change sites. It will be like a dance, an interpretive dance called "fuck you comcast". That's bad business for companies like Netflix. So they can't take this lying down.

Lastly greed, when left unchecked, will ruin everything. It might not be bad now, but it will be. Why you ask? Because corporations are impossible to keep cost efficient. For example, I used to work for a fairly large company that had a large billing department. The result of that was every receipt I generated incurred an additional processing cost of $105. By the time that one receipt was finally destroyed 7 years later, it cost the company $105 over and above the original cost. So if I bought a sticky note pad for $0.05, it actually cost the company $105.05... for a sticky note pad. This is just one example out of THOUSANDS why large corporations either need to push greed to the extreme, or they will die. The larger they are, the higher the overhead. The higher the overhead, the more they need to charge.

Normally, corporations will expand until their overhead makes the product or service too inflated. This then opens up the opportunity for smaller businesses to come in and actually profit. It naturally finds a balance between the economy of scale with big businesses vs. the lower overhead of small startups. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH ISP's. I can't just go out and start up a new ISP. All the copper in my area is owned by one company and all the fiber and wireless is owned by a second. The best part is, they don't directly compete. They each take their half of the pie leaving nothing available for anyone else. If I were to start up an ISP, I would need to use their copper, fiber, or wireless and they won't give it up.

On a nation wide scale, it is the same story on repeat. Want to start up a wireless service? You can't. Every last Hz of bandwidth is sold. It's not for sale. You would need to rent from... guess who. You want to start up a wired service? You can't. Not unless you had the money to bury your own lines. You would need to rent chunks of existing from... guess who again.

So right now, the FCC is trying to serve us up a sh!t sammich and trying to convince us it's pate on a cracker. There is no scenario that leads from here to anywhere beneficial to the consumer. Like Montoya said, get involved with your local government. Make sure OUR voice is heard. If we don't, we are basically asking for a broken internet.

 

[GeneticPredator]

:thinking: