FCC expected to announce new net neutrality rules on Monday
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will deliver a speech on Monday that sources say will outline a plan to adopt new net neutrality rules.
According to a report published by Reuters, the FCC chairman's plan will seek the adoption of new rules intended to ensure that ISPs can't arbitrarily block or slow down their customers' access based on content.
The concept of net neutrality maintains that ISPs, including both broadband cable and DSL providers as well as wireless mobile companies, must deliver data to their customers irrespective of its source, destination, ownership, or the protocol used to deliver it.
Currently, many ISPs block or filter customers who use P2P applications. Advocates of net neutrality argue that without regulation, ISPs may eventually seek to sell artificially limited access to specific sites or discriminate against competitors by offering access priority to their own services while slowing access to competitive offerings.
Without net neutrality rules, ISPs have the incentive to create monopolies of content and services, or to sell tiers of services where users must pay extra for full access to the Internet, a concept illustrated in a spoof advertisement circling the web (below).
Net neutrality and the FCC
The FCC issued a policy statement in 2005 that outlined four non-binding "policy principles" on open Internet access, stating that consumers are entitled to open competition, access to any lawful content, the ability to run any applications or services, and the use of any legal devices on their network that do not harm the network.
Last year, Google asked the FCC to require that operators bidding in the 700 MHz spectrum auction agree to open their networks to any application, any devices, any services, and any networks. The FCC agreed to support open devices and open applications, but not the latter two.
Last August, the FCC voted to uphold a complaint filed against Comcast which had ruled the cable provider had illegally blocked its Internet subscribers from using BitTorrent file sharing software. Comcast challenged the ruling in court, saying the FCC does not have the authority to regulate its actions on the Internet.
Monday marks the deadline set by the court for the FCC to respond to the challenge. The FCC is expected to argue that the agency has broad authority to regulate ISPs under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Debate on net neutrality
Net neutrality became a minor issue in the 2008 US presidential election, with Barack Obama officially supporting the policy of net neutrality, and John McCain saying that big network operators should have the right to limit their customers' options if they could profit from doing so.
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment," McCain told Google CEO Eric Schmidt in a campaign interview.
Genachowski served as President Obama's technology advisor during the campaign before being appointed as FCC chairman this summer. The Obama administration also added openness requirements to the $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure investments included in its Recovery Act stimulus bill.
Opposition to the principle of net neutrality is commonly voiced by cable and telecom companies, right wing think tanks such as the Cato Institute, and astroturf advocacy groups such as "Hands off the Internet," a site financed by AT&T and "Citizens Against Government Waste," a nonprofit group linked to Jack Abramoff. CAGW previously made headlines after it mailed form letters supporting Microsoft in its antitrust lawsuit, addressed from concerned citizens who turned out to be dead people.
Apple and net neutrality
While Apple generally benefits from the principle of net neutrality, its partnership with AT&T has resulted in at least two issues that concern the principle. The first is Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app on the iPhone. The FCC has been investigating the incident to determine if Apple's decision is effectively being made by AT&T to restrict potential competition in wireless services.
The FCC lacks the jurisdiction to determine what apps Apple must sell in its App Store, and Apple maintains that it has yet to even determine if it will approve some form of the Google Voice app. Additionally, it is possible for Google to deliver a web-based version of the app on the iPhone without Apple's approval, clouding the issue of whether the dispute is actually an issue of net neutrality at all. Apple does ban VoIP applications from using the iPhone's mobile network, a policy that is clearly related to carrier demands and may likely be affected by new net neutrality rules.
The other issue that the FCC is investigating concerns exclusive sales of phones on specific providers. Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T has brought that issue to the forefront, both for users who want to use the iPhone on other providers, and for small regional providers who lack the clout to make similar deals. Technology constraints also factor into the matter, as the existing iPhone simply can't work on the CDMA networks run by the Verizon and Sprint, the providers most affected users would like to be able to use it on. That may change in the next several years as Verizon and AT&T both build out compatible new LTE networks.
The FCC chairman's new proposed rules addressing net neutrality are likely to only involve broadband and wireless ISPs. The agency has not yet commented on the other issues still under investigation pertaining to VoIP competition on mobiles and exclusive handset sales.
