FCC and Net Neutrality

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri May 16, 2014 10:55 am

Read an opinion piece this morning suggesting the whole thing is meaningless at this point, and that all they've done is open it up for trial by public opinion (standard for FCC stuff apparently). He also mentioned that some of it is based on an intepretation of the law that has already been strike down twice in previous court cases so...

I didn't give the opinion much thought but if it's true it might not be nearly as bad as it feels like.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri May 16, 2014 11:00 am

GreenGoo wrote:Read an opinion piece this morning suggesting the whole thing is meaningless at this point, and that all they've done is open it up for trial by public opinion (standard for FCC stuff apparently). He also mentioned that some of it is based on an intepretation of the law that has already been strike down twice in previous court cases so...

I didn't give the opinion much thought but if it's true it might not be nearly as bad as it feels like.

Slow creep. Narrow end of the wedge.

It's SOP. Everyone gets all up in arms, nothing catastrophic happens immediately, people forget and move on to the next thing. In 5 or 10 years, everything changes without anyone really noticing.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon May 19, 2014 7:05 pm

This is a piece of the net neutrality issues as well - Comcast's vertical integration:

Comcast is now competing against content delivery networks (CDNs) such as Akamai with a new service that can improve delivery of video to Comcast subscribers in exchange for payment.

"This new offering allows content owners to go directly to the ISP and have their content stored and delivered via the last mile, thereby displacing some traffic currently delivered by third-party CDNs like Akamai and Limelight Networks,"

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue May 20, 2014 12:19 pm

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/p ... ree/68294/

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue May 20, 2014 4:29 pm

Now I'm confused:

Several Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee called on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to drop all efforts to reinstate net neutrality rules, including his proposal that would not rely on regulating broadband as a common-carrier utility service.
...
Other Republicans focused most of their ire on calls by some Internet users and digital rights groups to reclassify broadband under traditional common-carrier telecom regulations in Title II of the Telecommunications Act after a U.S. appeals court threw out the FCC’s old net neutrality rules in January.

The FCC’s net neutrality notice, released last week, “tees up the long-dead idea that the Internet is a common carrier,” said Representative Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican and chairman of the committee’s communications subcommittee.

Common-carrier regulations were focused on a monopoly telecom carrier and “harken back to a world in which twisted copper was the only portal for consumers to the communications network and voice was the only service,” Walden added.

Advocates of Title II reclassification say it would put the FCC on a solid regulatory footing for prohibiting broadband providers from selectively slowing Web content or charging Web content producers for prioritized traffic. Some advocates of strong net neutrality rules, including digital rights groups Free Press and Public Knowledge and members of Reddit, have criticized Wheeler’s alternative approach that would allow broadband providers to engage in “commercially reasonable” traffic management.
...
Wheeler defended the FCC notice, saying it merely asks for public input on the best way to reinstate net neutrality rules after the appeals court ruling in January. His approach, he said, would follow a “roadmap” laid out by the court opinion that would allow net neutrality rules under a section of the Telecom Act that encourages broadband deployment, instead of reclassifying.

The current debate over how to enforce net neutrality rules is “very healthy,” Wheeler said. “There are two diametrically opposed positions. One is, you should not do anything, and the other is, it should go all the way to be regulated like a public utility.”

While Wheeler’s proposal doesn’t ban outright paid priority business models, last week’s notice asks whether it should, and Wheeler’s FCC would consider most such arrangements to be unreasonable business practices, he said. Broadband subscribers should have access to all the bandwidth they pay for, he said.

“There is only one Internet,” he said. “There is not a fast lane and a slow lane.”

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:08 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffaRaPd320

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:13 pm

Here's the full video of the bit that LM linked: To get away with evil, be boring.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:55 pm

Kraken wrote:Here's the full video of the bit that LM linked: To get away with evil, be boring.

And make sure it's an evil not everyone can easily understand.

edit: Oh, and also call it the opposite of evil. That helps.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:31 pm

http://www.avclub.com/article/now-netfl ... %3ADefault

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:26 pm

msduncan, 4 years ago wrote:What is amazing to me is that most of you have bought into the idea that introducing ANY kind of green light for government regulation of the internet is somehow going to lead to a better internet.

Let me get this straight: for years we have had an internet free (for the most part) from government tentacles and meddling which has led to free speech, expression of historic proportions in the history of mankind.

Now you have all bought (hook line and sinker) the carefully marketed package of bullshit that the government must rush in and save our internet from the evil corporations.

See that door over there? The one that was keeping the government out of our internet? Yeah well you guys are opening it wide open. Sure...they'll come in disguised as a friendly neighbor at first.... but once they are in, they are going to start selling you vacuum cleaners.

