Net Neutrailty is back

[fromderinside]

So its alright for UPS to say Joe you are small fry so you can't have either good rates or good service because uncle Billy Big Ass, the distributor, wants to get money from the big guys (Netflix) and it doesn't give a shit about whether you get service at all. After all UPS only has so many trucks.

Happens all the time in the other direction. Mass mailings get different rates than less often sent letters.

Not what I pointed out. Its a matter of available bandwidth and who makes the decisions on who has access to it that net neutrality addresses.

Think about it this way. If mass mailings get lower rates and they get higher priority of USPS assets resulting in occasional mailer having to wait until mass mailing got delivered to have his letter delivered then you would be breaking postal neutrality.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's more equivalent to the shipping letter and packages where the service that Netflix requires needs a faster delivery than a normal letter than take longer. We pay more to get our letters quicker than we do to get them a couple days later.

And I'm already paying for that higher speed on my end. If Comcast is selling me access to the internet at a certain speed they should not be allowed to artificially slow down my access based on where I want to go.

This should be a pretty simple concept.

It's not that the big ISPs can't give you the speed they sold you with Netflix it's that they won't unless Netflix also pays them.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/18/5916153/netflix-verizon-vpn-streaming-congestion-speed

But remember we have multiple companies involved here and it is a question of who pays for upgrades and where. Netflix uses Cogent for their ISP and then Cogent negotiates with the other ISPs on how the interconnect works. The bypass was for Netflix to buy a circuit from these other ISPs and balance their traffic load.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Happens all the time in the other direction. Mass mailings get different rates than less often sent letters.

postal services aren't selling what ISPs are selling.

hth

Think of it as mass mailings not only getting a lower rate, but priority to the point of only delivering 1/10 of your first class letter.

 

[ksen]

And I'm already paying for that higher speed on my end. If Comcast is selling me access to the internet at a certain speed they should not be allowed to artificially slow down my access based on where I want to go.

This should be a pretty simple concept.

It's not that the big ISPs can't give you the speed they sold you with Netflix it's that they won't unless Netflix also pays them.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/18/5916153/netflix-verizon-vpn-streaming-congestion-speed

But remember we have multiple companies involved here and it is a question of who pays for upgrades and where. Netflix uses Cogent for their ISP and then Cogent negotiates with the other ISPs on how the interconnect works. The bypass was for Netflix to buy a circuit from these other ISPs and balance their traffic load.

As a consumer multiple companies isn't my problem. I'm being sold a service. That service is being artificially throttled in order for my service provider to get paid additional fees by the site I want to access at the advertised speed.

And you're ignoring the fact that the ISP is fully capable of delivering the promised speeds right now, as evidenced by customers using VPN to access netflix without slowdowns, but are choosing not to until netflix pays them protection money.

In any other business setting this would be considered fraud.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Happens all the time in the other direction. Mass mailings get different rates than less often sent letters.

postal services aren't selling what ISPs are selling.

hth

ISPs are selling lots of small packet delivery very fast. For some things it matters how quickly and how reliably its sent, and sometimes it doesn't. So the Postal Service is the closest model.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But remember we have multiple companies involved here and it is a question of who pays for upgrades and where. Netflix uses Cogent for their ISP and then Cogent negotiates with the other ISPs on how the interconnect works. The bypass was for Netflix to buy a circuit from these other ISPs and balance their traffic load.

As a consumer multiple companies isn't my problem. I'm being sold a service. That service is being artificially throttled in order for my service provider to get paid additional fees by the site I want to access at the advertised speed.

And you're ignoring the fact that the ISP is fully capable of delivering the promised speeds right now, as evidenced by customers using VPN to access netflix without slowdowns, but are choosing not to until netflix pays them protection money.

In any other business setting this would be considered fraud.

It's not quite that way. It's a disagreement between Cogent and these other ISPs on who should pay the fee for the circuit between them. They each believe the other should pay. The way for Netflix to bypass that disagreement is to negotiate directly with the other vendors and bypass a middle man.

 

[fromderinside]

There was a recent bit about Netherlands net neutrality effects. Seems they're maintaining faster transmission rate than US. Oh my.

Or when an technology upgrade argument won't work.

 

[ksen]

postal services aren't selling what ISPs are selling.

hth

ISPs are selling lots of small packet delivery very fast. For some things it matters how quickly and how reliably its sent, and sometimes it doesn't. So the Postal Service is the closest model.

and still not even close to what an ISP does

In the postal scenario people pay to get information to you at whichever level of service they pay for.

In the ISP scenario people pay to access information on their own at whichever speed package they've signed up for.

 

[coloradoatheist]

ISPs are selling lots of small packet delivery very fast. For some things it matters how quickly and how reliably its sent, and sometimes it doesn't. So the Postal Service is the closest model.

and still not even close to what an ISP does

In the postal scenario people pay to get information to you at whichever level of service they pay for.

In the ISP scenario people pay to access information on their own at whichever speed package they've signed up for.

Except when they created the TCP/IP flow they didn't envision the impact it would have today and finding the right payment method for how things are accessed is what we are discussing today. Nobody would consider how important video and voice would become. It was the same argument the USPS said there was no way that they could offer next day service.

 

[dismal]

But remember we have multiple companies involved here and it is a question of who pays for upgrades and where. Netflix uses Cogent for their ISP and then Cogent negotiates with the other ISPs on how the interconnect works. The bypass was for Netflix to buy a circuit from these other ISPs and balance their traffic load.

As a consumer multiple companies isn't my problem. I'm being sold a service. That service is being artificially throttled in order for my service provider to get paid additional fees by the site I want to access at the advertised speed.