According to a report published by Reuters, the FCC chairman's plan will seek the adoption of new rules intended to ensure that ISPs can't arbitrarily block or slow down their customers' access based on content.
The concept of net neutrality maintains that ISPs, including both broadband cable and DSL providers as well as wireless mobile companies, must deliver data to their customers irrespective of its source, destination, ownership, or the protocol used to deliver it.
Currently, many ISPs block or filter customers who use P2P applications. Advocates of net neutrality argue that without regulation, ISPs may eventually seek to sell artificially limited access to specific sites or discriminate against competitors by offering access priority to their own services while slowing access to competitive offerings.
Without net neutrality rules, ISPs have the incentive to create monopolies of content and services, or to sell tiers of services where users must pay extra for full access to the Internet, a concept illustrated in a spoof advertisement circling the web (below).
Net neutrality and the FCC
The FCC issued a policy statement in 2005 that outlined four non-binding "policy principles" on open Internet access, stating that consumers are entitled to open competition, access to any lawful content, the ability to run any applications or services, and the use of any legal devices on their network that do not harm the network.
Last year, Google asked the FCC to require that operators bidding in the 700 MHz spectrum auction agree to open their networks to any application, any devices, any services, and any networks. The FCC agreed to support open devices and open applications, but not the latter two.
Last August, the FCC voted to uphold a complaint filed against Comcast which had ruled the cable provider had illegally blocked its Internet subscribers from using BitTorrent file sharing software. Comcast challenged the ruling in court, saying the FCC does not have the authority to regulate its actions on the Internet.
Monday marks the deadline set by the court for the FCC to respond to the challenge. The FCC is expected to argue that the agency has broad authority to regulate ISPs under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Debate on net neutrality
Net neutrality became a minor issue in the 2008 US presidential election, with Barack Obama officially supporting the policy of net neutrality, and John McCain saying that big network operators should have the right to limit their customers' options if they could profit from doing so.
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment," McCain told Google CEO Eric Schmidt in a campaign interview.
Genachowski served as President Obama's technology advisor during the campaign before being appointed as FCC chairman this summer. The Obama administration also added openness requirements to the $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure investments included in its Recovery Act stimulus bill.
Opposition to the principle of net neutrality is commonly voiced by cable and telecom companies, right wing think tanks such as the Cato Institute, and astroturf advocacy groups such as "Hands off the Internet," a site financed by AT&T and "Citizens Against Government Waste," a nonprofit group linked to Jack Abramoff. CAGW previously made headlines after it mailed form letters supporting Microsoft in its antitrust lawsuit, addressed from concerned citizens who turned out to be dead people.
Apple and net neutrality
While Apple generally benefits from the principle of net neutrality, its partnership with AT&T has resulted in at least two issues that concern the principle. The first is Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app on the iPhone. The FCC has been investigating the incident to determine if Apple's decision is effectively being made by AT&T to restrict potential competition in wireless services.
The FCC lacks the jurisdiction to determine what apps Apple must sell in its App Store, and Apple maintains that it has yet to even determine if it will approve some form of the Google Voice app. Additionally, it is possible for Google to deliver a web-based version of the app on the iPhone without Apple's approval, clouding the issue of whether the dispute is actually an issue of net neutrality at all. Apple does ban VoIP applications from using the iPhone's mobile network, a policy that is clearly related to carrier demands and may likely be affected by new net neutrality rules.
The other issue that the FCC is investigating concerns exclusive sales of phones on specific providers. Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T has brought that issue to the forefront, both for users who want to use the iPhone on other providers, and for small regional providers who lack the clout to make similar deals. Technology constraints also factor into the matter, as the existing iPhone simply can't work on the CDMA networks run by the Verizon and Sprint, the providers most affected users would like to be able to use it on. That may change in the next several years as Verizon and AT&T both build out compatible new LTE networks.
The FCC chairman's new proposed rules addressing net neutrality are likely to only involve broadband and wireless ISPs. The agency has not yet commented on the other issues still under investigation pertaining to VoIP competition on mobiles and exclusive handset sales.
Comments
it says it all!
It's hard to argue this -- most other utilities are metered. I don't get all-I-can-eat water, electricity, gas, etc.