This government imposed "net neutrality" garbage is nothing more than just the government's first step into figuring out how to get a handle on this internet thing through regulation. And all of you that supported these actions are accomplices.

Sorry.
This is just hilarious.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:21 pm

Unagi wrote: Sorry.
This is just hilarious.

It is. And shows a serious misunderstanding of the situation, what's at stake, and why it's at stake.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:11 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Unagi wrote: Sorry.
This is just hilarious.
It is. And shows a serious misunderstanding of the situation, what's at stake, and why it's at stake.

Not hilarious. Tragically misguided (and ignorant).

I attended a Boston Bar Association panel discussion on this last week with an FCC speaker. What Comcast and Verizon and their ilk are attempting is a complete Internet power grab. They want to be able to "throttle" bandwidth and speed depending on . . . whatever they want. The proposed regulations only require that their "throttling" be "commercially reasonable," whatever that means. The currently proposed regs also require them to be "transparent," but there are no guidelines or rules for what that requires. I asked the speaker from the FCC whether "transparency" meant that Comcast would (1) have to provide a detailed list of what Internet sources were having their bandwidth reduced or (2) simply have to include a disclaimer that they were "throttling" without further description. His response . . . "Who knows?" He said that if anyone's concerned about transparency, they should provide a comment to the FCC.

My question: How could anyone NOT be concerned about transparency?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:33 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/video/technology ... works.html

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:54 pm

It's rather funny that the FCC's comment site for today's deadline got swamped and they extended the deadline until Friday:

A surge in traffic to the FCC’s website on Tuesday has compelled the agency to extend its deadline for filing comments on a proposal to establish rules of the road for the Internet, otherwise known as net neutrality.

The deadline had been on Tuesday, but an FCC spokeswoman said that the new deadline will be on Friday, July 18 at midnight.

“Not surprisingly, we have seen an overwhelming surge in traffic on our website that is making it difficult for many people to file comments” through the FCC’s electronic filing system, said spokeswoman Kim Hart.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:02 pm

PS for those who want to submit a comment - this site has good information (as the FCC's site is rather unintuitive), as well as a link to the comment page:

The form will ask for a few pieces of information: the proceeding number, your name, your e-mail address (optional), your address, and your comment.

As we mentioned before, public means public. All comments received by e-mail, postal mail, and web form become part of the record, searchable online, and that includes the names and addresses of the people who send them in.

What should a productive comment say?
When comments to the e-mail address, the web form, and good old-fashioned postal mail are added up, the commission has well over 30,000 comments on the record so far — and some of those “comments” are submitted petitions with tens of thousands of signatures.

So the good news is that they are receiving a tidal wave of feedback on the issue. The bad news is that the signal to noise ratio in that morass of comments can be… not so hot.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:30 pm

Verizon’s Accidental Mea Culpa

All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.

For those interested in the technical details.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:40 pm

Moliere wrote:Verizon’s Accidental Mea Culpa

All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.
For those interested in the technical details.

Verizon is playing dirty pool, no doubt about it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:27 pm

He basically says as much in his blog post (the Verizon VP). He literally says that Netflix hasn't paid us to guarantee uncongested traffic, so we're not providing them with uncongested traffic. Or more specifically the networks that Netflix has chosen to deliver their content.

I find it hilarious that Verizon is claiming their network has tons of room for more traffic, so it must be someone else's problem. Well when you only open the door an inch, it's going to take a long time to get everyone to the party behind it.

I am unsurprised and completely expected this, and it is one of the reasons net neutrality is so important.

The VP should have responded to his customer that if he wanted to use Netflix, maybe Verizon was not the provider he was looking for.

And to clarify for those who might think it's totally reasonable for a last mile provider to extort content providers like Netflix:

1) Verizon network is no where near capacity by their own admission. Paying for "infrastructure" is not required, as it already exists (and has already been paid for)

2) Customers have purchased plans from Verizon for certain speeds/total bandwidth for access to the entire internet. Not just Microsoft.com. Not just Netflix.com. Not just hirsute icelandic midget porn.com. The entire thing. That's the contract between Verizon and their customers. Verizon is INTENTIONALLY not fulfilling their contractual obligations to it's customers.

3) Verizon has intentionally kept the door only partially open to the networks that Netflix is using. Other networks, no problem. Networks tainted by Netflix? Sorry, no dice. And this affects every single verizon customer that gets content (even simple forums like this one) from any of those networks. Verizon is not just screwing Netflix or Level 3 (or any of the others contracted to Netflix). Any content that has to pass through Level 3 to get to Verizon is screwed just as badly (although it's way more apparent when streaming video).