And you're ignoring the fact that the ISP is fully capable of delivering the promised speeds right now, as evidenced by customers using VPN to access netflix without slowdowns, but are choosing not to until netflix pays them protection money.

In any other business setting this would be considered fraud.

My guess would be your understanding of what you have contracted for is mistaken.

Also, as I have mentioned in other threads, regulated common carriers (like pipelines) typically do offer different classes of services to different customers and do sometimes "throttle back" the ones who have purchased a lower class of service.

What they are required to do is offer a given level of service at the same price to all customers in an openly published tariff.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually they are required to offer equal access unless there is a situation which is all to easy to justify to regulators.....

 

[ksen]

As a consumer multiple companies isn't my problem. I'm being sold a service. That service is being artificially throttled in order for my service provider to get paid additional fees by the site I want to access at the advertised speed.

And you're ignoring the fact that the ISP is fully capable of delivering the promised speeds right now, as evidenced by customers using VPN to access netflix without slowdowns, but are choosing not to until netflix pays them protection money.

In any other business setting this would be considered fraud.

My guess would be your understanding of what you have contracted for is mistaken.

Could be, but I doubt it.

Also, as I have mentioned in other threads, regulated common carriers (like pipelines) typically do offer different classes of services to different customers and do sometimes "throttle back" the ones who have purchased a lower class of service.

No one is arguing that ISPs shouldn't be able to offer different levels of service. What is being argued is that ISPs should not be allowed to sell you one level of service and then throttle your service back to a lower level based on what type of content you are accessing.

Normally that's called "bait and switch" and is frowned upon.

 

[fromderinside]

Nope. That's bait and ditch.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is dismal's argument that these companies should be able to do bait and switch? Or that they should be allowed to say, "If you want a higher guarantee of voice and video, then we'll charge more"

 

[fromderinside]

Is dismal's argument that these companies should be able to do bait and switch? Or that they should be allowed to say, "If you want a higher guarantee of voice and video, then we'll charge more"

I hope neither. The issue is that with limited bandwidth do those who need more of it get preference over those who just want access and do the ones that decide also get to be the bandwidth gate keepers?

 

[ksen]

Is dismal's argument that these companies should be able to do bait and switch? Or that they should be allowed to say, "If you want a higher guarantee of voice and video, then we'll charge more"

They already are allowed to say that and no one is arguing that they shouldn't have that right. What's being argued against, and what net neutrality should help fix, is selling you a certain speed package but then artificially slowing down your speed based on the content you are trying to access . . . unless that content provider also pays a fee to your ISP.

Please note the repeated use of the word "artificially".

It's not that the ISPs can't provide those speeds they are selling. It's that they are choosing not to on purpose despite selling you a certain speed package.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is dismal's argument that these companies should be able to do bait and switch? Or that they should be allowed to say, "If you want a higher guarantee of voice and video, then we'll charge more"

They already are allowed to say that and no one is arguing that they shouldn't have that right. What's being argued against, and what net neutrality should help fix, is selling you a certain speed package but then artificially slowing down your speed based on the content you are trying to access . . . unless that content provider also pays a fee to your ISP.

Please note the repeated use of the word "artificially".

It's not that the ISPs can't provide those speeds they are selling. It's that they are choosing not to on purpose despite selling you a certain speed package.

But what happened with Netflix was that Cogent and the other providers had a bottleneck at their peering point and that they both pointed at each and said he pay for more to increase the bandwidth of the bottle neck and neither side budged. It wouldn't fall under the new rules of net neutrality.

And I disagree, people should be able to pay for a higher service when there is congestion. It's paying for a different model with service that needs a better guarantee.

 

[ksen]

Verizon's own words (numbered page 43):

Broadband providers transmit their own speech both by developing their own content and by partnering with other content providers and adopting that speech as their own. For example, they develop video services, which draw information from, and are then made available over, the Internet. Many also select or create content for their own over-the-top video services or offer applications that provide access to particular content. They also transmit the speech of others: each day millions of individuals use the Internet to promote their own opinions and ideas and to explore those of others, and broadband providers convey those communications.12

In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, Order ¶ 14 (JA__), they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising.

Now you might think this is the proper role of an ISP provider. I do not. This is what the Net Neutrality regulations would (hopefully) stop ISPs from doing because it is clear from Verizon's response above that this is what they want to do.

And in case there's any doubt how the big ISPs see things (from the link above):

The Order’s broad “prophylactic rules” infringe broadband providers’ protected speech rights. They strip providers of control over which speech they transmit and how they transmit it, and they compel the carriage of others’ speech.

 

[fromderinside]

How can powerful companies be so stupid. They are service providers not information providers. the information providers use isps to deliver that which the users want, not that which those providing wire and energy between the information and the user want. There is no sense in Verizon's position.

 

[ksen]

They already are allowed to say that and no one is arguing that they shouldn't have that right. What's being argued against, and what net neutrality should help fix, is selling you a certain speed package but then artificially slowing down your speed based on the content you are trying to access . . . unless that content provider also pays a fee to your ISP.

Please note the repeated use of the word "artificially".

It's not that the ISPs can't provide those speeds they are selling. It's that they are choosing not to on purpose despite selling you a certain speed package.

But what happened with Netflix was that Cogent and the other providers had a bottleneck at their peering point and that they both pointed at each and said he pay for more to increase the bandwidth of the bottle neck and neither side budged. It wouldn't fall under the new rules of net neutrality.

And I disagree, people should be able to pay for a higher service when there is congestion. It's paying for a different model with service that needs a better guarantee.

"bottleneck"

Cogent Now Admits They Slowed Down Netflix’s Traffic, Creating A Fast Lane & Slow Lane