Sure the super heavy users will scream "then I'm switching to a different carrier!" which is probably just fine with the carriers -- I've read several articles saying the majority of bandwidth is used up by a small percentage of super heavy users, so if they left, the result would be a small impact to the carrier in terms of revenue, but significantly better quality of service for everybody else left (i.e. it would be more profitable for a carrier to have larger numbers of average users with better quality of service, and let some other carrier deal with the small percentage of super heavy users).
Seems most of the wireless carriers legitimate concern is around certain applications using huge amounts of bandwidth and lowering the quality of service overall. I would think that if some neutrality law goes into effect forcing them to allowing tethering, P2P, etc, it becomes all the more likely that the carriers move towards metered service, e.g. yes, now you may use tethering applications, but if you end up using 10x the bandwidth of the average user as a result then you will end up paying more than the average user.
It's hard to argue this -- most other utilities are metered. I don't get all-I-can-eat water, electricity, gas, etc.
Sure the super heavy users will scream "then I'm switching to a different carrier!" which is probably just fine with the carriers -- I've read several articles saying the majority of bandwidth is used up by a small percentage of super heavy users, so if they left, the result would be a small impact to the carrier in terms of revenue, but significantly better quality of service for everybody else left (i.e. it would be more profitable for a carrier to have larger numbers of average users with better quality of service, and let some other carrier deal with the small percentage of super heavy users).
Bad analogy. PUDS are regulated by the States. The State sets the price on Natural Gas, Electricity, etc., for the PUD to work under.
Example: Washington State voted to allow Avista to raise the price on NG and Electricity in early spring. With the continuous fall of NG of late Avista has been forced to return pricing back down to previous pricing. Avista is moving heavily into Solar to offset the lower profits in Hydro Power, but wants Washington State to approve a 16% hike in Electricity pricing to offset the drop in Natural Gas market pricing.
Washington State would love to regulate Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Clearwire, Comcast, etc. The corporations would despise it.
I've got a massive aquifer beneath me [Avista doesn't manage my water usage and I've never been capped], NG, Electricity and Solar options. What am I missing regarding ala cart via Power?
Am I missing the option of how much power I can buy to my private land(s)? I have plenty of options to upgrade my services. I may need to purchase multiple 400 Amp upgrades, requiring separate permits, but I am permitted to do it. I won't be switched from Avista to some other Power Company. The PUD in my district is singular.
arbitrary |ˈärbiˌtrerē|adjective:
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Discriminatory? Sure, but all rules are in some fashion discriminatory if you consider the term in its most abstract, ie in the sense that they're discriminating between one thing and another. Discriminating on the basis of behavior is not necessarily unfair. If an ISP determines that a certain kind of activity is a huge bandwidth hog, then its unclear to me that they're doing anything particularly unfair in trying to put a scaling factor on it (throttling, if you prefer). They understand what we on the outside are supposed to, which is that network capacity is not an unlimited resource.
Trying to equate throttling P2P with your silly graphic is, well, silly. ?If you let ISPs do something they want, they might do something else that they want. And here's something they might want that you wouldn't want!?
If P2P-throttling is wrong, then feel free to make that argument. I might even buy it. But this article is among the worst that AI has published under its banner. (And for anyone preparing to flame me, feel free. Don't flame me for not understanding his later arguments, though. I never got to them. I stopped shortly after the first graphic)
Personally, I'm Swiss about the matter. If one company decides to do it, then its competitors can potentially use that as a wedge to advertise and steal customers away. But it seems unlikely anyone would want to do that. As an ISP, would you want to steal all of company X's disgruntled P2P users? I bet you wouldn't. Just sayin.
Bad analogy. PUDS are regulated by the States. The State sets the price on Natural Gas, Electricity, etc., for the PUD to work under.
Example: Washington State voted to allow Avista to raise the price on NG and Electricity in early spring. With the continuous fall of NG of late Avista has been forced to return pricing back down to previous pricing. Avista is moving heavily into Solar to offset the lower profits in Hydro Power, but wants Washington State to approve a 16% hike in Electricity pricing to offset the drop in Natural Gas market pricing.
Washington State would love to regulate Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Clearwire, Comcast, etc. The corporations would despise it.
I've got a massive aquifer beneath me [Avista doesn't manage my water usage and I've never been capped], NG, Electricity and Solar options. What am I missing regarding ala cart via Power?
