FCC and Net Neutrality

[LawBeefaroni]

Comcast is not pleased, so they are trying to charge Level 3 mo' money.

If it's written in their contract that Comcast can charge more money in this situation, as Comcast claims, then would you agree this isn't a net neutrality issue but a contract dispute?

The LVLT/Comcast thing is at he said/she said right now. I don't buy the contract excuse but there's really no way to tell either way. I do think that Comcast's demands of 1:1 peerage are unrealistic.

Fiber-based communications services provider Level 3 Communications Inc. said Tuesday that many of the assertions in the Comcast Corporation letter to Federal Communications Commission concerning Level 3's request to the FCC and the Department of Justice to impose conditions on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal, are based on factually incorrect statements.

Level 3 said Comcast was mischaracterizing its technically and economically straightforward proposal to interconnect in several cities where Comcast owns large cable systems. Level 3 said the solution is simply an extension of the existing interconnection architecture already in place between the two companies.

Level 3 said it made the proposal solely in an attempt to address Comcast's complaint that it would experience cost increases caused by its customers requesting more content with higher bandwidth requirements.

[LordMortis]

The Comcast/ Level 3 deal is definitely more complicated than it looks. But it does come down to how bits from Netflix make it down to Comcast's customers. Comcast definitely has a conflict of interest in this case because those bits directly compete with their bits. Do you believe that Comcast should be able to block bits from Netflix if they choose? Given the lack of choice in providers, what recourse do their customers have? Do you believe that allowing access providers to block or cripple traffic to maximize their profits is going to improve or harm the internet in general?

If Comcast can be considered a monopoly, I say "no" they should not be able to block bit from Netflix. Otherwise have at it. It's not like we don't all already know comcast is the devil and have a respectable history of bending their customers over and misrepresenting themselves.

[GreenGoo]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about "You are downloading legal content without exceeding established bandwidth usage guidelines, but we are going to [charge you more | reduce your bit rate] for these particular bits because the content provider side of our house wants to make sure that you only buy those particular bits from them".

Exactly. If your ISP is Comcast they'd be looking to throttle your content from Netflix (making it difficult or impossible to get HD content) but be more than happy to remind you they offer HD movies on demand for only $3 each.

Who would agree to that? Who thinks that's a good idea?

This isn't theory. This is exactly what happened when Netflix hit Ottawa. Rogers, the primary ISP, Cable and Mobile Network provider immediately lowered the bandwidth caps on ALL plans, increased charges for overages, while at the same time started advertising great new deals on their On Demand cable packages. It was one of the most obscene anti-competitive actions I've ever had the displeasure to witness.

And they seem to have the government in their pocket. It's ugly.

I haven't checked in on the situation in awhile, but I believe Netflix is still in the middle of trying to find some recourse.

Bad Mojo.

[ImLawBoy]

If it's written in their contract that Comcast can charge more money in this situation, as Comcast claims, then would you agree this isn't a net neutrality issue but a contract dispute?

This has nothing to do with the "peering contract" because this isn't peering. This is data coming from Level 3 servers, to Comcast end users, at their request. That isn't what the peering agreements are for.

Not the question. If the contract (whether you term it a peering contract or whatever) permits Comcast to charge Level 3 as Comcast claims, would you agree that it is a contract dispute and not a net neutrality issue?

I just don't think that's accurate. Most have access to 2+ broadband providers - cable, phone (DSL), satellite, and multiple wireless carriers.

The FCC disagrees with you.

Many commentators have pointed out that competition is sorely lacking among broadband providers. As the FCC noted in its national plan, 96 percent of all households are served by two or fewer providers.

Looking at the actual FCC National Broadband Plan, we can see that the 96% figure is for wired carriers only, and does not include satellite or wireless.

The Comcast/ Level 3 deal is definitely more complicated than it looks. But it does come down to how bits from Netflix make it down to Comcast's customers. Comcast definitely has a conflict of interest in this case because those bits directly compete with their bits. Do you believe that Comcast should be able to block bits from Netflix if they choose? Given the lack of choice in providers, what recourse do their customers have? Do you believe that allowing access providers to block or cripple traffic to maximize their profits is going to improve or harm the internet in general?