And it would only get worse without some net neutrality legislation. Others will join in. Different extortion plans would target different content providers. Last mile providers would withhold access to their customers (something that the customers never agreed to and is contrary with their service contracts) unless content providers pay up. It's a disgusting money grab by corporations that have monopolies (or duopolies) over entire markets. Using infrastructure often paid for (in whole or in part) by tax payers.

As I'm not American, why do I care? Because most of the internet is routed through the US. Any shit your corporations pull will affect most of the world. And that's not even considering that the majority of content is created in the US. Not all. Not even all of the highest quality content. But enough to have a significant impact if that content was no longer available to the rest of the internet.

That's some lovely content. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

That's all we're seeing here.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:47 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Not just hirsute icelandic midget porn.com.

brb

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:28 pm

Free Enterprise!!!

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/comcast ... t_partner/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-m ... n-congress

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:07 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
That's some lovely content. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

That's all we're seeing here.

It's the tendency of US markets to seek unmonitized or undermonetized resources and monetize them. It's free money, aka the top- and bottom-line exacta.

GreenGoo wrote:2) Customers have purchased plans from Verizon for certain speeds/total bandwidth for access to the entire internet. Not just Microsoft.com. Not just Netflix.com. Not just hirsute icelandic midget porn.com. The entire thing. That's the contract between Verizon and their customers. Verizon is INTENTIONALLY not fulfilling their contractual obligations to it's customers.

Not if the contract doesn't require them to, which I'm sure it doesn't.

Here's some sample language. I'm sure they are covered in all their TOSs.

This Agreement is between you as our Subscriber and Verizon Online LLC , ("Verizon" or "Verizon Online") and it sets forth the terms and conditions under which you agree to use and we agree to provide the Service.

THIS IS A CONTRACT. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS DO NOT USE THE SERVICE AND CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY TO TERMINATE IT.

....

2. DEFINITIONS AND CHANGES TO SERVICE.

1. Service and Bandwidth Availability and Speed. The Service you select may not be available in all areas or at the rates, speeds, or bandwidth generally marketed, and some locations may not qualify for the Service even if initial testing showed that your line was qualified. We will provision qualified HSI lines at the maximum line rate available to your location based on our standard line qualification procedures, unless you have selected a level of service with a lower maximum line rate. Bandwidth is provided on a per-line (not a per-device) basis. The bandwidth available to each device connected to the network will vary depending upon the number, type and configuration of devices using the Service and the type of use (e.g., streaming media), among other factors. The speed of the Service will vary based on network or Internet congestion, your computer configuration, your use of FiOS TV video on demand service, the condition of your telephone line and the wiring inside your location, among other factors. We and our suppliers reserve the right, at any time, with or without prior notice to you, to restrict or suspend the Service to perform maintenance activities and to maintain session control.

...

4. Changes to Service or Features. Verizon reserves the right to change any of the features, Content, equipment authorized by Verizon for use in connection with the Service, or applications of the Service at any time with or without notice to you. This includes the portal services we may make available as part of the Service or for an additional charge.

12 LIMITATIONS ON USE OF THE SERVICE.

1. You acknowledge and agree that Verizon (a) is not responsible for invalid destinations, transmission errors, or the corruption of your data; and (b) does not guarantee your ability to access all websites, servers or other facilities or that the Service is secure or will meet your needs.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:09 pm

TL;DR version - you're locked into paying us for as long as the contract term. Whether or not we want to actually provide anything beyond the legal minimum service is completely at our whim, and you have to go to an arbiter, selected and paid by us, if you want to try and make an issue out of it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:11 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:TL;DR version - you're locked into paying us for as long as the contract term. Whether or not we want to actually provide anything beyond the legal minimum service is completely at our whim, and you have to go to an arbiter, selected and paid by us, if you want to try and make an issue out of it.

And there are your Cliff's Notes for just about any consumer service subscription agreement.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:42 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's the tendency of US markets to seek unmonitized or undermonetized resources and monetize them. It's free money, aka the top- and bottom-line exacta.

The concept of Value Addition was something that didn't exist in my world until I was 27 when I got my first toe really wet in corporate infrastructure. Since then, it's been a topic in constant conversation. Value Added Networking, Value Added Service, Value Added Positions, is the work you are doing considered Value Added? And they keep expanding and expanding so we went from purchasing Software to purchasing support for software to Software as a Service.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:21 pm

Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

President Obama on Monday put the full weight of his administration behind an open and free Internet, calling for a strict policy of so-called net neutrality and formally opposing deals in which content providers like Netflix would pay huge sums to broadband companies for faster access to their customers.

