FCC Planning Rule Changes To Restore US Net Neutrality

Karl C writes "In a statement issued today, FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler announced that the commission will begin a rule-making process to re-impose Net Neutrality, which was recently struck down in Federal court. Among the standards Wheeler intends to pursue are vigorous enforcement of a requirement for transparency in how ISPs manage traffic, and a prohibition on blocking (the 'no blocking' provision.) This seems like exactly what net neutrality activists have been demanding: Total prohibition of throttling, and vigorous enforcement of that rule, and of a transparency requirements so ISPs can't try to mealy-mouth their way around accusations that they're already throttling Netflix. Even before the court decision overturning net neutrality, Comcast and Verizon users have been noting Netflix slowdowns for months."

Comments

Could we be so lucky?

[rotaryexpress]

Slow clap starting...now

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

If this is so great, explain "total prohibition of throttling". Most networks are oversubscribed, and that's OK since most users use a small portion of their allowed bandwidth. One way or another, there will be throttling. What about QoS-based throttling? Voice traffic is harmed much more by dropped packets than torrents. The ISPs sell voice service, and they sell products that compete with torrents. Doing the right thing for QoS directly serves the financial interests of the ISPs. Should we cut off our nose to spiderface? Never spiderface.

So are we going to have clear rules about what you can and can't throttle? Simple rules won't work. ISPs will be better at gaming those rules than the FCC will be at writing them. As SuperKendall posted about 4000 times the last time this came up (and still most people didn't get it): the way Comcast was throttling Netflix was perfectly OK under the last set of rules. Do you think more rules will help? There are always corner cases to exploit, because each new rule just creates new corners.

Anyhow, we know where any complex set of rules ends: the big players end up writing the rules. I'm sure the cable companies would happily give up throttling Netflix if they get in exchange the ability to bar any new players from entering the ISP business. After all, they don't have local monopolies everywhere yet, but with a high enough regulatory barrier to entry they could get there.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that the phrase is "cut your nose off to spite your face", right?

Hopefully you're just trying to be clever, I trust?

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[The Cat]

One way or another, there will be throttling.

Right up to the point where we make it illegal.

Do you think more rules will help?

No. But buying Comcast will.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[interkin3tic]

Assume no. Proceed as if the announcement was made that things are going to get worse. E-mail the FCC, e-mail your congressperson. We should believe that this is merely PR to get us to calm down, then do nothing. Wheeler was a lobbyist for the people he's regulating. That doesn't prove he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over, but I'd bet good money if I had it that he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[LifesABeach]

As good as censorship on the bad guys sounds; what if those souless fools are correct? Censorship means we'll never know; for certain.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Samantha Wright]

I'm pretty sure networks are oversubscribed because ISPs have no motivation to improve them. The margins for large service providers are ridiculous. A lot more infrastructure can be built before providing internet access becomes unprofitable.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[KingMotley]

So now you are going to make it so that any pipe the ISP has, if it becomes saturated with data, they are legally required to upgrade it to a larger pipe?

No? Because that is how netflix is being "throttled" today. They just don't have a large enough pipe to them to satisfy all the requests.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Bengie]

"Oversubscribed" does not mean "congested". If your network is congested, then you're overselling it to the point that you are no longer providing what you're advertising. For wireless networks, I could see throttling until a better design or management solution is available, but fixed line should not do throttling. If an ISP needs to state two speeds, one for "Internal" ISP network speeds and "External" Internet speeds, so be it, but a customer should not have to guess what speeds they will have.

If an ISP sells a 10mb connection, they should not be the bottle neck. I repeat, the ISP should not have congestion on their networks. They cannot control other networks, but they can control their own. If you don't have it, don't sell it. If the competition is marketing faster speeds that you can't support, tough luck.

It really just comes down to false advertisement. You don't see people selling cars with "up to 40mpg", then you only get 5mpg in normal driving conditions.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[The Cat]

So now you are going to make it so that any pipe the ISP has, if it becomes saturated with data, they are legally required to upgrade it to a larger pipe?

Yes.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[ColdWetDog]

Should we cut off our nose to spiderface?

<facepalm>
Spiderface? The saying is "cut off your nose to spite your face". Your odd interpretation makes no sense at all. Folks, don't use sayings you don't understand.

It's probably Autocorrect. But bog knows why he has that term in his dictionary. Best not to ask.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

"Oversubscribed" does not mean "congested".

Oversubscribed always means "congested sometimes". If the ISP is doing it's job (pause for laughter) then it's not congested most of the time.

If an ISP sells a 10mb connection, they should not be the bottle neck. I repeat, the ISP should not have congestion on their networks.