I believe that if Comcast were to block bits from Netflix (and for purposes of discussion, I'm assuming that they're doing so for competitive purposes, and not because Netflix is violating some kind of user agreement they have with Comcast), they would be using their position of market dominance in an unfair, anti-competitive manner. I don't believe Comcast should be able to do this, and I don't believe they can under current law. I don't think I can answer the last question you pose, because I would need to see what you mean by blocking or crippling traffic to maximize their profits.

[gbasden]

I have hopes that Wimax or something like it will eventually provide some sort of meaningful competition, but it's not there yet for most of us. Or are you referring to cell modems? If so, that's pretty meaningless competition. The tiny caps on those devices make them useless for anything but the most trivial web consumption. Not to mention that they are offered by the same entities offering the DSL connection in a lot of cases, making them not highly competative.

Satellite is better, sort of, if you don't mind immense latency. Satellite is useless for a lot of things. I can't get a decent Citrix connection into work, for example, over a satellite connection becase the latency is too great. Plus World of Warcraft is almost unplayable!

I thought my second question was pretty clear, actually. Do you think it would be OK for Comcast to block traffic coming from Netflix at their routers in order to coerce people to use their video on demand service instead? Wouldn't that be using their infrastructure they pay for to maximize profits? That's just the other end of prioritizing traffic. If Netflix pays for premium handling so their streaming is clean and lag free, but Hulu doesn't and gets deprioritized, which service is going to win?

[LordMortis]

Wimax is seriously expanding. (never knew what it was until a few months ago) And it is being implemented around here specifically to get to places that are under served for broadband. Towers in rural areas are beginning to pop up, usually on top of water towers.

I'm curious to know how reliable it is.

[RunningMn9]

Not the question. If the contract (whether you term it a peering contract or whatever) permits Comcast to charge Level 3 as Comcast claims, would you agree that it is a contract dispute and not a net neutrality issue?

It's now about what I term it. Comcast and L3 have a Peering Agreement(tm). Comcast is trying to use that to charge L3 more because the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast has become significantly unbalanced with the net flow of traffic from Comcast --> L3.

The problem with that is that Peering Agreements aren't contracts that cover the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast, and Comcast --> L3. Peering Agreements are contracts that cover the flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast --> OtherNetworks, and Comcast --> L3 --> OtherNetworks. They cover the traffic that flows through transparently from one side of Comcast's network to the other (or L3's).

This particular case has to do with traffic from Netflix (content provider within L3's network) to end users within Comcast's own network. Whatever bullshit Comcast is trying to claim in order to charge L3 (and thus Netflix, because L3 isn't just going to take that shit on the chin) doesn't change the fact that what Comcast is trying to do is to charge their own customers to allow these bits to flow through Comcast's networks, and to also charge L3 to allow those bits (which Comcast subscribers have already paid for) to flow through Comcast's networks.

When I stream a movie through Netflix, *I* am paying for the cost of that bandwidth. There is no reason for L3 to pay it as well - except that it will force Netflix to pay more to be on L3's network, which will force Netflix to charge me more to send me those bits. All of which make it more cost competitive for me to use Xfinity.

It's all bullshit, and it's why Comcast Broadband and Comcast Content should be two distinct entities that don't create this sort of conflict.

[ImLawBoy]

I have hopes that Wimax or something like it will eventually provide some sort of meaningful competition, but it's not there yet for most of us. Or are you referring to cell modems? If so, that's pretty meaningless competition. The tiny caps on those devices make them useless for anything but the most trivial web consumption. Not to mention that they are offered by the same entities offering the DSL connection in a lot of cases, making them not highly competative.

Satellite is better, sort of, if you don't mind immense latency. Satellite is useless for a lot of things. I can't get a decent Citrix connection into work, for example, over a satellite connection becase the latency is too great. Plus World of Warcraft is almost unplayable!

