Skip to main content

View Diary: FCC Chair: I could make Net neutrality happen today, but I don't wanna (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  DLS lines! Wow! (0+ / 0-)

    Did you really just reference DSL in a post about how you're worried the internet might get slower? DSL isn't metered, because DSL was slow even when it was rolled out.

    You're acting like all that matters here is mainstream media and popular blogs that can afford CDN charges.

    No, I'm acting like mainstream media and popular blogs aren't going to pay ISPs at all. The "fast lane" concept is an upsell for particular services that require low latency (E.g. trading, gaming and high def video).

    But I notice you still haven't answered the technical reasons why you think such a fast lane scheme is possible and won't affect the rest of the traffic.
    I'm answering your questions as you ask them...

    Obviously, the ISPs think it's possible. ISPs might try to use traffic shaping (as you fear) to move privileged packets on their network through to their customers faster. Or they could build out separate capacity just for the "fast lane" (which is how the ISPs and the FCC are couching it).

    Traffic shaping would make everyone's internet experience slower. Depending on the volume of traffic, it could be significantly slower. And here's the thing: slowing down the internet in that way would be bad for the ISPs. Traffic shaping is an impractical solution, it's difficult to sell, complex to do correctly, intensely fragile, and it doesn't scale. It's also guaranteed to piss off your customers on both ends.

    Building out dedicated capacity would be a much better approach. It would be easier to sell, easier to manage, and easier to grow. And the result of moving streaming video, etc. traffic onto the "fast lane" would be that it would actually speed up the rest of the network. Customers get guaranteed faster access to the sites that pay and generally faster access to everything else.

    This is not to say everything will be hunky-dory, but there are upsides to this proposal and the downsides aren't what everyone here thinks they are.

    •  Yep, I did. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      ...because uVerse is VHDSL, which can max out at 40Mbps on a dual-bonded channel line, and is not metered, and has competition (see Sonic.net's Fusion service, which is the their version of uVerse over AT&T's lines) due to common carrier status.  ADSL/SDSL ain't the only DSL in the game anymore, nor has it been for years.

      No, I'm acting like mainstream media and popular blogs aren't going to pay ISPs at all. The "fast lane" concept is an upsell for particular services that require low latency (E.g. trading, gaming and high def video).
      Which doesn't change the fact that this has to be done by traffic shaping, because nobody's building out a duplicate Internet infrastructure, and having a separate infrastructure puts us on a splinternet model anyway, which is definitely NOT a benefit to any user of the Internet.

      Plus, you'd have to build that fast lane infrastructure down to the last mile as well, otherwise you're ending up with the same peering disputes that are forcing this situation that we have now.  And again, it's pretty obvious nobody's interested in getting their streets dug up by any company that wants to run a fast lane through your neighborhood.

      It'll end up being done by packet shaping, and as you rightly state, that does slow it down for everyone else, and even moreso if they decide to do deep packet inspection to determine content rather than doing QoS at scale from known "fast-lane" sources.

      I don't see the upside you're talking about from this proposal.  I don't see this providing more and better options for consumers.  I don't see this as making the US internet any more trustworthy to do business over.

      Everyday Magic

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:36:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  uVerse looks a lot like FIOS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        I don't see anything to support your contention that uVerse is being regulated as a common carrier. I think they fall under the same regulatory framework as Verizon FIOS or whatever Comcast's ISP is called.

        I don't see the upside you're talking about from this proposal.  I don't see this providing more and better options for consumers.  I don't see this as making the US internet any more trustworthy to do business over.
        I have more faith in the system than many here. I believe that if the ISPs intentionally degrade their product, they will be destroyed for it.

        I watched the growth of the internet, it's gone through many phases to get to where it is today.

        I guess I just don't see what's so great about the current state of affairs that makes everyone think we should stop here.

        •  uVerse is fiber to the node. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, pgm 01

          Last mile is done over the phone, which is why CLECs like Sonic.net can offer their Fusion service over it, which is either a single 20MB VHDSL channel, or a 40MB dual-bonded VHDSL channel.  AT&T has to allow them access to the lines.

          uVerse service itself a bonded dual-channel, except they subnet (or VLAN) off part of it to deliver IPTV.

          FIOS is fiber to the door, and not regulated as common carrier at this time, hence why you only get it from the owner of the line, whether that's Verizon themselves or someone they sold the lines to, like Frontiernet or CenturyLink.

          Right now, ISPs can and do intentionally degrade their product.  We just watched Comcast do it to force Netflix into an interconnection agreement because of a peering dispute with Cogent.  When the ISPs have no competition, they can and will degrade the product.

          Without competition, we need Net Neutrality.  With competition, your stance that they won't intentionally degrade their product is absolutely correct because they'll get killed by the competition.

          Net Neutrality is a bandaid until Internet service is classified as a common carrier service.

          Everyday Magic

          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:15:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that's what happened (0+ / 0-)

            That's interesting about Sonic.net

            We just watched Comcast do it to force Netflix into an interconnection agreement because of a peering dispute with Cogent.
            My impression of that little spat is that Netflix thought it could route its traffic around Comcast to get the same result and it couldn't. Netflix was testing the value proposition of peering with Comcast and unintentionally degraded its own product.

            Or do you think Verizon forced them to do it too? Conspiracy theories for everyone!

            Maybe there's a better example of the ISPs degrading their product, but I don't believe that companies that do that are going to survive.

            •  that's nice (0+ / 0-)
              I don't think that's what happened
              And you are....?

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:33:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Your impression is mistaken (0+ / 0-)

              Which is common enough.

              It actually comes down to peering agreements breaking down between Cogent and Comcast/Verizon.  What Netflix is doing is different from the FCC "Fast Lane" proposal.  They're basically adding content delivery nodes to Comcast and Verizon's networks, which is a waste of resources and doesn't reduce any impact on Comcast or Verizon's networks.  It makes the peering arrangements more equitable for Comcast and Verizon -- doing them a favor, basically, and paying for the "privilege" of doing so.

              You already see ISPs intentionally degrading traffic on known peer-to-peer connections like torrents and the like.  You see Comcast decide not to enforce its data caps in areas where it has competition, but enforce them elsewhere where it can.

              It's not a matter of conspiracy theory.  If I'm a Netflix fan and I have another option for high speed service and Comcast starts being dicks about Netflix speeds?  I go to another service.

              For even more fun, go overlay Verizon FIOS maps and Comcast Cable service maps, then compare those with where AT&T has uVerse.  Not a lot of people that have Comcast can't even leave for a competitor because the sole competitor for broadband in the same area decided to get in on the racket too.

              Everyday Magic

              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:41:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site