If you want guaranteed bandwidth price a T3 line sometime. Guarantees are very expensive. A service that's congested 5% of the time likely costs 1/10th as much as a service that guarantees no congestion. Chances are you want the oversubscribed product, not the guaranteed bandwidth for home use.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

That's an orthogonal concern though. The product ISPs sell for home use isn't a guaranteed bandwidth product (those exist for business), it's an oversubscribed product. It's really much cheaper to provide an oversubscribed product, chances are you'd pay 10x for the guarantee of bandwidth.

In any case, for the world we live in, what do we do about throttling? Do we let the packets fall where they may? That would certainly be fair, but your telephone would become unusable under high congestion. I treasure my analog phone line, but since those are going away I'd sure like to hear clear voice traffic at the expense of torrents.

And what do you do about services like Netflix that (on pitiful DSL lines like mine) use all available bandwidth by design? It's the right design, I think, because it shouldn't be Netflix's job to ensure my voice call is clear. But with Netflix cramming as many packets down the pipe as possible, unaware of my voice call, someone has to do QoS throttling somewhere, and I sure as heck don't want to replace my router with Linux box just so I can learn to do that myself!

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[knightghost]

I'd accept packet prioritization. That way video calls don't drop while p2p downgrades. Maintain full use of resources.

The problem is fake throttling that chokes out netflix and others by 75% or more regardless of system capacity.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[icebike]

If this is so great, explain "total prohibition of throttling". Most networks are oversubscribed, and that's OK since most users use a small portion of their allowed bandwidth. One way or another, there will be throttling.

Capacity limitation is distinct from throttling. Not sizing their total bandwidth capabilities to meet peak demand is not the same thing as throttling,
Everything is impacted when capacity is reached, rather than selectively throttling specific traffic.

You can't lump them into the same boat.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

OK, so how precisely do you write the rules such that the ISP can't game them with "fake throttling". Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix they weren't breaking the rules as written. This isn't a simple engineering problem where you just have to find something that makes sense, this is like security hardening where you have to continuously correct problems as your attackers point them out. Do you believe a simple set of rules could work?

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

It not that they're the same, it's that one sort of requires the other. You really want voice traffic to "win" during peak demand, because the total bandwidth is small and the perceived effect of dropped packets is large. So now you're throttling based on rules - showing preference to one kind of traffic, and in fact showing preference to the kind the ISP sells over the kind that competes against what they sell.

With me so far? Having everything equally affected is not a good answer: you will get better service thanks to selectively throttling specific traffic. We want that. We don't want Comcast to throttle Netflix as an extortion racket.

People seem to imagine there's some simple set of rules that would achieve that goal, but so far the evidence suggests otherwise.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[icebike]

So now you are going to make it so that any pipe the ISP has, if it becomes saturated with data, they are legally required to upgrade it to a larger pipe?

No? Because that is how netflix is being "throttled" today. They just don't have a large enough pipe to them to satisfy all the requests.

Wait, there is evidence that Netflix is SELECTIVELY throttled today, not that available bandwidth is exhausted.

In other words, when everybody jumps on Netflix in the evening, Gaming, YouTube, and just plain surfing should be dreadfully slow. Yet that does not appear to be the case for most people. Netflix is affected, but the spam and chock-full-of-ads pages load as fast as ever.

So your premise is wrong, which means your conclusion can't be supported.

HOWEVER, still, you make a good point, because when Netflix is not selectively throttled, the effect of everybody wanting one to five high bandwidth streams into every home could have a devastating effect on all parts of the network. Especially the last mile.

Even when Netflix (and similar) servers are located on the ISP's local head-ends, moving all TV viewing to IP traffic will swamp the last mile. It is dramatically more traffic than the same amount of programming traveling by digital cable, because every single user is a separate stream starting at separate times.
(Please don't anyone pop up and say Multicast. It doesn't work that way and won't help).

So you are left with the same problem, of potentially saturated bandwidth as everybody moves to IP-TV. And forcing cable plant upgrades to fiber everywhere is probably the only way around this. But the FCC probably doesn't have the authority to do that, and the natural Monopoly enjoyed by cable plants probably isn't going to make it easy for competition to come in.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Obfuscant]

I'd accept packet prioritization. That way video calls don't drop while p2p downgrades. Maintain full use of resources.

Devils advocate. I pay the same amount for my network service as you do. Why should your packets (VoIP) get through and mine (HTTP) be dropped (or even delayed)? "Maintain full use of resources" occurs when there are as many packets as the pipe will allow. It doesn't depend on what those packets carry.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Obfuscant]

Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix

The recent case as covered here was Verizon, and the claim was they were throttling because 1) a script-kiddie tech support person made the mistake of agreeing with a strident customer to get him off the line, and 2) the customer's Netflix wasn't working as well at home under a residential account as it was at work using a business account. (1) was just stupid, and (2) doesn't prove throttling of Netflix, only a difference in the bandwidth that residential vs. business accounts pay for.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

You don't see people selling cars with "up to 40mpg", then you only get 5mpg in normal driving conditions.