I'm not saying that all broadband solutions are created equally, but they're out there (and they will continue to expand as technology expands - provided that net neutrality doesn't deter the providers from continuing investment and research, of course ). I just wanted to be clear that the statistic in the article you cited is misleading, because the author does not appropriately qualify it.

I thought my second question was pretty clear, actually.

The question I was saying was too vague was this one:

Do you believe that allowing access providers to block or cripple traffic to maximize their profits is going to improve or harm the internet in general?

That's different from what you re-state below.

Do you think it would be OK for Comcast to block traffic coming from Netflix at their routers in order to coerce people to use their video on demand service instead?

That's pretty much the same as your first question, which I answered. (Quick recap: No.)

Wouldn't that be using their infrastructure they pay for to maximize profits?

That's one way of using their infrastructure to maximize their profits, but far from the only way.

That's just the other end of prioritizing traffic. If Netflix pays for premium handling so their streaming is clean and lag free, but Hulu doesn't and gets deprioritized, which service is going to win?

There are a couple of issues in here. First, I'll address the prioritizing/de-prioritizing issue. Everyone would start at one baseline, and would then have the option to to upgrade. If Netflix chooses to pay for premium handling (i.e., prioritization) and Hulu doesn't, that doesn't mean Hulu is de-prioritized. That would mean they're remaining at baseline. The next issue is whether Hulu has the same opportunity to purchase the prioritization as Netflix does. If they do, then where's the problem? If they don't, then I would agree that is a problem.

[ImLawBoy]

Not the question. If the contract (whether you term it a peering contract or whatever) permits Comcast to charge Level 3 as Comcast claims, would you agree that it is a contract dispute and not a net neutrality issue?

It's now about what I term it. Comcast and L3 have a Peering Agreement(tm). Comcast is trying to use that to charge L3 more because the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast has become significantly unbalanced with the net flow of traffic from Comcast --> L3.

The problem with that is that Peering Agreements aren't contracts that cover the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast, and Comcast --> L3. Peering Agreements are contracts that cover the flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast --> OtherNetworks, and Comcast --> L3 --> OtherNetworks. They cover the traffic that flows through transparently from one side of Comcast's network to the other (or L3's).

This particular case has to do with traffic from Netflix (content provider within L3's network) to end users within Comcast's own network. Whatever bullshit Comcast is trying to claim in order to charge L3 (and thus Netflix, because L3 isn't just going to take that shit on the chin) doesn't change the fact that what Comcast is trying to do is to charge their own customers to allow these bits to flow through Comcast's networks, and to also charge L3 to allow those bits (which Comcast subscribers have already paid for) to flow through Comcast's networks.

When I stream a movie through Netflix, *I* am paying for the cost of that bandwidth. There is no reason for L3 to pay it as well - except that it will force Netflix to pay more to be on L3's network, which will force Netflix to charge me more to send me those bits. All of which make it more cost competitive for me to use Xfinity.

It's all bullshit, and it's why Comcast Broadband and Comcast Content should be two distinct entities that don't create this sort of conflict.

It's a pretty simple question. If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute? Look at it as a hypothetical if it helps you.

[LordMortis]

Wow am I glad I didn't become a lawyer.

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcast ... iling.html" target="_blank

I am a little ascared that ComCast shoots off this letter on Dec 17th with the notion that they are asking for Government oversight and that they get it 4 days later.

I concur with RM9 that the cost of the demands of Comcast's customers don't seem like they should be laid at L3s feet. Of course that's a similar reason to one of many of reasons I don't shop at WalMart. Go figure. Another company that is the devil.

[RunningMn9]

It's a pretty simple question. If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute? Look at it as a hypothetical if it helps you.

It's a net neutrality issue that is trying to use a made up contract dispute as a smokescreen.

Comcast and Level 3 don't have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation. So it's not a contract dispute.

[ImLawBoy]

It's a pretty simple question. If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute? Look at it as a hypothetical if it helps you.

It's a net neutrality issue that is trying to use a made up contract dispute as a smokescreen.

Comcast and Level 3 don't have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation. So it's not a contract dispute.

