FCC and Net Neutrality

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:28 pm

Except with the new definition of broadband, it's pretty much just those with cable service.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:36 pm

DSL has a path forward for long-term competitiveness.

October 21, 2014 wrote: At the Broadband World Forum in Amsterdam this week, several companies are announcing and demonstrating products that bring DSL -- or digital subscriber line -- into a future with a speed of 1 gigabit per second. That's about 1,000 times the data-transfer speed the technology offered when it arrived in the late 1990s.

The DSL upgrade comes through a new technology called G.fast. Among those making network equipment chips to enable the technology are industry giant Broadcom, China-based Triductor Technology and Israeli startup Sckipio. The technology itself should arrive in homes starting in 2016.
...
With G.fast, Internet service providers and carriers will get a new way to give a new speed boost to DSL. And even though the upgrade will be expensive, it's necessary, said Ovum analyst Kamalini Ganguly.
...
DSL upgrades have at least one big advantage: they're an upgrade to networks that already exist. Much of the world doesn't have cable-TV infrastructure at all, and still less of it has fiber-optic connections. Phone networks, though, are widely used, and covered about 422 million DSL subscribers globally in 2013, according to analyst firm IHS.

That should rise to 480 million by 2018. But reflecting the competitive threat to DSL equipment makers, fiber optic links are expected to spread much more rapidly -- from 113 million in 2013 to 200 million in 2018.
...
"We think it's very competitive relative to the alternative of deploying fiber," said Jim McKeon, a Broadcom senior director of product marketing. "We believe we are going to be the first to market with this. We're very excited for the potential for G.fast to unlock the hidden value of existing copper plant that is distributed worldwide for DSL."

As a standard, G.fast isn't quite done yet -- McKeon expects ratification at the end of the year or early in 2015 -- but firmware updates will let Broadcom tweak its products to comply with final refinements. The technology is governed by a pair of standards at the International Telecommunication Union -- ITU-T G.9700 and ITU-T G.9701.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:37 pm

PLW wrote:
gbasden wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote: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.

Those statements are not contradictory, if lots of people have access to exactly 2 providers.

That is true. However, neither I nor the FCC seems to believe that 2 providers are adequate, and certainly the vast majority of Americans don't have access to more than that.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Netflix: Hey, maybe we shouldn't have advocated that whole net neutrality thing

http://www.caintv.com/netflix-hey-maybe-we-shouldnt

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:56 pm

Well, at least you're getting your facts from unbiased web sites these days.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:00 pm

like you don't?

...and he's a black man. Dont I get extra credit for that?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:01 pm

WaPo has a story about it. If you feel like registering, you can listen to the ~40-min call here.

Given how vocally Netflix was advocating for Title II, it's surprising to see Wells suddenly throwing the regulations under the bus, as Variety is reporting.

"Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not. We were hoping there would be a non-regulated solution," said Wells, according to Variety. (A recording of the call is forthcoming and will be posted here.)

Opponents of the FCC's net neutrality rules were quick to pounce.
...
Out of context, Wells's quote certainly sounds damning on its own. But Netflix spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo denied that Wells was actually condemning the strong measures.

"David was simply trying to convey the evolution in our thinking," said Squeo, "and give some sense of how our initial position evolved over time from an industry agreement to a regulatory solution."

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:02 pm

Only if you believe you're doing an African American a favor by quoting him.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:15 pm

Zekester wrote:Netflix: Hey, maybe we shouldn't have advocated that whole net neutrality thing

http://www.caintv.com/netflix-hey-maybe-we-shouldnt

Great, yet another person who thinks they have a total understanding of the issue while clearly not even understanding what is being referenced with the term "fast lane". He references Netflix's proprietary delivery network and calls that a fast lane.

Then to top it off he says; "The FCC could force Netflix to open its proprietary delivery network to competitors and pay broadband providers a “fair” price for its share of usage."

Talk about ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between the internet and private networks. The internet is a public network and if I or anyone want to build private networks to get data to specific interconnections to enter the internet closer to your destination they can and will (or should) always be able to.

It seems to me they are all confused and don't seem to understand public versus private networks at all. The issue is all about prioritizing traffic while on the public network and I haven't seen very many opponents to the regulations that have even a basic understanding of the concept.

Also pretty obvious that he is confusing Netflix's "wish it didn't take all this to maintain neutrality" with some perceived "we didn't want neutrality, we wanted favoritism" which is just silly.