Where the hell do you live? I have never seen a car get anywhere near what the manufacturers claim for mileage. Admittedly not a 35MPG difference, but I am sure you could manage it, if you tried hard enough.

In a test I did myself, I was able to get close the the claimed mileage, but only by driving and accelerating so slowly that I am sure someone would have run me off the road, or shot me before long.

Re: Could we be so lucky?

[KingMotley]

Sorry. Didn't read your whole message because it's based on faulty assumptions. The connection between most ISPs and Netflix is direct. The only data (or the very large majority) in that pipe is Netflix, hence why it SEEMS they are selectively throttled. I forget which other services also flow through that pipe, but you can google it.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[C3ntaur]

And here I thought he was just being punny.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Obfuscant]

you forget to mention that hey were using the same equipment in both locations. same router same modem. only difference was location.

I didn't forget to mention that, I didn't mention it because it is irrelevant. The difference that one was residential and one was business is relevant, even if the CPE is identical. Yes, you can make any argument work if you ignore the details. Business service costs more and has more bandwidth, even if the same router is involved upstream.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[knightghost]

Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p. There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it. Today's problem is that internet corporations aren't honest and purposely throttle what doesn't benefit them. Solve the real problem instead of a pushing a high level theory debate.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[knightghost]

OK, so how precisely do you write the rules such that the ISP can't game them with "fake throttling". Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix they weren't breaking the rules as written. This isn't a simple engineering problem where you just have to find something that makes sense, this is like security hardening where you have to continuously correct problems as your attackers point them out. Do you believe a simple set of rules could work?

Yes, actually. I boil things down to the simplest (but not too simple) components for a living... and there are more experienced and smarter people than me available to do this. It's complexity that creates holes.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Obfuscant]

Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p.

Doesn't matter to me. If you think my traffic should be throttled so your internet experience is acceptable to you, then turnabout is fair play. Like I said, devil's advocate. I pay the same, I shouldn't get second class service for how I want to use it just because you want better service for yourself.

And yes, I know what latency is, thank you.

There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it.

"Honest" is a subjective term. "Most efficient"? Making my internet experience less cheerful is "most efficient" for you, perhaps, but not for me. "Same pay, same service" sounds "honest" to me.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[icebike]

I see what you are saying, but you are arguing AGAINST the net neutrality side.
(And that's fine, not all aspects of net neutrality work in the favor of all end-users.)

But voice typically goes by UDP, although lately, SIP protocol is starting to gravitating to TCP PRECISELY to combat the drop out problem. (UDP is designed to drop packets, TCP is designed to make sure none are dropped and all arrive in the proper order).
Part of the voice problem, (if there exists any real problem in this area) is the wrong choice of technology.

I'm still not convince that allowing the network operators to favor some packets over others is the correct way to go. Their interests will never match our interests. If you are going to do that sort of stuff there has to be a consensus, one set not by each carrier to feather their own nest. And this prioritizing is REALLY only an issue if you are trying to scrimp on band width.

In the absence of a consensus, everything running with equal priority seems to be the only logical route. Voice dropping out: Consider a thinner codec. Consider TCP. Consider yelling down to the basement and having your son shut down his porn feed for 20 minutes. Consider a bigger pipe. Consider switching to a better provider.

Because even if you build a consensus to prioritize some traffic types, people will just go out and encapsulate their preferred inside of the consensus priority class. (Gamers will embed their packets into VOIP packets or something). By maintaining a level playing field you avoid the packet wars.

 

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Twinbee]

Are you for or against net neutrality?

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[nobuddy]

You simply need to learn how to drive. Every car I have owned has gotten better than the MFR listed average. Jackrabbit starts, excessive speed, and constant delta-V change (slow, fast, slow fast, goddammit get outta the way asshole, VERY fast, brake hard, slow. fast) will destroy your fuel economy.

get to the right and set your cruise control for the speed limit, or even lower. unless you are driving hundreds of miles, you will arrive within seconds of the guy that drives like you do, and use half the gas doing it.

I proved this to my leadfoot wife. For a couple of weeks, we took two cars everywhere. She drove her way, I drove mine. We each had a kid to keep it honest. Every single time i pulled in right behind her.
every.
single.
time.

without fail. you gain nothing whatsoever from driving like that, except an empty wallet and some ulcers.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Urza9814]

If we're paying the same amount, why should my neighbor always receive a better connection simply because he uses VoIP while I'm browsing the web? Within your network, your QoS is your own problem (and it's not that hard these days -- the router Verizon provides me for free has sufficient QoS options). Beyond that, QoS by the ISP should only be used to ensure all subscribers receive equal service during peak hours.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Teun]

I live in a country where net neutrality is written in law.