I don't know why you're refusing to answer the question. I'm not trying to lead you down a path or anything. At this point, this dispute is going to be played out in front of the FCC and/or the courts. They'll make a determination as to whether the contract is the smokescreen or the net neutrality is the smoke screen. It doesn't seem like you to avoid a direct and simple question.

[Rip]

Not the question. If the contract (whether you term it a peering contract or whatever) permits Comcast to charge Level 3 as Comcast claims, would you agree that it is a contract dispute and not a net neutrality issue?

It's now about what I term it. Comcast and L3 have a Peering Agreement(tm). Comcast is trying to use that to charge L3 more because the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast has become significantly unbalanced with the net flow of traffic from Comcast --> L3.

The problem with that is that Peering Agreements aren't contracts that cover the net flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast, and Comcast --> L3. Peering Agreements are contracts that cover the flow of traffic from L3 --> Comcast --> OtherNetworks, and Comcast --> L3 --> OtherNetworks. They cover the traffic that flows through transparently from one side of Comcast's network to the other (or L3's).

This particular case has to do with traffic from Netflix (content provider within L3's network) to end users within Comcast's own network. Whatever bullshit Comcast is trying to claim in order to charge L3 (and thus Netflix, because L3 isn't just going to take that shit on the chin) doesn't change the fact that what Comcast is trying to do is to charge their own customers to allow these bits to flow through Comcast's networks, and to also charge L3 to allow those bits (which Comcast subscribers have already paid for) to flow through Comcast's networks.

When I stream a movie through Netflix, *I* am paying for the cost of that bandwidth. There is no reason for L3 to pay it as well - except that it will force Netflix to pay more to be on L3's network, which will force Netflix to charge me more to send me those bits. All of which make it more cost competitive for me to use Xfinity.

It's all bullshit, and it's why Comcast Broadband and Comcast Content should be two distinct entities that don't create this sort of conflict.

It's a pretty simple question. If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute? Look at it as a hypothetical if it helps you.

The problem is that a peering agreement by definition only includes transit traffic. Therefore it is impossible for them to have a contractual issue since the contract ONLY applies to traffic not originating or terminating on their network. This is the magic that allows me to get to a website on a particular ISP when my ISP has no direct connection to them. My traffic will transit other networks via peering agreements. Traffic that goes from one ISP to another that is directly connected to mine should NEVER be subject to anything related to a Peering Agreement. It's like trying to make a warranty claim for your car for damage incurred in an accident. The traffic is explicitly exempted by the definition of peering.

Rip

[ImLawBoy]

That's lovely, but it doesn't address the hypothetical question I asked.

[gbasden]

There are a couple of issues in here. First, I'll address the prioritizing/de-prioritizing issue. Everyone would start at one baseline, and would then have the option to to upgrade. If Netflix chooses to pay for premium handling (i.e., prioritization) and Hulu doesn't, that doesn't mean Hulu is de-prioritized. That would mean they're remaining at baseline. The next issue is whether Hulu has the same opportunity to purchase the prioritization as Netflix does. If they do, then where's the problem? If they don't, then I would agree that is a problem.

That assumes infinite bandwith and capacity. When QoS has been implemented everywhere I've worked, the traffic that is prioritized gets it's speed at the cost of those that aren't. It's like assuming the carpool late at the freeway doesn't come at the expense of all the other cars that are sitting in gridlock. It's one less lane that is available for their use. As more traffic gets prioritized, the other non-prioritized traffic is going to get continually squeezed.

[LawBeefaroni]

That's lovely, but it doesn't address the hypothetical question I asked.

If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute?

It's a contract issue, obviously. I suppose it depends on "this situation" is though. I'd have to see the definition of "peering" in the agreement. That appears to be the point of contention in this instance.

[ImLawBoy]

There are a couple of issues in here. First, I'll address the prioritizing/de-prioritizing issue. Everyone would start at one baseline, and would then have the option to to upgrade. If Netflix chooses to pay for premium handling (i.e., prioritization) and Hulu doesn't, that doesn't mean Hulu is de-prioritized. That would mean they're remaining at baseline. The next issue is whether Hulu has the same opportunity to purchase the prioritization as Netflix does. If they do, then where's the problem? If they don't, then I would agree that is a problem.

