It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically marginalized, its that there is no indication that these aspects of the internet are at all threatened. Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm skeptical when these for-profit enterprises cloak themselves in internet utopianism to lobby for policies that have the primary or even sole effect of giving themselves a bigger slice of consumer entertainment dollars.
And if core values are threatened, why not have laws narrowly tailored to that danger? Why not just make it illegal for ISP's to discriminate against websites based on politics, race, etc? Surely that'd be easier to get passed, and people would be happy, if that's what this all was really about.
>an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies.
Because that isn't what this is. The arguments between these massive companies are deciding the future of peer-to-peer communications on the internet.
If the ones who own the wires win, the internet will be officially divided into two classes: servers and clients. Netflix will still be as fast as it ever was (if not faster) if it pays, and if it doesn't, the wire-owners' new replacements will be just as fast as Netflix was. All of the current players will be making massive content and distribution deals with each other, and the internet will become cable TV.
There's no technical reason that the internet has to be structured that way. This is all just massive incumbents locking out all small fry, and consequently all newcomers. The scale this is being played out in is so large that Netflix is really the newcomer in the situation; this is not just a matter of protecting an oligarchy of entertainment providers, but even a war between content producers and content distributors that has implications that affect how fast the traffic between you and your mother will be, and what programs you will be allowed to use to produce and receive that traffic.
Ultimately it's a defense of a primitive accumulation. Some people own the wires because they were first. We can either let them manipulate the market so all of their vendors have razor-thin margins and all of their consumers have the most constrained agreements and highest prices, or restrict the right of the owners to shape and filter traffic for business purposes.
Just because software views IP nodes symmetrically doesn't mean that there aren't central and leaf nodes in the physical structure of the network. That asymmetry is endemic to where consumer nodes sit on the physical network.
I quite agree that letting the people who own the wires do what they want will have an effect on the margins of companies who depend on those wires to reach customers. But doesn't that reinforce my point: there is something disingenuous about certain companies taking up the mantle of free speech and internet Utopianism to lobby for policy that is primarily targeted at fattening their own profit margins?
I don't see any reason to pick sides, certainly. I am equally skeptical of lobbying by ISP's that invoke the public interest or consumer protection to justify regulation excluding competitors from their markets.
Because, as much as possible, we dont want ISPs to discriminate against any website, whether it is discrimination based on politics, or commercial interests.
I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself.
I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the site by throttling bandwidth as soon as it gets popular.
But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them. But why should the public protect, in the name of Internet Utopianism, for-profit enterprises? Why shouldn't for-profit enterprises fend for themselves?
Because The Internet is not primarily a commercial platform, it is primarily a communications platform.
One absolutely magical aspect of the internet as it is today, is that I can stand up a server - on my desktop, on a VM in the cloud, on a physical server, wherever - and my friends can access it from all over the world.
Poor indian farmers with smartphones can use my server to get data about the local market for rubber, rich financiers can use my server to educate themselves about the likely effect of new financial laws, Strip Club workers can access my server and learn about new health risks.
All of that goes away once I need to pay Comcast a bribe to persuade them to provide access to my server for their customers.
This has nothing to do with whatever commercial opportunities the Internet may or may not provide for Big Business, and I really dont care much about those.
In time my little server may start to make a profit, maybe that is my motivation when I begin or maybe not, but regardless of my original motivations The Internet is magical technology that lets people from all over the world communicate.
that is the functionality I care about, and that is the functionality that anti-Net Neutrality laws massively threaten.
Why would cable companies have any incentive to demand payment from small entities like that? There is no profit motive in that, just bad publicity. I think its a really contrived argument, and shows exactly what I'm talking about: big money companies are trying to justify laws that favor them by raising totally hypothetical concerns about what companies may do to small entities that have some public interest benefit.
If Comcast et al really try to keep sex workers from getting needed information about health risks, let's address it when it happens with a targeted law. I'm sure it'll be much easier to get public support for such a policy then.
The health risks for sex workers was purely a hypothetical situation that showed the general class of the problem.
The point of it being a communications platform is that there is an infinite variety of cases of exactly that kind of problem, potentially leading to an infinite variety of 'targeted' laws.
Aside from the incredible inefficiency of attempting to deal with them one at a time, practically speaking it is just not going to happen.
Cable companies will not have any incentive to specifically demand payment from small entities like that. They will just degrade the service they provide for everyone, and make special cases for those who pay the appropriate amount of money.
This will massively damage the internet as a communications platform, it will cause huge problems for small content creators who are trying to get a start, and the need to make deals with a wide range of ISPs will crush small businesses, and startup entrepreneurs.
Netflix is a fantastic example of this.
It is, right now, big enough to be able to move largish amounts of money around to solve its delivery problem.
A few years ago, it was not, and - this is important - it would never have gotten to the size it is if the anti-NN measures that are being proposed now were taken back then.