Am I missing the option of how much power I can buy to my private land(s)? I have plenty of options to upgrade my services. I may need to purchase multiple 400 Amp upgrades, requiring separate permits, but I am permitted to do it. I won't be switched from Avista to some other Power Company. The PUD in my district is singular.
I don't think you're analogy is correct either, though. If I'm not mistaken, you're water and electricity costs are per-use. Which is not the same as (at least my) internet rates, which are flat all-you-can-eat. And you've never been capped with your water usage probably because you use a reasonable amount. Turn your sprinklers on constantly, though; all day and all night. Watch how fast the city turns you off. Send a letter to city hall saying you're doing it on purpose, see if they'll let you continue.
And no, there's no limit to how much power you can buy to your private lands (or rather, there is, but you're unlikely to approach that limit). But that's partly because it's another pay-per-use thing. Also, the cost is scaled depending on demand in many places, if not all. So in the summer, the rates are higher, not just the usage. And imagine you were using 90% of the power in an area. Your own usage would start to determine the scaling factor itself.
The problem is that as Internet users, we've become very spoiled to the unlimited data rates. I know I have. I don't know how much bandwidth I'm using while I'm playing an MMO, and I'm very happy not knowing. There's a lot of online activities I'd likely curtail somewhat if the costs were based on use. But on the other hand, it bothers me to think that there's people who are using so much of the network capacity that it's become a problem. And when people write articles like the above tripe, all they do is detract from the apparently serious issues at hand.
but if you end up using 10x the bandwidth of the average user as a result then you will end up paying more than the average user.
It's hard to argue this -- most other utilities are metered. I don't get all-I-can-eat water, electricity, gas, etc.
While I agree in principle, the problem is a lack of competition that keeps prices under control. The utilities that you talk about are generally fall under state regulatory agencies which helps control prices.
In my area there is only one provider of truly fast internet service. DSL is too slow, so I have comcast which costs $45 a month. I do email, internet browsing and 1-2 movie download per month. I'd love the competition that FIOS would bring.
While I agree in principle, the problem is a lack of competition that keeps prices under control. The utilities that you talk about are generally fall under state regulatory agencies which helps control prices.
In my area there is only one provider of truly fast internet service). DSL is too slow, so I have comcast. I'd love the competition that FIOS would bring.
Yes, the key is competition. Let me just give you an example:
In Canada, DSL ISPs must allow resellers to buy DSL wholesale from them. This means that DSL ISPs like Bell Canada have competitors such as Teksavvy (my current ISP) who compete with Bell internet and provide superior customer service and favourable terms (my bandwidth cap is 200 Gb, and I could get a more expensive unlimited plan if I wanted to).
On the other hand, cable ISPs are not required to deal with resellers. This means that they can advertise falsely, set hidden charges, and impose ridiculous bandwidth caps (30 Gb per month on their medium plan) so as to protect their cable TV business from internet content. For example, when we were with Videotron (the parent company is run by alleged Quebec separatists, and that's a whole other reason I don't want to do business with them), we downloaded a few HD movies from the Apple TV and had our bill doubled for going over the cap.
Whatever net neutrality rules out there must specify reasonable bandwidth caps to ban Videotron's practise, among other shenanigans that aren't directly related to filtering out content as well.
At the end of the day, the protocols being throttled are file transfer protocols and if at peak times those have to be at a lower speed to ensure that people using the network for web pages, forums and services get a good experience, that's ok by me.
You all know there's some guy out there waiting for the day to hook his iphone up to his laptop to download files anytime anywhere and doesn't care if he saturates the network as long as he doesn't have to pay for both a broadband bill and an iphone data contract.
This seems like another set of laws that are intended to aid P2P sharing, most of which is illegal. P2P sharing has great benefits but it shouldn't be written in law that an ISP must offer up bandwidth galore for it when most of the time artists aren't being paid for it.
At the end of the day, the protocols being throttled are file transfer protocols and if at peak times those have to be at a lower speed to ensure that people using the network for web pages, forums and services get a good experience, that's ok by me.
You all know there's some guy out there waiting for the day to hook his iphone up to his laptop to download files anytime anywhere and doesn't care if he saturates the network as long as he doesn't have to pay for both a broadband bill and an iphone data contract.