That assumes infinite bandwith and capacity. When QoS has been implemented everywhere I've worked, the traffic that is prioritized gets it's speed at the cost of those that aren't. It's like assuming the carpool late at the freeway doesn't come at the expense of all the other cars that are sitting in gridlock. It's one less lane that is available for their use. As more traffic gets prioritized, the other non-prioritized traffic is going to get continually squeezed.

True, but I think it's misleading to characterize that as "deprioritizing" their traffic. Again, they will have the option of purchasing the higher class of service if they feel their business model requires it. If not, then they can stay at the baseline. Hulu doesn't have, nor do they deserve, any guarantee that the resources they use today will be free from change, in either quality or price. Other industries and companies face the same thing. The strong companies survive, and the weak don't. Provided they have the same opportunities as the other competitors (i.e., the providers are not acting anti-competitively), then I don't see an issue.

[ImLawBoy]

That's lovely, but it doesn't address the hypothetical question I asked.

If Comcast and Level 3 have an agreement that allows Comcast to increase prices in this situation, then is it a net neutrality issue or a contract dispute?

It's a contract issue, obviously. I suppose it depends on "this situation" is though. I'd have to see the definition of "peering" in the agreement. That appears to be the point of contention in this instance.

That's fair - I wasn't completely clear. By "this situation", I was trying to keep the facts the same, but eliminate the issue of whether it was a peering dispute. Kind of like, the parties have a contract where a certain amount of traffic is allowed to travel. If one party's traffic exceeds a certain threshold, then the other party is permitted to charge more money.

[LordMortis]

The strong companies survive, and the weak don't.

You sound so ominous. I picture you in black, with clenched fist, and speaking through a respirator.

[ImLawBoy]

You know, the old logo looked even more like a Death Star. It was pretty awesome.

[Rip]

Well I'm going to flop. After looking into this this isn't an internet "peering" issue. It is a "private peering" which should have been referred to more technically correct as an interconnection agreement. Not only that it isn't even with Level3 transit that we are most familiar, it concerns Level3 CDN or content delivery network. A separate division. We aren't talking about backbone traffic it is a private connection used to deliver content like netflix for which Level3 gets money. Not only that it decreases the traffic from a paying comcast private subscriber in Akamai. Level3 doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Found a good video explaining it from a technical standpoint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR1sLLOYxnY

Had to love this as well.

But Comcast’s peering policy been posted online since January, and its competitor AT&T (NYSE: T) also has a peering policy of not carrying others’ traffic at more than a 2:1 ratio without asking for “suitable actions to balance transport costs.” Those suggest this really is standard operating procedure.
Level 3’s portrayal of the issue as connected to net neutrality comes at a very sensitive time for Comcast, which is waiting for government regulators to approve its merger with NBC-Universal. And the company has the attention of at least one powerful person—Senator Al Franken, D-MN, who shot off a letter to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission condemning Comcast and asking for Level 3’s allegations to be investigated by the feds, according to The Hill. Franken has called net neutrality the “free speech issue of our time” and has been a long-standing opponent of the Comcast-NBC

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-leve ... ity-issue/

Rip

[gbasden]

Hulu doesn't have, nor do they deserve, any guarantee that the resources they use today will be free from change, in either quality or price. Other industries and companies face the same thing. The strong companies survive, and the weak don't. Provided they have the same opportunities as the other competitors (i.e., the providers are not acting anti-competitively), then I don't see an issue.

Or you can look at it as last-mile providers extorting content carriers. "Gee, it would be a real shame if something bad happened to your packets. Guido here would hate to have to do bad things to your traffic shaping, so you should pay some protection to make sure that doesn't happen."

[noxiousdog]

Hulu doesn't have, nor do they deserve, any guarantee that the resources they use today will be free from change, in either quality or price. Other industries and companies face the same thing. The strong companies survive, and the weak don't. Provided they have the same opportunities as the other competitors (i.e., the providers are not acting anti-competitively), then I don't see an issue.