An ISP can offer VOIP/SIP telephone as a separate service and legally 'reserve' bandwidth for this service.
There's no conflict with the neutrality rule, you get what you pay for.

What they can't do is allow one SIP/VOIP provider faster access than another competing one.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[dreamchaser]

QoS on your little endpoint router is meaningless if your ISP isn't also properly prioritizing the traffic. Sure, you can be the cool kid and say you have QoS, but it won't buy you much. Once those packets hit the network they are at the mercy of someone else. In the case of the endpoint router being on an oversubscribed consumer network then QoS is even more meaningless.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[rotaryexpress]

I think you misunderstand what QoS is...
QoS isn't throttling, it's packet prioritization. It means that this VoIP packet get's out first and the HTTP packet get's bumped it's place in line; but it still get's delivered and it has to happen within the TTL (time to live). QoS does NOT mean "this Torrent packet might get delivered".

Throttling, on the other hand, means the amount of packets which are coming from Netflix servers are limited to X per second. Throttling is what we're talking about here, not QoS.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Bengie]

Oversubscribed always means "congested sometimes".

Oversubscribed means there is a chance of congestion, but an ISP should never allow it to happen, except in exceptional cases like DDOS or sudden demand growth faster than their upstream can provision. The backbone of the Internet is massively oversubscribed relative to all of the edge inputs, but companies like Level 3 manage to keep congestion off their networks except in rare cases.

Bandwidth consumption is very predictable in large amounts. Large trunks can have less than 5% day-to-day differences in peak bandwidth, and if you never let your links get over 50% usage, you should almost never have a situation where the peak suddenly grows 100% before you can provision more, when the 99% norm is with-in 5%.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Aqualung812]

(UDP is designed to drop packets, TCP is designed to make sure none are dropped and all arrive in the proper order)

TCP will re-transmit dropped packets, but this means by definition that some will arrive out of order.
The reason TCP is a bad protocol for voice is that you don't have time to reassemble the packets. The only way you can use TCP to insure that you have 100% packet in order (on a network you don't control, like the Internet) is to have a HUGE buffer. That buffer is delay. So, I might have perfect audio quality, even on a congested line, but there will be a noticeable 1-2 second delay.

UDP doesn't re-transmit, and this is perfect for VoIP because you ideally only want a 10-30ms buffer, and if a packet is outside of that, you just drop it & live without it.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Bengie]

If I'm by myself and no one is nagging me to go faster and no one else is stuck behind me, I'll go 5-10mph under the speed limit on highways. If people are stuck behind me, I tend to go 5 over. Wind resistance scales quickly past 45mph.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Bengie]

As long as they lower my bill. I already pay for dedicated bandwidth and it's probably less than what many pay for their crappy bandwidth. Many ISPs charge quite a bit above the cost of dedicated bandwidth. There is no reason they can't provide it, in most cases.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[grahamm]

The last mile is the one place which should not be affected, as it is a dedicated link between the customer premises and the DSLAM (or equivalent) so is non-contended bandwidth. It is the various network entities between the DSLAM and the originating server which are shared with other connections and therefore contended and subject to throttling.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[killkillkill]

And then prices go up across the board and the struggling single mom with internet access so her kids can do homework gets to subsidize the entertainment of the middle class. Brilliant.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Devoidoid]

I would also like to know this, because the word "spiderface" is awesome.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[grahamm]

Oversubscribed always means "congested sometimes".

The analogue telephone network is oversubscribed. It would not be possible for all phones to be on a call simultaneously. However it is extremely rare for there to be congestion - when someone picks up the phone they get a dial tone and can attempt to connect to the destination number. The called phone might be busy, but it is almost unheard of for the call to fail because of network congestion.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Bengie]

I must add that QoS is only useful when a link is congested. Many commercial grade devices will only enable QoS when a link buffer is 90% full. QoS many times will actually reduce transmission speeds, which makes congestion worse. Some times the act of enabling QoS is the sole reason there is congestion in the first place, kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. QoS is not free, except in the case of slow speeds, like 10gb and slower.

Many 10gb devices forego QoS because the additional processing reduces the throughput to less than link speed, and instead just monitor link load. With throw-away cheap 1tb fiber coming out around the corner, we won't be able to process process QoS within even a magnitude of the link speed. Yes, they are currently working on retooling for 1tb/s fiber that is cheap enough to integrate into those $20 cell phones you buy at Walmart. There have been some major break throughs with integrated fiber. How long until this trickles down into the rest of the industry?