Snapchat, WhatsApp, the list goes on for companies that started small, and were able to grow because they did not need to pay ISPs individually to have their content delivered to the ISPs customers.
MineCraft has been responsible for millions of downloads of its product, probably causing Comcast customers to consume thousands of GB of bandwidth from Comcast.
At what point would the distributors of MineCraft have needed to pay Comcast a bribe to ensure its bits were delivered without interruption?
You are either being very disingenuous regarding the effect of these measures, or you genuinely do not understand them.
Assuming it is the latter, i suggest you do a little more reading.
You're using very biased language ("bribe"). Its not bribery for a for-profit company to demand payment for other company's who want to reach its users. That the basic premise of Facebook's or LinkedIn's business model after all.
You've clearly picked a side, but why should we? I understand that people on here have an interest in startups succeeding against big companies, but why does that rise to the level of public interest? These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers.
It should also be noted that content creators naturally have a lot of leverage, because their products are non-fungible. Its content aggregators and distributors that would see the biggest hits to their profit margins.
It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none.
"These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers."
Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.
Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your own point, which is to refute the idea that we should care what happens to a bunch of for profit internet companies.
I agree with your point, FWIW, once once a company reaches the size of a Facebook, or Netflix I don't care what happens to it.
I do care desperately that individuals are able to easily create and distribute content to each other, of any kind.
The Internet as a communications platform that is available to everyone, for everyone, is what is endangered by the proposed anti-NN measures.
> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.
I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions. But I don't think ensuring that some new for-profit startup can function without paying the people that own the wires rises to the level of "public interest" even if they aren't the size of a Netflix or Facebook. I think this is primarily where we disagree: once you're for-profit, you're on your own.
> I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions.
I think at some point the line between non-profit and for-profit gets very hard to draw. E.g., NFL is a non-profit organization, yet intuitively you would think that they should pay for their streaming services that are very much like Netflix. There are also a lot for-profits which are less entertainment oriented and more education oriented, and vice versa. Heck, I actually use Netflix almost exclusively for watching 'How it's made' and the documentaries it has. If everyone used Netflix like me, would it fall it fall under the provision of being protected againt anti-NN? What about loads of other services which really are like this, but are for-profit?
So, it seems to be a compromise either way, if you view it as a commercial platform or a communications platform. Personally, I'd rather err on it being the latter.
> But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them.
By the way, to what extent? Here's a hypothetical to imagine: there's a next-generation Wikipedia which is all video-based, and is, say, responsible for 100x the bandwidth usage of Netflix. Does it still need to be protected?
Secondly, why does it need to be protected? Non-profits still have to pay for the buildings they buy, the equipment they buy, etc., why should they be treated as being special in the internet space? Why shouldn't they pay more just like Netflix, if they're eating just as much resources as Netflix (or more)?
Please, let us get the framing of the problem right.
Netflix already pays for the bandwidth they consume.
I, as a netflix customer and a customer of Comcast, already pay for the bandwidth that I consume.
Comcast, for some reason I cannot fathom, wants the right to force Netflix to pay additional money for the bandwidth that I, as a paying customer of Comcast, consume on Comcast's network.
Non-profits have less resources with which to protect themselves, and have value to the public that goes beyond their money-making function. Theres not necessarily much money but a lot of value in protecting say dissident speech.
On the whole, sure, probably non-profits have less resources -- but there are many glaring exceptions. MIT and Harvard are sitting on a shitload of cash, for example. NFL as well. You know that NFL charges customers something like $150 for streaming access for one year? (http://www.nfl.com/watch-nfl-live ) And a lot of people pay for it. Should NFL pay up to Comcast for clogging the tubes football-season, just like Netflix does, even though it's a non-profit?
Everyone pays for bandwidth, You all pay an ISP for x amount of bits per second, and y amount of transit. You pay more, for more. Unless you live in the US and you've been fucked by the incumbent monopoly.
If you're netflix, you pay a tier 1 carrier for bandwidth. as you get bigger you pay for an CDN. Bigger still, you make your own. (YMMV of course.)
to make it super cost effective, you negotiate your own peering agreement directly, as its cheaper than using cogent/level3 + akami and the like. (hence why google has so much dark fiber.)
The whole two tier internet business, has always been the case. Thats why there is both UDP and TCP. Thats why there is a priority header. Thats why there is QoS.
Yes people say that peering is free. They are simply wrong. To peer you need bandwith, which requires cables in the ground. Places like LONAP and LINX exist for mutual benefit. However at LINX private interchange traffic has been much larger than "public" interchange for years
I agree with your general message; this freedom for all is confusing to me because it's not at all natural for the operating companies.