Or you can look at it as last-mile providers extorting content carriers. "Gee, it would be a real shame if something bad happened to your packets. Guido here would hate to have to do bad things to your traffic shaping, so you should pay some protection to make sure that doesn't happen."

I'm guessing from a customer response situation they would blame the last mile provider. "It works on my smart phone. It works at Joe's house. It works at my employer. It doesn't work at home."

[ImLawBoy]

Well I'm going to flop. After looking into this this isn't an internet "peering" issue. It is a "private peering" which should have been referred to more technically correct as an interconnection agreement. Not only that it isn't even with Level3 transit that we are most familiar, it concerns Level3 CDN or content delivery network. A separate division. We aren't talking about backbone traffic it is a private connection used to deliver content like netflix for which Level3 gets money. Not only that it decreases the traffic from a paying comcast private subscriber in Akamai. Level3 doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Found a good video explaining it from a technical standpoint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR1sLLOYxnY

Had to love this as well.

But Comcast’s peering policy been posted online since January, and its competitor AT&T (NYSE: T) also has a peering policy of not carrying others’ traffic at more than a 2:1 ratio without asking for “suitable actions to balance transport costs.” Those suggest this really is standard operating procedure.
Level 3’s portrayal of the issue as connected to net neutrality comes at a very sensitive time for Comcast, which is waiting for government regulators to approve its merger with NBC-Universal. And the company has the attention of at least one powerful person—Senator Al Franken, D-MN, who shot off a letter to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission condemning Comcast and asking for Level 3’s allegations to be investigated by the feds, according to The Hill. Franken has called net neutrality the “free speech issue of our time” and has been a long-standing opponent of the Comcast-NBC

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-leve ... ity-issue/

Rip

And this really gets to why I kept asking the question. I said that it was a peering agreement because of something I read, but I didn't state what kind of peering agreement (and honestly I don't know enough about that side of the business to have been able to speak knowledgeably about what the differences would have been), and I didn't really look into that issue. I was planning on it based on RM9's commentary here, but that would have been something I would have done tonight (or possibly forgotten about - Look! Shiny object!). I didn't think it was likely, though, that Comcast was publicly and loudly basing its entire position on something that wouldn't hold water. That's why I think my question was legitimate and deserving of an answer instead of evasion.

[edit]I do find it amusing that SNL alum Al Franken is apparently so stridently anti-NBC.[/edit]

[gbasden]

Hulu doesn't have, nor do they deserve, any guarantee that the resources they use today will be free from change, in either quality or price. Other industries and companies face the same thing. The strong companies survive, and the weak don't. Provided they have the same opportunities as the other competitors (i.e., the providers are not acting anti-competitively), then I don't see an issue.

Or you can look at it as last-mile providers extorting content carriers. "Gee, it would be a real shame if something bad happened to your packets. Guido here would hate to have to do bad things to your traffic shaping, so you should pay some protection to make sure that doesn't happen."

I'm guessing from a customer response situation they would blame the last mile provider. "It works on my smart phone. It works at Joe's house. It works at my employer. It doesn't work at home."

Which would be great if they had any significant choice as to carrier.

[RunningMn9]

That's why I think my question was legitimate and deserving of an answer instead of evasion.

My bad, I didn't think that I was being evasive, and I thought that I answered your question. I didn't realize that your hypothetical was a slightly altered situation.

1) If two companies have a contract that covers a particular situation where company A is permitted to tier their pricing structure based on company B's usage model, then yes, this is a contract dispute and not a case of net neutrality.

2) In this specific case, the analysis that I had read over the past several days suggested that this was *not* a case where two companies had a contract that covered this particular situation. This seemed complicated, and resulted in what appeared to be an evasive answer. I will have to revisit that based on Rip's post.

[noxiousdog]

Which would be great if they had any significant choice as to carrier.

With broadband wireless (specifically clear spot and sprint hot spots) those days are numbered if not over.