It won't be long until everything in your computer is connected via fiber, even memory. BTW, they have shown fully functional production ready 2tb/s fiber speeds over 90nm silicon and it only costs pennies to make and the silicon be be directly integrated. They expect higher speeds with smaller processes. The biggest hurtle is retooling factories to integrate fiber into circuit-boards instead of copper traces, but it is estimated that it will be cheaper to produce these fiber links than copper traces and more power efficient. This was by a reputable company, like IBM or HP. I forget which.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[grahamm]

Or with TCP you have to have sufficiently large jitter buffers to cater for the delays caused by the backing off of the retreansmit timers.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[omnichad]

If you ignore oversubscription and other customers, QoS on the router is not meaningless. It's harder, since the media stream from Netflix probably uses UDP rather than TCP. You would start with a flood of packets from Netflix, but when the device only receives smaller number of packets (due to QoS throttling), Netflix will decide you have lower bandwidth and let up. And once it does, it's in balance with your other connections.

Most of the congestion is in the last mile. It can be worse with cable, since you have a shared data path for most of the last 50 yards, but you still have a significant degree of control.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[halltk1983]

Multiple peers and shortest path routing. There's a path that is available to Netflix. Even if it's at 100%, it's the shortest path, so that's the one taken. Routing protocols generally don't take active load into account to redirect traffic around choke points through other, more expensive peers.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[halltk1983]

It's because you're going around the choke point. You're doing 2 connections to go around the limited area. One to the endpoint of your VPN, and then through your VPN provider's connection to Netflix. It's like taking a different route to work than the shortest because the interstate is at a standstill. You might be smart enough to do it, but the automated routing protocol is not.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

I am arguing against net neutrality in the way that the FCC is going about it. I'm not sure what the better answer is. Regulatory capture is IMO the biggest problem to solve for advancement in the first world.

BTW, as was pointed out, TCP simply doesn't work for voice, because the re-transmit delay is, in practice, unworkable. We're really quite sensitive to latency in voice, and substituting static for a lost packet is less noticeable and disruptive.

And it doesn't help the picture that people have been gaming the favoring of voice traffic for years, building protocols on UDP that any sane person would build on TCP simply because some ISPs blindly favor UDP traffic rather than voice specifically (or used to, when deep packet inspection was hard).

We simply don't have the right sort of networking protocols to make this work. Netflix for example really does use all available bandwidth up to it's maximum quality feed - it's optimizing for the quality of Netflix, not the quality of your network. The Right Thing, IMO, is to let each endpoint designate the priority of it's traffic (relative only to the rest of its traffic), which for TCP could be managed entirely by the home router, with nice defaults provided (and there are "gaming routers" that do an OK job of it). Letting the end user control the throttling (with any ISP participation needed) seems the best bet, but then we'd be debating the defaults on the router your ISP installs.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[icebike]

TCP will re-transmit dropped packets, but this means by definition that some will arrive out of order.

True, there is no way to assure that the packets travel over every hop in lockstep, with non getting lost. But you are conflating problems of the physical layer with problems at the application layer.

TCP's handling of re-transmits is entirely unseen by the application.

Any needed re-ordering is handled by the TCP stack, way down there on the Transport layer.and any competent TCP Stack will handle this for you without the need of excessive buffering. You will never know it happened.

The algorithms employed for assuring proper order delivery by the transport layer of the TCP stack have steadily evolved over the years. There are some summaries of the various methods that have been tried. The interesting thing about this is that out-of-order detection and re-ordering methods can and have evolved separately from the upper layers over time, as they requiring only an agreement on the control packets involved (ACCs). As a result some routers use totally different detection and re-ordering strategies than others.

As an applications programmer, you never have to worry about the order or missing data. It will be there or the link has failed.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

Sure, but that system was built out with national monopoly pricing (and even then, a guaranteed circuit - a "dedicated line" wasn't cheap). All I'm saying is that it gets quite expensive when you start getting the chance of congestion close to 0, and saying "customers who don't care about occasional congestion should pay a lot more for a basic utility just so we can avoid solving hard regulatory problems" seems misguided.

Cheap oversubscribed networks with occasional congestion and proper throttling are a good product. I can see the argument that "but they aren't cheap because of ISP monopolies, so force the ISPs to deliver a more costly product", but my whole point is: the FCC will never achieve that.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

I see this sort of argument a lot. "In an ideal world with well-written regulation, our lives would be better by regulating X, therefore in this world let's regulate X.", usually by people who are complaining about corruption and corporations writing regulations in their previous post.