I think I will just blame "The Cloud"

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:12 pm

Rip wrote:
I think I will just blame "The Cloud"

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:52 am

Rip wrote:
Zekester wrote:Netflix: Hey, maybe we shouldn't have advocated that whole net neutrality thing

http://www.caintv.com/netflix-hey-maybe-we-shouldnt
Great, yet another person who thinks they have a total understanding of the issue while clearly not even understanding what is being referenced with the term "fast lane". He references Netflix's proprietary delivery network and calls that a fast lane.

Then to top it off he says; "The FCC could force Netflix to open its proprietary delivery network to competitors and pay broadband providers a “fair” price for its share of usage."

Talk about ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between the internet and private networks. The internet is a public network and if I or anyone want to build private networks to get data to specific interconnections to enter the internet closer to your destination they can and will (or should) always be able to.

It seems to me they are all confused and don't seem to understand public versus private networks at all. The issue is all about prioritizing traffic while on the public network and I haven't seen very many opponents to the regulations that have even a basic understanding of the concept.

Also pretty obvious that he is confusing Netflix's "wish it didn't take all this to maintain neutrality" with some perceived "we didn't want neutrality, we wanted favoritism" which is just silly.

I think I will just blame "The Cloud"

Did you really expect anything different from Herman Cain? The guy is far more likely to spout a meme than actually give a topic serious thought (like many politicians).

on the flip side, there's Comcast - "If you don't let us buy Time Warner and increase our broadband monopoly to 86%, we'll probably just buy Netflix"

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:45 am

Zekester wrote:like you don't?

...and he's a black man. Dont I get extra credit for that?

Not for Herman Cain. Kooky doesn't count.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:54 am

Rip wrote:
Zekester wrote:Netflix: Hey, maybe we shouldn't have advocated that whole net neutrality thing

http://www.caintv.com/netflix-hey-maybe-we-shouldnt
Great, yet another person who thinks they have a total understanding of the issue while clearly not even understanding what is being referenced with the term "fast lane". He references Netflix's proprietary delivery network and calls that a fast lane.

Then to top it off he says; "The FCC could force Netflix to open its proprietary delivery network to competitors and pay broadband providers a “fair” price for its share of usage."

Talk about ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between the internet and private networks. The internet is a public network and if I or anyone want to build private networks to get data to specific interconnections to enter the internet closer to your destination they can and will (or should) always be able to.

It seems to me they are all confused and don't seem to understand public versus private networks at all. The issue is all about prioritizing traffic while on the public network and I haven't seen very many opponents to the regulations that have even a basic understanding of the concept.

Also pretty obvious that he is confusing Netflix's "wish it didn't take all this to maintain neutrality" with some perceived "we didn't want neutrality, we wanted favoritism" which is just silly.

I think I will just blame "The Cloud"

Wait, are we talking about Herman Cain or Zekester?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:38 am

The big difference is I'm actually a little fond of Zekester.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:03 am

On Reddit a dad posts his 9 year old explaining Net Neutrality. It's pretty good!

My 9-year old son spends a lot of time online and recently came to me asking what Net Neutrality meant. I explained it the best I could. I just okay with current political events and he had a lot of questions. Had to actually look up some answers.

I recently overheard him explaining it to one of his friends, much better than I could, like this:

Pretend ice cream stores gave away free milkshakes. But you had to buy a straw to drink them. But that's okay, because you still get free milkshakes. One day you're drinking a free milkshake and you look down and the guy that sold you the straw is pinching it almost shut. You can still get your milkshake, but it's really hard and takes a lot longer.

So you say, "Hey! Stop that!" And the straw guy says, "NO! Not until the ice cream store pays me money." And you say, "But I already paid you money for the straw." And the straw guy says, "I don't care. I just want more money."

I think he nailed it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:51 pm

The Verge rehosted the 400 pages of regs, which is good, because the FCC page is being DDOSed by everyone wanting to read them.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:34 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:The Verge rehosted the 400 pages of regs, which is good, because the FCC page is being DDOSed by everyone wanting to read them.

No way I'm reading them myself. I'll wait for big brother to tell me what to think.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:43 pm

Yet another reason why FCC action is necessary...

As a broadband or cable subscriber, you’re probably thinking that you should be able to access online video content without your Internet service provider’s—or cable provider’s—permission. Yet this simple feat is proving ridiculously difficult for Comcast subscribers. Comcast is unique among large ISPs and cable companies because it can use its size and content ownership to undermine online video competition in creative, infuriating ways. And it’s the dearth of protections supporting the online video market that allow Comcast to get away with it.