[Isgrimnur]

Yes, but those techs are going to run into the same problems that phone service did: No one is going to be willing to eat the cost of stringing these out to the outlying communities. The government insured that was a possibility for phone service with the phone fees that are on your cell bill to this day. I don't think WiMax for Hale Center, TX is going to get the same level of government assistance or interest in infrastructure purchases.

[Scuzz]

I heard two supposedly knowledgeable experts discuss this yesterday.....and they had almost opposite opinions of what this would mean....from "not much difference" and "it is legal" (by a lawyer who deals in FCC matter)to "the republicans will not fund it" and it is a terrible idea to it is "plainly illegal based on precedent" (a CNN media expert)....

[noxiousdog]

Yes, but those techs are going to run into the same problems that phone service did: No one is going to be willing to eat the cost of stringing these out to the outlying communities. The government insured that was a possibility for phone service with the phone fees that are on your cell bill to this day. I don't think WiMax for Hale Center, TX is going to get the same level of government assistance or interest in infrastructure purchases.

Huh? How many people don't live within range of a cell phone tower?

And why should we be basing such a comprehensive and allegedly important piece of legislation on such a small fragment of population? What would be the financial incentive for Comcast to deny those few access to netflix and risk the PR issues associated?

[Isgrimnur]

I was more addressing the WiMax availability. And has already been stated, the caps and cost for using the cell service options at the moment is still prohibitive for anything remotely approaching a power user. Pretty much every cell-based service I've heard of has been under a 5 GB soft cap at best. Cost the cell companies too much money, and they will find a way to extract themselves from paying for that service. It's probably already lurking in your terms of service, they just have to get around to exercising it.

[grumpy]

I thought I should offer a few URLs to Level3's looking glass.

http://lookingglass.level3.net/bgp/bgp. ... t=12.0.0.0" target="_blank
http://lookingglass.level3.net/bgp/bgp. ... =68.32.0.0" target="_blank

The first URL is Level3's view, from boston, of one of AT&T's major prefixes. Note "Level3_Peer" in the community lists.

The second URL is a Comcast prefix. Note "Level3_Customer". They're a customer now, and have been since before the current spat started.

I certainly don't know what's going on, but Comcast is clearly doing a good spin job if they have you talking about peering disputes.

[Defiant]

Huh? How many people don't live within range of a cell phone tower?

Before I moved a couple of years ago, while I was certainly within the range of one or more cell towers, I got little to no reception at home. I would get like 4 bars outside and 0-1 bars inside.

[noxiousdog]

Huh? How many people don't live within range of a cell phone tower?

Before I moved a couple of years ago, while I was certainly within the range of one or more cell towers, I got little to no reception at home. I would get like 4 bars outside and 0-1 bars inside.

One time I did a download and it was slow.

Not all services are optimal for everyone all the time. Did you lobby your congressman for a special law to give you better coverage?

[Defiant]

Not all services are optimal for everyone all the time. Did you lobby your congressman for a special law to give you better coverage?

No, but then not having work be able to reach me sometimes was a feature, not a bug.

[Isgrimnur]

The Senate defeated an effort to block the new rules:

President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats in the Senate blocked a Republican-backed resolution to disapprove of the Federal Communications Commission's rules on "net neutrality." The vote was 52-46 against the resolution.

Adopted by a divided FCC last December, the rules forbid broadband providers from blocking legal content while leaving flexibility for providers to manage their networks.

The rules still face a court challenge. Lawsuits by Verizon Communications Inc and others have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Senate resolution was championed by Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, and had 42 co-sponsors, all Republican. A similar measure passed the Republican-led House of Representatives in April.

Kay Bailey ... Texas Senator. AT&T ... headquartered in Dallas. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[stessier]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

[LordMortis]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.

[stessier]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.

Are you really against it? Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means?

[El Guapo]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

You did not want this to pass. The FCC passed a rule in favor of Net Neutrality - that is, restricting the ability to internet companies to filter based on consent. The Republicans were/are trying to overturn the FCC's rule.

Though FWIW Net Neutrality advocates have significant concerns about the efficacy of the FCC's rule. Though they'd still prefer it to no rule, is my understanding.