Is it mathematically possible to write such regs? Maybe. Is it possible for the actual FCC we have to write such regs? No. It's not simple to regulate, so they'll get it wrong, just like they so recently did.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[Samantha Wright]

I'm not talking about invisible hands, just contentment amongst the devious men of whom you speak. Suitable motivations include threats of violence, communism, etc.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[knightghost]

That complexity creates obfuscation which creates holes to take advantage of. That's abused far more in the real world.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[bkcallahan]

"No? Because that is how netflix is being "throttled" today. They just don't have a large enough pipe to them to satisfy all the requests."

That's a straw man at best; Netflix has offered to install servers inside their network for exactly that reason.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[MBGMorden]

Depends on what small gains you wish to prioritize. You claim that driving more conservatively you save money and get to the same destination with a negligible difference in time.

By the same token, there's a lot of people that are going to view your savings in gas as negligible. Its not likely to literally affect your quality of life.

You arrived within seconds of her. She arrived within pennies of you.

FWIW my car (a 2006 Hyundai Tiburon) is rated at 19 MPG city and 27 MPG highway, but not going out of my way I still get over 30MPG from it.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[icebike]

I agree about the end-point router being probably the best place to apply traffic prioritization (if such is required). Doesn't mean it would work though.

Getting the other end of that connection to play along is problematic. Just because you set priority on a particular traffic type, doesn't mean they will do the same. Do-able if you control both sides, but since most traffic is downloads (to the end user), the most you can do is prioritize your ACKs. The arriving traffic is going to be prioritized by the originating end, and every Tom, Dick and Harry running a router between the two end points.

TCP works fine for voice.

I use a lot of SIP connections because I collaborate with people overseas, and SIP is easy to set up, (clients for every platform), and free accounts are easy to come by. (Why should I pay a Telco when a sip connection from here to Argentina is totally free, crystal clear, and drop dead simple?)

Some of the best services, free or paid, offer TCP connections, and they are astoundingly stable, clear, and high quality.
Given a choice I always use a TCP connection. UDP will suffer noticeable drop outs, occasionally making it unusable while the same endpoints can switch to a provider that supports TCP and it is rock solid..

This old saw that TCP does not work for voice is simply false, and always has been false. Voice is not that demanding. (It really isn't, the bandwidth needs are not that great), And with newer codecs, bandwidth needs are further reduced, while quality never gets as bad as dial-up.

Really, you should try it out some time with a long distance friend. Go for a client and a provider that offers TCP SIP connections, set your client to ONLY use TCP, and you will forget all this nonsense that voice can't use TCP.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[KingMotley]

Seriously, learn what a straw man defense is, and then go away.

Re: Could we be so lucky?

[KingMotley]

Thank you halltk. So tired of hearing how something PROVES something when they don't even understand the basics of how the Internet even works.

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[mgcarley]

There are some entities (peering exchanges) which require this already: if your pipe has a CBR of over 80 or 85% they require you to upgrade. In some countries (like India), it's even mandated in one of the various regulations (along with many other things which providers in that country will quite happily flout or ignore).

Re:Could we be so lucky?

[lgw]

My point of course, was that simple regs don't work (because the FCC isn't smart enough to find the right ones), and complex regs don't work (because they never do). Net Neutrality is a laudable goal, but a seemingly impractical one.

No throttling? Shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many times I want to throttle AT&T and with these proposed regulations, I won't be able to do it?!

NO! We must preserve out right to throttle these people!!

Re:No throttling? Shit!

[Anubis IV]

IANAL, but in skimming the article and the statement by the FCC chief, I don't see any mention of throttling. ISPs won't be allowed to block traffic outright, but there didn't appear to be any language about throttling it down if they refused to pay, though I assume that the new transparency rules are designed to discourage that sort of behavior.

I.e. You're still free to throttle them, just as much as it sounds like they're free to throttle Netflix.

Not imposing common carrier status

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine there are some legal reasons for not invoking common carrier status for ISPs, legal reasons that will sound like bullshit to everyone not in possession of billions of dollars.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Attila Dimedici]

It sounds to me like the ISPs position is that if they are going to be subject to net neutrality, they want the whole ball of wax of being a common carrier. On the other hand, the FCC does not want to call them common carriers. It would be interesting to see why the FCC does not want to call them common carriers, since the judge flat out told them that the only way they can legally regulate "net neutrality" is if they change their classification of ISPs to common carrier.
It looks to me like the FCC's plan here is to keep massaging these rules and re-issuing them until the ISPs decide they cannot afford to keep going back to court over it.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[suutar]

If I recall, the main reason is that Congress explicitly said "ISPs will not be classified as common carriers." The ruling that caused all this is based on the idea "if congress said they're not going to be common carriers you can't make rules that effectively turn them into common carriers."

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

There are reason, but I'm not sure I can agree that we shouldn't.