I totally disagree with you.
This isn't about people getting paid. It's about control and unfair competition. The RIAA and MPAA see the internet as a threat to their control over distribution. It's getting cheaper and cheaper to produce content, and it's getting cheaper to promote it and distribute it over the internet. The idea is to shut down the competition that threatens their monopoly.
The RIAA rips off most of their artists with onerous contracts, so most of the time, artists aren't getting paid anyway.
Yes, I'm against illegal filesharing, but I'm opposed to any crackdown if it threatens the continued existence of the internet.
As for bandwidth, the U.S. government gave the telcos $200 billion to improve broadband internet in the late 90's. They hoarded it without using the money as it was intended:
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
Had they invested the money the way they were supposed to, there would be issues of bandwidth shortage. There would be plenty for everybody. So I have absolutely no sympathy with the "we must manage our network" argument. Besides, with YouTube and Hulu, high bandwidth internet applications are now used heavily by mainstream internet users over HTTP and port 80. Don't tell me that you advocate ISP's blocking YouTube and Hulu.
When I watched about 4 HD movies over my cable internet, my bill was doubled that month. My use of bandwidth was 100% legal, yet I was nailed for it because my cable company didn't like competition from the internet for their antiquated video content business model, which involves them telling me when to watch, instead of the other way around.
Besides, I'm surprised you didn't consider the graphic in the original posting. This is the potential end state of the internet if net neutrality laws aren't put in place.
This is classic yellow journalism below.
... While Apple generally benefits from the principle of net neutrality, its partnership with AT&T has resulted in at least two issues that concern the principle. The first is Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app on the iPhone. The FCC has been investigating the incident to determine if Apple's decision is effectively being made by AT&T to restrict potential competition in wireless services.
It's a known fact, published on this very site many times in fact, that both Apple and Google and AT&T agree that AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection of Google Voice, yet here you publish exactly that in black and white. You say that Apple's "partnership with AT&T has resulted in ... Apple rejecting Google Voice." To say this isn't an outright lie that you know to be a lie, but are publishing anyway is just to hide behind semantics (an "issue"). You are at the very best purposely misrepresenting the known facts here.
... Apple does ban VoIP applications from using the iPhone's mobile network, a policy that is clearly related to carrier demands and may likely be affected by new net neutrality rules.. ..
Another outright lie or misrepresentation. Apple has approved VoIP, but AT&T won't allow it on the cell portion of the networks it accesses. Anyone reading this line would think that Apple themselves (even though it's at AT&T's urging), has "banned VoIP" in totality, when in fact they haven't at all.
I actually agree with the general thrust of the article as I do with most of Prince McLean's stuff, and general I turn a blind eye to the "enthusiasm" with which he writes, but this is just purposeful twisting of the news for you own benefit. It's obscene. Smarten up and just give us the facts.
It's absolute garbage and absolutely insulting to anyone reading it.
From MDN:
Yes!! We'll just launch that cool new 1080p HD video streaming app on our iPhones and press the "Play" button... (Poof! Fizzle.) What the... What was that? AT&T Mobility's cell towers all just spontaneously combusted? Space station astronauts report that it looked like 100,000,000,000,000 matchsticks being lit all at once across America? Aw, there goes that brilliant idea.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
S... if you end up using 10x the bandwidth of the average user as a result then you will end up paying more than the average user.
Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Superb points. I concur. We should pay for what we eat. Also, we should not expect restaurants to welcome us with open arms if we walk in there with our own food (which is akin to what many applications that compete against the core business of service providers do).
Bad analogy. PUDS are regulated by the States. The State sets the price on Natural Gas, Electricity, etc., for the PUD to work under...... etc. etc.
Where is it written - how did you make up the rule - that "regulation" is consistent with "pay for what you consume" but "unregulated" is only consistent flat pricing? What's the basis for your argument?
I operate a small town ISP. Many "Net Neutrality" proposals would simply make successfully running our business impossible.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
So cap their bandwidth at, say, 200 GB per month. Problem solved. Why do you need to undermine net neutrality to limit your users' bandwidth. You shouldn't promise your users "unlimited internet" when you clearly can't provide it.
