FCC and Internet Neutrality

[prideslayer]

Oh, okay. Thanks. You most certainly know a lot about this, considering there is very little info about it. Sounds like you studied it. If there is any breaking news being released about it, this looks like the thread I'll learn about it on, likely posted by you. Thanks for all the info.

 

About politics, anything government related is automatically political. It's only when debates among members begin that the thread gets locked. I'll wait for results to be produced before I bother forming an opinion, since seemingly bad plans sometimes produce good results, and seemingly good plans sometimes produce negative results.

Well I've been watching the concept develop for the last 10-15 years, since I have an interest in what happens with it both from a business perspective as well as a personal one. I want more competition in the marketplace, as pretty much everyone does, but I'm very skeptical of government interference in any market.

 

I have my own opinions on what it will actually mean for the future, and I'm an extremely political (and opinionated) person. I'm doing my best to keep that out of the thread so it doesn't end up locked. I don't think there will be any more to say on the subject though, factually, for at least a week, and possibly several weeks or even months.

 

My faith in humanity is low enough that I fully expect the thread to devolve into chaos, name calling, and ideological grandstanding before then -- as every thread I've seen on the subject has, on every forum. All by people that have no idea what they're talking about, unless the person posting is one of those five FCC commissioners in disguise. They're the only ones that have seen the actual document, as far as we know.

[AwfulArchdemon]

Tbh, I just wanted to know what the whole thing was about. I know more than I did, so I'm happy (relatively speaking). No arguments or calling people wrong here. I'll go ahead and see how this thing unfolds, and save my bitching for the rant thread.

[mizdarby]

My understanding of how Net Neutrality ought to work, is that ISP's should provide an open internet, without discrimination against any applications, or content, that carry data over that network, eg Netflix can not create Fast/Slow lane steaming, p2p can not be throttled etc.

If that is what you get from the FCC recent victory, that is a very good thing imo, but I suspect big business will play a part in shaping just how neutral the net is, and that is not what you will get.

But from my part of the world's view (UK), even attempting to keep web free and uncensored, is to be applauded, my own country is going down the exact opposite route, and is creating the most restricted internet in the world. Even now, I can browse the web on my ISP, and find dozens of sites who are completely blocked to me, and they are talking of introducing 'opting in' as standard, eg you wish to view a porn tube, well you will have to 'opt in' with your provider else no finger action today (or the male equivalence). Now I dont actual do the porn thing, but I resent having to declare that i wish to be a deviant, rather than just using the web without restrictions.

I actually hope the US does get a proper Net Neutral Internet, because where the USa leads, the UK follows

 

[LordJerle]

I first learned about the concept of net neutrality when I was in PC Repair and Networking back in HS (yeah, we had a few good programs), and then had my knowledge expanded upon in my computer science class at ITT Tech.  It's not about "Regulating" or "De-regulating" the internet, it's about preventing service providers from making you pay for content that you should have the right to look at with your basic subscription payments, and preventing companies from greasing the palm for priority service, or to stifle competitors, or block websites because it goes against the owner's religion, so-on and so-forth.  I don't know how well read a lot of the people in this thread are on the topic, but the concept's been around since way before broadband, all the way back to windows 3.1, when the World Wide Web was a brand new thing that nobody knew was going to be popular.  I say the WWW because the internet's been around since the 60's, the web hasn't, something not everybody knows.  In fact, it started as a government research project under DARPA.  I encourage people to look up the actual history, so they can get a clearer understanding of it all. 

[prideslayer]

You both have the concept right. How the concept is actually put into practice is where the potential problems are found, and why there are so many opponents to the idea, along with simple freedom to make your own choices as a business owner. It's not that the concept is inherently bad, but the legaleese surrounding it isn't clear, and wasn't written by people with a firm grasp on the technology or infrastructure.

 

The "fast lanes" are a good example of that. Some people (who frankly do not know what they are talking about) categorize the current deal between Netflix and Comcast for transit as a "fast lane" that shouldn't be legal. What they have is a simple paid peering arrangement, like Netflix has with every other provider they use (and they use many), which is no different from you as a consumer paying for internet access.

 

As for the history, well, accounts vary. In hindsight you can call ARPANet the beginning of the internet, but at the time, even people who were sure the network would eventually have global reach did not know who's network or what standards would win out. It could just as easily been one of the European networks and we could all be using some modern version of X.25 instead of TCP/IP. In fact the last commercial non-internet ISP using X.25 (Minitel) didn't shut down until just a few years ago. It still had millions of users.

[Someone92]

The "fast lanes" are a good example of that. Some people (who frankly do not know what they are talking about) categorize the current deal between Netflix and Comcast for transit as a "fast lane" that shouldn't be legal. What they have is a simple paid peering arrangement, like Netflix has with every other provider they use (and they use many), which is no different from you as a consumer paying for internet access.

The problem with those deals it that only a few big companies will be able to afford such deals.

[prideslayer]

 

The "fast lanes" are a good example of that. Some people (who frankly do not know what they are talking about) categorize the current deal between Netflix and Comcast for transit as a "fast lane" that shouldn't be legal. What they have is a simple paid peering arrangement, like Netflix has with every other provider they use (and they use many), which is no different from you as a consumer paying for internet access.

The problem with those deals it that only a few big companies will be able to afford such deals.

 

I don't think you really understand, though I've done my best to explain it.

 

This has nothing to do with Netflix, except as an example. Companies that need big bandwidth need to pay for it. Netflix is a huge user of bandwidth with a global presence, and as such, pays many ISPs around the world for internet access. Comcast is just one of those ISPs. Before the deal, they were paying Cogent, and maybe they still are to carry some traffic.

 

You don't get settlement free peering just because you want it, and you never get free colocation or bandwidth as a simple end user -- which they are, despite their size.