HOWEVER, if you want to give common carrier status to ISP's there are going to have to be some technical limits imposed first on what an ISP can actually do that's under common carrier rules, and second, what an ISP cannot do with the traffic it routes.

FIRST, you have to limit common carrier to ONLY the data transmission part of the business. If it is not *directly* shoveling TCP packets from point A to point B it needs to be OUTSIDE of the common carrier rules. Any kind of "store and forward" system, where data is not just being buffered for retransmission will not fall under common carrier rules. So your web proxy, E-mail relay and Web Servers are out but your routers and switches are in.

SECOND, you have to have a demarcation point where common carrier rules cease to apply when data enters customer premises. Once the data enters the system through a demarcation point, it must be handled like any other data in the system and cannot be monitored (without a warrant) or disrupted on it's way out of another demarcation point. ISP's cannot monitor or manage traffic based on the type it is or where it is going. They must just route it.

But I'm not so sure this is a good idea. It releases the ISP from ALL liability for the data they carry at the same time it imposes free passage of the data. People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse. They might not be able to TOS you, but they won't be able to TOS the idiot next door either.

The FCC had better think carefully about declaring ISP's common carriers or there will be some nasty side effects I'm not sure any of us will like.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[mrchaotica]

It sounds to me like the ISPs position is that if they are going to be subject to net neutrality, they want the whole ball of wax of being a common carrier.

ISPs don't want to be common carriers. The reason given in the link is of course bullshit; the real reason is that being classified as common carriers would force them to divest themselves of their (relatively lucrative) content business.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Col. Klink (retired)]

No, I think it was the commission themselves, not Congress, that classified them as an "information service" when they COULD have called them a "telecommunications service." However, it is within the FCC's power to reclassify them and they don't need approval from Congress.

The court told the FCC:

Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.

Basically, the court just told the FCC that if they want to treat them as common carriers, all they have to do is classify them properly.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Somebody Is Using My]

Thank you for that link; it was quite amusing.

I like this one:

"But common carrier regulation discourages infrastructure investment and network enhancement"

Because the telecoms have been doing so much of that otherwise. That's why I'm still stuck with the option of either using a 5Mbs cable line or a 2Mbs DSL line. It's all that infrastructure they've been investing so much in.

Or:

“It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

Actually, it is true in 1996 - when the above was written - there was a vibrant and competitive free market; there were dozens of ISPs to chose from. Oddly enough, after the 1996 Telecom Act was passed, consumer options started dwindling away.

Or:

"Nothing in the court’s decision will change the basic incentives of service providers to offer consumers capabilities that meet all of their ever-increasing needs.”

Except running their own servers, or slowing down downloads that compete with ISPs own content delivery, or double-dip charges to keep competitors' prices unfairly high. A competitive free market might have allowed that sort of thing, but when there are only a handful of companies working in collusion with one another, none of them have any incentive to keep prices down and offer different services.

"When a company’s return on investment is dictated by the government, there’s little incentive to re-invent or improve the system, which is why copper phone lines are still prevalent, water main breaks are an all-too-common occurrence, and the electric grid is in need of serious repair."

Odd, my Internet goes down more often than all of those COMBINED. Probably caused by all those backhoes repairing waterlines and downed power-cables...

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[jythie]

Even if there were no legal reasons, common carrier has become political kryptonite lately. I am not sure who started the rewrite, but the idea that we only have monopolies because of the government has been catching on like wildfire esp over the last few months, thus under that concept moving ISPs to common carrier status would destroy the market or something, despite history not actually supporting the idea.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Overzeetop]

If there was ever a good reason FOR making them common carriers, I'm going to say that content divestiture is it!

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Stormy Dragon]

It would be interesting to see why the FCC does not want to call them common carriers, since the judge flat out told them that the only way they can legally regulate "net neutrality" is if they change their classification of ISPs to common carrier.

As common carriers, the ISPs would have zero liability for the content of traffic they handle, which would upset politically powerful lobbies like the RIAA.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[RLaager]

I'm pretty sure if you try to disrupt the telephone network, the phone company has every right to disconnect you or take other measures. I don't see how the ISP side should be any different. FWIW, I work for a small, rural, independent telephone company that also provides Internet.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Bengie]

People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse.

There is a huge difference between managing your network and snooping on peoples traffic. Network diagnosing and troubleshooting would not be limited. An ISP running snort on a network is not an issue, but an ISP trying to classify your data streams and manipulating them for profit is an issue. Any legal traffic should be left unfettered, but detecting and responding to illegal or malicious traffic is normal operations.