Your statement about UDP is wrong though. TCP vs UDP is not a two-tier mechanism for quality. UDP delivers more effective throughput in most cases, as long as the application doesn't need the features that TCP provides. Consider that most TCP connections start with a UDP exchange for the DNS resolution. Even in conditions where you own all the bandwidth you may wish to use UDP.
We need a chairman of the FCC that is old enough that they'll retire afterwards. Nobody wants to be the one who pulls the trigger on common carrier because they all plan to work at telecom, cable companies, and radio networks after they step down.
Tom Wheeler is 66. Before becoming FCC chairman, he was managing director at a VC fund that funded early stage companies. He has also founded several companies. He was also on the board of directors of EarthLink, which is a competitive ISP with interests adverse to the entrenched cable companies. Aside from a stint at NCTA in the 80's, long before they were in the IsP business, his business background is far more skewed in favor of Internet companies.
Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/
I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
I love the implication that it is somehow incumbent on NN supporters to educate you about how the internet works.....and the additional implication that there is a single set of laws that govern it.
If you actually understand neither the technical details, or the legal aspects, maybe you should take responsibility for educating yourself?
or, at the very least, avoid making deprecating comments about those who know more than yourself?
Accusing "NN supporters" of having nothing but hollow rhetoric is extremely disingenuous, and I find it hard to believe that even a casual reader of HN would not be able to find out more.
There is plenty of information and details out there supporting this idea, how it could and should be implemented, along with this being, as the article says, a "generally accepted norm" for a long time now.
I will not permit considerations of market share, political affiliation, nationality, or social standing to interfere between my duty to send packages from A to B. - The ISP oath.
Neither political storms nor greed nor trickery nor monopolies stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed routes. - Internet Service creed
I'd recommend applying for http://taskforce.is and sending Sina an email(his contact details are available on the application form). Ask for access to our mailing list and shoot off a group message, we have a wide ranged of politically devout developers.
The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart.
Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.
The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.
Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?
I don't think your average customer assumes anything about what their service payment covers. I bet most think it just covers the wire into their house. Would the perceived regulatory need go away if cable companies made clear: "we reserve the right to charge the sources of data you download, not withstanding the service charges for your connection."
I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.
If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter?
This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.
Yes, they can just increase end-user's prices. And that's what they should do if their costs are really larger than revenue, as they claim. (What I obviously doubt is true, because they didn't.)
Comcast is trying to block Netflix probably because people are stopping paying for cable TV, not because of costs. Thus thinking about costs and revenue will send you on the wrong avenue.
Even more, most NN supporters cannot actually state what they envision such laws to even do. If you ask, they will give you handwavy answers like "provide equal access"...then they will be unable / unwilling to answer any of the obvious questions that follow on from that (ie. what if I pay for faster access, what does that mean for others who don't? Is all QoS illegal now? How will NN be monitored, government installed monitoring stations in ISP? etc etc etc)
This is a political wet-dream though, lots of people clamoring for "more regulation" without any real knowledge of the details or effects. It was the same sort of lazy, unfocused clamor that brought us the Patriot Act, so be prepared.
It would fix the issues of neutrality at the interconnect point. Additional rules may be needed to prevent an ISP from throttling a specific port/protocol/service inside it's own network, but this would fix the current hot issue (blocking Youtube, Netflix, etc).
There is a difference between needing extra money and wanting extra money? Does Comcast want it because they need it to deliver higher speeds to the customers, or are they claiming to need because neither customer nor content provider has alternatives?
If customer's Netflix speeds are degraded it should be because contention at the customer end is slowing down Netflix speeds, not throttling at the ISP's end.
Is there anything high volume enough at customer's ends to interfere with Netflix or other video download speeds?
>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices?
Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.
The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services?
Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider?
Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?
Presumably someone had to pay something to set up a direct interconnect between Netflix and Comcast to bypass the delivery networks that were used before. But more generally, I'd refer you back to my original post in this thread, about the costs coming from Comcast's lack of viable competition in most markets. Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.
> Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.
Actually the issue is quite the opposite. The ISPs backed themselves into a corner with unlimited plans. They can't raise prices based on usage so they're trying the next best thing, shaking down the other side of the connection. It's much easier to play hardball with Netflix than with thousands of customers, who may just say "well, if I'm going to pay that much for this connection I may as well cancel cable and use Netflix/torrents exclusively. So imposing neutrality at the interconnect would actually solve the current issue.
If it is ignorance it is usually an editorial decision.
I mean, you can't have idealistic and conscientious writers influencing public opinion against Big Co if you need their ad spending, can you?
Honest question: has bandwidth providing costs actually grown very much, or are ISPs just profit hungry and try to rip off everything they can? Because if it's the first one, something should actually be changed for them to compensate.
And if core values are threatened, why not have laws narrowly tailored to that danger? Why not just make it illegal for ISP's to discriminate against websites based on politics, race, etc? Surely that'd be easier to get passed, and people would be happy, if that's what this all was really about.