Strong net neutrality rules prevent Comcast the ISP from blocking or throttling online video competitors. But Comcast the cable company has multiple tricks up its sleeve to stifle online video competition. Comcast’s scope and power enable it to refuse to sell its own video programming to other online video providers, including Netflix. This is despite agreeing to an ineffective NBC merger condition designed to prevent this behavior. Comcast, as the largest distributor of video programming, can use its leverage in negotiations to put restrictions on the online availability of even someone else’s programming. If that’s not enough, Comcast also controls the largest base of broadband subscribers in the United States, giving it a negotiation advantage over Internet-backbone companies that want to connect to its networks. Indeed, the sheer size of Comcast means it can grow only by disadvantaging its competitors to maintain video dominance—and it’s not afraid to do so.

Case in point: That HBO Go app that launched March 3 for the PlayStation 4? Not happening for Comcast Xfinity subscribers who pay for HBO. If you try to access HBO Go on a Comcast Internet connection using Verizon-provided credentials, you can. But if you try to access HBO Go on a Verizon Internet connection using Comcast-provided credentials, you can't.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:22 am

The HBO Go thing on Comcast isn't a new thing unique to the PS4. It's been going on since the PS3 app came out a year ago. I can watch HBO Go through my 360, but can't through my PS3. The must frustrating part is that Comcast's line the whole time has been to blame technical issues that they're hoping to resolve soon. I think I'd feel a little better if they'd just say "Yeah, we're not going to let you do that because we don't want to."

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:40 pm

U.S. Telecom Association sues

Now the U.S. Telecom Association is asking a federal appellate court in Washington to review the FCC's new rules. The industry group -- which includes AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink as well as many other smaller broadband providers -- calls the rules "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of direction" in its court filing.

Alamo Broadband, a small telecom provider in Texas, filed a similar lawsuit.
...
In its lawsuit, the U.S. Telecom Association claims that the FCC is calling on outdated anti-monopoly rules written in 1934 to establish its net neutrality rules.

If enacted in their entirety, those rules would give the FCC supreme authority over the Internet. The FCC said it promises to only use some of its new authority to regulate the Internet. Telecom companies don't buy that promise, and they want to retain control over their networks.
...
The new rules aren't etched in stone just yet. They haven't even made their way into the federal register, which would eventually make them official. That's why FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield called these lawsuits "premature and subject to dismissal."

Jennifer Bagg, a Washington telecom lawyer, expects this lawsuit to fail, because it's too early. But if the case is dismissed, she said telecoms will undoubtedly sue again.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:24 pm

I assume that they meant to write "abuse of discretion". I am not sure how one would abuse direction.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:03 pm

El Guapo wrote:I assume that they meant to write "abuse of discretion". I am not sure how one would abuse direction.

It's pretty obvious. You lawyers are so uptight.

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:31 am

here's a fun little experience this guy just had:
http://consumerist.com/2015/03/25/new-h ... mpetition/

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am

hitbyambulance wrote:here's a fun little experience this guy just had:
http://consumerist.com/2015/03/25/new-h ... mpetition/

That was a spectacularly terrifying read. Yeah, we should totally let these guys merge with Time Warner. They deserve to be even bigger.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:54 am

I concur. That was really just horrible.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:21 am

hitbyambulance wrote:here's a fun little experience this guy just had:
http://consumerist.com/2015/03/25/new-h ... mpetition/

Hilarious.

I particularly like the last statement to the Consumerist, that they were all set to start but Seth himself decided to not go forward with the construction.

Absolutely hilarious.

I suspect the problem is that they are over-regulated.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:40 am

I'm willing to bet that he could sue for damages to recover any money he loses from having to sell his house. Of course, Comcast would definitely throw lawyers at it, and since they refused to provide anything in writing about providing service before the house was bought, it might be a losing proposition anyway. Which is probably exactly why they wouldn't provide anything in writing.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:50 am

What rats.

I can't wait to give them the heave-ho next month. We're getting connected to the local municipality fiber on 4/2. Not that the service they provided is poor (it isn't), but dealing with that company is every bit as much fun as that article implies. I already loathe the hoops they're going to make me jump through to shut their switch off.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:05 am

Seth says he tried to get it in writing that the house was serviceable, but Comcast said they simply do not do that.

Comcast will always promise you the world and will never give you anything in writing.

I just had a "now it's free to hook up my building" conversation turn into $7000 and two months before they start after I fill out revised paperwork yesterday.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:51 am

As an aside on Comcast / Time Warner, while I don't have any knowledge of the actual antitrust investigation, I would bet what will ultimately happen is that Comcast and Time Warner will have to sell off some of their facilities / business in the miscellaneous localities where they do compete. But having done that, they will otherwise be allowed to merge, because there otherwise probably isn't a great antitrust case because they largely (as I understand it) do not compete.