It's about control and unfair competition. The RIAA and MPAA see the internet as a threat to their control over distribution. It's getting cheaper and cheaper to produce content, and it's getting cheaper to promote it and distribute it over the internet. The idea is to shut down the competition that threatens their monopoly.
But no legitimate competition is really being affected. itunes, Amazon downloads aren't restricted for example.
The RIAA rips off most of their artists with onerous contracts, so most of the time, artists aren't getting paid anyway.
Artists aren't getting paid [as much as they should be]. It's still better than P2P where they don't get paid at all directly.
IHad they invested the money the way they were supposed to, there would be issues of bandwidth shortage. There would be plenty for everybody. So I have absolutely no sympathy with the "we must manage our network" argument. Besides, with YouTube and Hulu, high bandwidth internet applications are now used heavily by mainstream internet users over HTTP and port 80. Don't tell me that you advocate ISP's blocking YouTube and Hulu.
In the end, they control the connection and have to guarantee performance to keep customers happy. I don't advocate blocking YouTube or Hulu but it won't happen. What will happen with net neutrality laws in place is that when I get home from work, all the students who have gotten in from school will be loading up their torrents and grinding the network to a halt because the ISP can't throttle a certain type of data.
This means that they drop the speed of all data down to a level that makes the internet barely usable. That is what threatens the existence of the internet - taking away certain controls from an ISP. I would agree that it needs to be a balance and perhaps the laws simply need to state a fair system is in place that does not discriminate against commercial or political competition but you know what's going to happen is that ISPs then start asking for the power to analyze data packet contents and breach the privacy of users.
Usage scenario:
ISP has say 100Mbps bandwidth
There are 100 users
25 users are on P2P downloading illegally
25 users want to watch an online video service - Youtube, a TV catchup program etc
50 users are just browsing.
If they try to guarantee that a decent quality stream comes down for legitimate users, they need over 2Mbps so the ISP reserves say 75Mbps for that and throttles the rest down to 500k.
The people using file transfer protocols, particularly P2P ones have file resuming so they can download overnight anyway.
If all data must be treated equally, the guaranteed stream drops to 1.5Mbps so legitimate users get lower quality or stuttering video. QoS controls were implemented specifically to ensure the opposite of net neutrality - that data is not all treated equally and I have sorely wished they'd considered it from the outset when designing routers.
When I watched about 4 HD movies over my cable internet, my bill was doubled that month. My use of bandwidth was 100% legal, yet I was nailed for it because my cable company didn't like competition from the internet for their antiquated video content business model, which involves them telling me when to watch, instead of the other way around.
Might that be to do with you exceeding your usage limits? If you only pay for a line with say a 5GB monthly cap and you download 4HD movies at 1.5GB each, you will be charged per GB you go over. If they have charged you because of how you use the connection, that's clearly wrong.
Besides, I'm surprised you didn't consider the graphic in the original posting. This is the potential end state of the internet if net neutrality laws aren't put in place.
It's not a potential end state by a long way. The image is proposing the possibility of ISPs blocking access to individual websites, which wont happen because that business model would fail the second another ISP came along offering unrestricted access. Net neutrality laws would help countries like China though where the ISPs do block websites but again that's information neutrality as mentioned above and not protocol neutrality and more an issue with the government that the ISP.
But no legitimate competition is really being affected. itunes, Amazon downloads aren't restricted for example.
Well, I'm thinking more about indie music and indie videos. I mean, there's got to be decent music that you don't have to pay $1.29 for or non-Hollywood movies that you don't have to buy for $12 and up. That's what Big Content is afraid of, and what iTunes is starting to present on an equal footing to Big Content's stuff.
Artists aren't getting paid [as much as they should be]. It's still better than P2P where they don't get paid at all directly.
Marginally at best. A lot of artists are just temporary stars who never gain the leverage to negotiate decent contracts. I know of at least one local band in Montreal who figure it's in their best financial interest to keep performing at local bars and putting out the occasional CD than to deal with the RIAA.
In the end, they control the connection and have to guarantee performance to keep customers happy.
