Skip to main content

View Diary: What Happens Now with Net Neutrality (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because if the Bandwidth is Available (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    for other things, they can sell it.  If they sell it, they make more money.  At least that's why they want to be able to regulate it.

    •  Yes that's why. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, James Kresnik

      So then the question is one of control.

      Corporations have pretty much taken over television, which was once in theory part of the public domain.

      Do we want them to be in charge of the internet too?

      The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free fully funded, thanks SCOTUS.

      by BentLiberal on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:07:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's No Bandwidth Shortage (4+ / 0-)

      Not only do the network operators have plenty of bandwidth for all the traffic demands today, investing in more capacity is proven higher performing than is filtering content.

      Proven. I have advised the NY City Council (legislature) Tech committee for several years, including while Net Neutrality became a public issue. I spoke with several researchers, both private consultants and academics, who had done actual studies of which approach to increasing bandwidth gave a greater ROI, in private studies for big broadband ISPs. They all found that increasing network capacity rather than filtering and blocking traffic was always much better ROI for the network operator.

      Making more network, though, means the supply/demand curve works against higher prices (even if it means higher profits, because of a higher volume of product sold). The telcos/cablecos want higher prices locked in, and then maybe they'll increase capacity.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:49:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would you please tell my Cisco rep this? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        Because they keep trying to explain to me that higher-capacity equipment costs more.

        That's only a small part of it, of course. The actual WAN infrastructure isn't free. The more bandwidth you want from a pair of fiber, the more attention you have to pay to it - management, monitoring, and maintenance.

        Then there's the support end. A residential user with a 512k upload can only have a limited impact, can only send so many spams from their botted laptop, and can only have so many torrent peers. Up that to 5mb, and you need more call center staff, more systems to identify malware traffic. Ironport boxes aren't cheap either.

        Everyone thinks that "net neutrality" means that my neighbor's NNTP stream is exactly as important as my voip call. I respectfully disagree.

        I built two large domestic networks and have run the engineering end of several ISP's you'd recognize the names of. I got the hell out of the business a few years ago because it's a hellhole; block a guy sending out 10,000 spams a minute and you're on the front page of Digg with a picture of Lenin next to your name. Allow the spams through, and you're still there, but next to a picture of Alfred E. Neuman. The dow drops 500 points, and the first thing everyone cancels is broadband, so you lay off a dozen good workers and delay a build-out that's six months in the planning.

        Even at the wholesale level, prices have dropped somewhat - I'm not buying more capacity than I was two years ago, but I'm pushing for price reductions and additional services. And being very grateful that I'm out of that horrible business.

        •  Cisco has a vested interest in pushing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo

          their hardware and expanding the market at all costs. They'll sell Big Brother telescreens if it helped their bottom line.

          OMG. I have been offended. And on the internets of all Places. -A LOLCat.

          by James Kresnik on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:28:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just like HP, Juniper, Nortel, (0+ / 0-)

            Fujitsu, Dell, Level3, AT&T, Sprint, OnFiber, Cogent, BT, Verizon, and every other company I get bills from. There's no price-fixing, no cartel, no "big fix".

            If you think you can give a company like AT&T or Comcast a way to deliver one more megabit of data to their customers without raising costs, I will personally forward your resume to a VP at each company, and see which of them can push an offer letter through HR first.

            •  They Both Raise Costs (0+ / 0-)

              Nobody said anything about not raising costs.

              What I said was that actual tests for backbone ISPs showed that just adding more capacity provided more saleable capacity than did adding more filtering to block some traffic. Both cost money. Adding capacity had better ROI.

              I'll also point out that everyone's traffic, including pirated movies, is paid for on these networks. Pirated content isn't "free" to transmit, any more than is original or copyright cleared content. There is a difference to the network's profits, though: the pirate traffic tends to maximize its contractual entitlement to bandwidth. The large amounts of multimedia data constantly downloaded (because downloads are still slower than playback) tends to fill whatever quota the downloader (and therefore the uploader, too, at the other end of the transaction) has paid for. Other users tend to use a significantly lower fraction of the capacity they've paid for.

              So the difference in loss to the network is in their oversubscription ratios, that can't sell the same actual bandwidth over and over to multiple people who mostly don't use their full share. It's hard to sympathize with the networks for finally losing what amounted to a scam, and fault the consumers who are finally getting what they have been paying for these long years.

              And note that this higher consumption rate is not the basis for the ROI increases of greater capacity vs filtering. That metric is independent of the oversubscription bonus to the network. The greater capacity simply uses the available resources to move more bits with the same horsepower instead effectively wasted on the heavier task of blocking some bits.

              And then consider that the networks can sell even more expensive, higher bandwidth connections to the heaviest downloaders. More $:bit:s than the slower ones, so much more profitable. Networks don't like to get into that argument, because they're cast instead by critics as offering the lower tier as "too slow", for still too much money. Because they are: the "normal" tier speeds are archaic by most global standards of consumer broadband, especially our biggest competitors abroad. And these networks also offer only very slow connections for high prices in much of their covered area, where they're always either a monopoly or a cartel duopoly.

              Which is why these networks want the argument to be about piracy "stealing" (which market impact analyses frequently show either net no damages or increase overall revenues) or child pornography.

              These are the companies that have been tapping everyone's phonecalls and emails for at least most of a decade, now officially immune to 4th Amendment prosecution. "We don't care, we don't have to care. We're the phone company." as Lilly Tomlin glibly informed us generations ago. Their way to make the most money isn't simply to offer the best, most competitive services to the most consumers in the market. It's primarily to protect their cartel, and secondarily to protect any possible future business line from any possible competition. Content filtering gives them the control to do that, even if just adding more capacity for open access makes them more money. It just goes completely against all their strategic interests, while the filtering is making them $TRILLIONS.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Just had a flash (0+ / 0-)

            of a commercial where Ellen Page is being shown command central where all the telescreens are being monitored.

            Ellen: "Is that my living room?"

            Climate change deniers: Where's your model?

            by rmoore on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 09:10:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Endpoint FIltering vs Spam (0+ / 0-)

          As you should know, filtering spam at the network edge is entirely different from filtering content at some midpoint. Ethically, technologically, and therefore should be legally.

          And, as I said, actual tests for bacbone ISPs showed consistently that building out more network has a higher rate of return than filtering out more content. Actual tests.

          Cisco's marketing and sales are based only on what the market will bear. And that market is defined by the greed and fear, and political strategies, of the big networks' top execs. Entirely different from what the actual tests show.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:35:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site