Unless DOJ attorneys can find some compelling documents that indicate that they would start competing absent this merger.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:58 am

That is half the problem. Companies have figured out if they don't compete directly they can each have their own monopoly. I guess the mob did find legitimate business after all.

The bankers and pharma execs are extremely jealous.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:55 am

We're going to stop investment and build outs! Wait, we're going to give FTTP to Atlanta!

Comcast said its new Gigabit Pro service will reach speeds of up to 2 Gigabits per second, which is twice as fast as what Google, AT&T and a handful of other broadband companies offer.

Atlanta residents will be the first customers to get the service. But unlike Google (GOOGL, Tech30) Fiber and AT&T U-Verse, which roll out their Gigabit Internet offerings to select communities within cities, Comcast promised that its service would be rolled out to 1.5 million residents of the Atlanta metro region.

Comcast didn't offer a timetable or price for the new service. It could take some time to launch -- Comcast will be deploying Gigabit Pro by bringing fiber optic cables into customers' homes.

That can be a painstaking and expensive process that involves replacing copper wire and, in some cases, digging up yards.

But, feeling the heat from faster competitors, Comcast says it is committed to the project.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:34 am

Isgrimnur wrote:We're going to stop investment and build outs! Wait, we're going to give FTTP to Atlanta!

Comcast promised that its service would be rolled out to 1.5 million residents of the Atlanta metro region.

Why don't we ask Seth what their word is worth?

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst I guess.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:35 am

GreenGoo wrote:Hope for the best, prepare for the worst I guess.

...Mom?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:40 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:We're going to stop investment and build outs! Wait, we're going to give FTTP to Atlanta!

Comcast promised that its service would be rolled out to 1.5 million residents of the Atlanta metro region.

Why don't we ask Seth what their word is worth?

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst I guess.

I'm pretty sure that Comcast will be extra reliable about non-binding promises and commitments made while they are in the process of asking federal authorities for permission to complete an enormous merger.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:44 am

El Guapo wrote: I'm pretty sure that Comcast will be extra reliable about non-binding promises and commitments made while they are in the process of asking federal authorities for permission to complete an enormous merger.

Hugz.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:13 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:We're going to stop investment and build outs! Wait, we're going to give FTTP to Atlanta!

Comcast said its new Gigabit Pro service will reach speeds of up to 2 Gigabits per second, which is twice as fast as what Google, AT&T and a handful of other broadband companies offer.

Atlanta residents will be the first customers to get the service. But unlike Google (GOOGL, Tech30) Fiber and AT&T U-Verse, which roll out their Gigabit Internet offerings to select communities within cities, Comcast promised that its service would be rolled out to 1.5 million residents of the Atlanta metro region.

Comcast didn't offer a timetable or price for the new service. It could take some time to launch -- Comcast will be deploying Gigabit Pro by bringing fiber optic cables into customers' homes.

That can be a painstaking and expensive process that involves replacing copper wire and, in some cases, digging up yards.

But, feeling the heat from faster competitors, Comcast says it is committed to the project.

Also

Price will be lower than the $400 a month Comcast charges for 505Mbps.

It darn well better be! Google's can be had for what, $70-100?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:44 pm

New Fees on Internet service as a result of Net Neutrality?

Every month, consumers pay a small fee on their phone bills for a federal program that uses the money — a total of $8.8 billion raised nationwide last year — to provide affordable access to telecommunications services in rural areas, underserved inner cities and schools.

Now the fee could start appearing on broadband bills too, in a major expansion of the nearly two-decade-old Universal Service Fund program...

...In December, the agency approved a $1.5-billion annual increase in the amount the fund can spend to help boost high-speed online services for schools and libraries under the E-rate program.

E-rate is one of four programs funded by the USF, which was created as part of the 1996 overhaul of telecommunications laws. The other programs provide assistance for low-income consumers, help rural residents connect with healthcare providers and help customers in isolated areas pay the higher costs of reaching them.

Which IMHO is an appropriate piece of market regulation - it is no secret that Rural Broadband in the US is severely lacking as a result of the for-profit buildout of the infrastructure. The ISP's have done their best not to have to build out that infrastructure as it isn't cost effective. For me though, broadband internet is not a luxury but a necessity now and as such the availability needs to be broadened beyond the low-lying fruit of urban money.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:54 pm

How in the world is broadband a necessity?

In fact, if this is the route they take, I will NOT be supportive of the next "let's regulate utilities" job. This is ridiculous.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:57 pm

How is a telephone a necessity?