The president’s proposal is consistent with his longstanding support for rules that seek to prevent cable and telephone companies from providing special access to some content providers. But the statement posted online Monday, as Mr. Obama traveled to Asia, is the most direct effort by the president to influence the debate about the Internet’s future.

In the statement, and a video on the White House website, Mr. Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt the strictest set of neutrality rules possible and to treat consumer broadband service as a public utility, similar to telephone or power companies.

“We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama wrote in the statement.

The F.C.C. is an independent agency not subject to Mr. Obama’s direct authority. But the president is adding his voice to the 3.7 million people who submitted comments to the agency, most on behalf of a free and open Internet in which broadband companies could not pick which content would arrive quickly and which would be slowed down.

Mr. Obama said that new rules under consideration by the F.C.C. should adhere to several key principles: No website or service should be blocked by an Internet service provider; no content should be purposefully slowed down or sped up; there should be more transparency about where traffic is routed; and no paid deals should be made to provide a speed advantage to some providers over others in delivering content.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:44 pm

And in a shocking development, the GOP comes out as thinking this is a terrible idea that will kill freedom. Ted Cruz is already saying that this is Obamacare for the internet.

So many facepalms.

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:46 pm

The Internet is still a series of tubes, right?

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:51 pm

No, it's a superhighway. So really, it just follows that they install fast lanes and toll booths.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:00 pm

How long before it becomes like many highways, just a giant slowly moving traffic jam?

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:04 pm

Rip wrote:How long before it becomes like many highways, just a giant slowly moving traffic jam?

Pretty much the second Comcast is legally able to send someone to your house, hold you upside down by your ankles, and shake until no more money falls out of your pockets.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:22 pm

Please don't fuck this up. Chances are we will immediately follow your example, since a lot of the lobbyists are the same or want the same thing.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:23 pm

Rip wrote:How long before it becomes like many highways, just a giant slowly moving traffic jam?

And clearly toll roads never ever experience traffic jams...

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:56 pm

The Oatmeal explains Net Neutrality to Ted Cruz.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:34 pm

Moliere wrote:The Oatmeal explains Net Neutrality to Ted Cruz.

Terrible. I normally like Oatmeal stuff, but I didn't think much of this one.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:42 pm

Chaz wrote:And in a shocking development, the GOP comes out as thinking this is a terrible idea that will kill freedom. Ted Cruz is already saying that this is Obamacare for the internet.

So many facepalms.

And he said this on Twitter, did he?

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:17 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Moliere wrote:The Oatmeal explains Net Neutrality to Ted Cruz.
Terrible. I normally like Oatmeal stuff, but I didn't think much of this one.

I don't either, but Ted Cruz is a world-class asshole.

AjD · Post by **AjD** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:21 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Moliere wrote:The Oatmeal explains Net Neutrality to Ted Cruz.
Terrible. I normally like Oatmeal stuff, but I didn't think much of this one.

Hmm, I thought it was a pretty concise, decent explanation

. Kind of funny too.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:25 am

GreenGoo wrote:Terrible. I normally like Oatmeal stuff, but I didn't think much of this one.

What don't you like about it?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:52 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Terrible. I normally like Oatmeal stuff, but I didn't think much of this one.
What don't you like about it?

It's actually far more complicated, less comprehensive and less funny than other "fun" explanations I've seen. In fact I vaguely recall Oatmeal doing another one that was better. xkcd probably has one that is far more awesome.

I know a fair bit about Net Neutrality, but found the Oatmeal piece slightly confusing and less illustrative of the problem than others. Worse, these failings weren't made up for with excellent snark or humour.

I just found it fell short on multiple levels. Even more worser, Ted Cruz is an easy target and should have been an almost guaranteed homerun, instead Oatmeal just sorta ground out to second base.

I also think that Ted Cruz knows exactly nothing about Net Neutrality and about the same for the internet itself, and Oatmeal's explanation would do nothing to change that. Some of the Oatmeal's examples assume that Ted knows what the internet is to begin with, but I'm sure Ted has "people" for silly things like that.

Shrug.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:23 pm

Yep, Cruz has single-handily managed to completely poison the well as it were when it comes to net neutrality. Go read the comments section of any story on it that has come out since his remarks and you will see what I mean. Calling it Obamacare for the internet was a genius branding move, legions of dunder heads will do now make it their life's work to fight against net neutrality. Both parties piss me off to no end, but the anti-science and anti-internet/tech attitudes of the republican party have me extremely worried about the future for our country. Time to give some money to the EFF.