In case you haven't noticed, ISP customers are generally unhappy, especially in the U.S., and it has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with the lack of competition and ISP's ripping them off, not to mention the racket of "unlimited Internet" and the throttling of certain protocols. One example is Rogers in Canada, who (last I knew) were throttling any encrypted traffic and making it very difficult to VPN. This is the kind of stuff that net neutrality advocates are trying to stop.
I don't advocate blocking YouTube or Hulu but it won't happen.
They can threaten to block them and charge Google and NBC to prevent that from happening.
What will happen with net neutrality laws in place is that when I get home from work, all the students who have gotten in from school will be loading up their torrents and grinding the network to a halt because the ISP can't throttle a certain type of data.
I see you haven't read the proposals for net neutrality legislation that are going around. Every proposal I've read has made it clear that net neutrality would only apply to *legal* content. Pirated content is not legal and therefore doesn't fall within net neutrality as the FCC will define it.
Besides, does your internet connection "grind to a halt" when you come home? MIne certainly doesn't, yet I'm certain that a significant percentage of other customers of my ISP pirate heavily.
This means that they drop the speed of all data down to a level that makes the internet barely usable.
That's not happening, despite claims that piracy is currently "rampant".
That is what threatens the existence of the internet
Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, cable companies and telcos threaten the existence of the internet. The guys who stole $200 billion from U.S. taxpayers threaten the existence of the internet.
- taking away certain controls from an ISP. I would agree that it needs to be a balance and perhaps the laws simply need to state a fair system is in place that does not discriminate against commercial or political competition but you know what's going to happen is that ISPs then start asking for the power to analyze data packet contents and breach the privacy of users.
They already do. Bell Canada does deep packet inspection and filtering, and this applies even to their wholesale customers like Teksavvy. This is why we absolutely need net neutrality legislation.
Usage scenario:
ISP has say 100Mbps bandwidth
There are 100 users
25 users are on P2P downloading illegally
25 users want to watch an online video service - Youtube, a TV catchup program etc
50 users are just browsing.
If they try to guarantee that a decent quality stream comes down for legitimate users, they need over 2Mbps so the ISP reserves say 75Mbps for that and throttles the rest down to 500k.
Hey! I have a novel idea! Why doesn't the ISP impose a BANDWIDTH CAP? Oh right! They want to lie to their customers and claim they offer "unlimited internet". It's a wonder they haven't been sued under RICO yet.
The people using file transfer protocols, particularly P2P ones have file resuming so they can download overnight anyway.
With a download cap, they'll go over the limit quite quickly and get charged for the bandwidth they're using. Problem solved!
If all data must be treated equally, the guaranteed stream drops to 1.5Mbps so legitimate users get lower quality or stuttering video. QoS controls were implemented specifically to ensure the opposite of net neutrality - that data is not all treated equally and I have sorely wished they'd considered it from the outset when designing routers.
Discriminating against different protocols won't work. BItTorrent is being redesigned to work over HTTP. QoS is a threat to net neutrality because it means that ISPs can lie to their customers about what they're providing them (ex 5 Mbps "unlimited internet").
Might that be to do with you exceeding your usage limits?
I paid $57/month for a measly 30 Gb/month limit, which was exceeded by downloading 4 HD movies, thereby doubling my bill. That's why I switched ISPs. Does that sound reasonable to you? A 200 GB cap (which I have now) would stop heavy P2P users in their tracks without punishing legitimate users.
If you only pay for a line with say a 5GB monthly cap and you download 4HD movies at 1.5GB each, you will be charged per GB you go over. If they have charged you because of how you use the connection, that's clearly wrong.
ISPs will overcharge you for not using their branded internet video services if net neutrality is not enacted into law.
It's not a potential end state by a long way. The image is proposing the possibility of ISPs blocking access to individual websites, which wont happen because that business model would fail the second another ISP came along offering unrestricted access. Net neutrality laws would help countries like China though where the ISPs do block websites but again that's information neutrality as mentioned above and not protocol neutrality and more an issue with the government that the ISP.
Most people in the U.S. have only one or two options for internet. That's the telcos or cable companies. With so little competition, there's absolutely nothing preventing oligopolistic cooperation or outright collusion to restrict internet choice and charge more for it. Heck, if I was a shareholder of any one of these companies, I'd be asking why they don't have plans in place to do this already. Comcast has already sued the FCC for trying to stop them from throttling their users' internet.