Otherwise, that you're saying is something analogous to a public park not able to kick someone out because they pose a threat. If someone is chasing people around with a knife, you don't just go "well, it's a public place". It also means you can still have police at public parks. An ISP that monitors their network is like a park with police, and someone doing something disruptive is like that crazy man chasing people around with a weapon.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[vux984]

People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can

No. Just no. Just as you are not allowed to disrupt the landline telephone network.

The telephone company is free to monitor all sorts of performance metrics about its landline operations to ensure smooth functioning. And it is free to disconnect any connection that attempting to disrupt the network.

So your web proxy, E-mail relay and Web Servers are out but your routers and switches are in.

Again not sure why. I do not want the ISP liable for the contents of my email messages, nor do I want them inspecting them out of some fear that they will be held liable. That is as it should be. If I get a death threat by email, I don't sue my ISP, nor should I be able to sue them, simply for delivering it.

And excluding web proxy's is foolish since MANY ISPs run web proxies for performance reasons... no point in having 10 million people download the same file from microsoft.com when the isp can download it once, cache it, and serve it.

And again, I do not want the ISP to be in any way liable for the contents of the proxy. If someone downloads illegal child porn I don't want the ISP sued into oblivion for caching it in their proxy, nor do I want the ISP inspecting and judging my traffic to ensure nothing they don't want to be held account for ending up in their caches.

Frankly I want the ISP absolved of all liabilty for that stuff, and at the same time actively prevented from trying to mess with it for any reason except to improve performance, and mitigate active disruption. Note that "Illegal traffic" is orthogonal to "disruptive traffic" just like death threat phone calls, which are illegal, but are not disruptive to the network.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[Gryle]

Actually the FCC tried to reclassify ISPs as common carriers in 2010. There was a partial vacuum created in the ISP buildings as their lobbyists vacated the premises at record speeds in a race to Congress to bribe, er petition, their pet congresscritter to put pressure on the FCC until it decided to leave things alone. (I can't find the original story but it's been referenced in several stories about the JAN2014 debacle) In all likelihood the FCC is trying to figure out ways around the reclassification scheme since it blew up in their face last time.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[AK Marc]

The Post Office is a common carrier, yet can still monitor service and terminate abusive/illegal service.

I think the problem is people don't agree on a definition of "common carrier".

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

I'm not sure how you can disrupt a phone network from a POTS line, but I suppose you are correct.

Problem is, as I understand "common carrier", you cannot monitor content (i.e. listen to the call or open the letter). You must transmit it from one place to another though your network. So as a carrier, you really cannot look at anything beyond the TCP/IP headers needed to route the packets. The content of the packets is off limits. This opens up ways to abuse the network and other users which the carrier will not be able to monitor or control. Which is totally a different thing than abusing your POTS line.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

What you describe is "net neutrality" rules and NOT common carrier rules. Carriers cannot monitor content for management purposes in common carrier status. All they can look at is the TCP/IP headers used to route the packets, so there will be severe limits on what you can look at in wire-shark or snort.

Think phone company. They can look at the parameters of the call you make, from where is it dialed, who gets billed, where is it going and when the call starts and ends, but they are not monitoring what you say, and it is illegal to do so. They are required to carry the call put into their system, no questions asked.

So if an ISP is a common carrier, they will have zero options for monitoring and managing the data flow in their networks. They will have to carry the packet from the entry point, until it exits their system, without bias or disruption. They will not be allowed to look at content or manage traffic flows like they do now.

Can they dump you for excessive bandwidth? Yep. But they won't have the option to TOS abusive behavior like they do now.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

The post office? Really? Not a bad example.

The post office is only allowed to look at the addresses on the letter and verify that the postage has been paid. Under normal circumstances, they cannot open your letters and read them while they are in transit. Once the letter is in the system with valid postage, they just deliver it.

So an ISP would be in the same boat. All they can look at are the packet headers as it routes though the network, they cannot view the payload. All they do is route and deliver the packet to the destination.

Like the post office, an ISP will have no way to know if the traffic they carry is legal or not, nor will they care. Part of being a common carrier means that you are not responsible for the content you carry. If two criminals use the phone to plan and execute a crime, the phone company is not liable by virtue of being a common carrier. So an ISP as a common carrier will have zero liability in crimes committed by their customers, do you think they will care? As long as the criminal pays his bill and stays within the bandwidth limits, what are they going to do? Nothing, at least without a warrant.

The post office *cannot* monitor the content of what they deliver. They can and do manage *volume* in their networks, but never content. They have rules on what mail they will accept, how much it costs in what format, but if you meet their rules, they take your letter and deliver it, regardless of the content. To monitor content flowing though the post office requires a warrant, in the case of a common carrier ISP the rule will be the same. Common Carrier ISP's can manage volume (i.e. put bandwidth limits on users) but they *cannot* monitor content.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[grahamm]

But they can treat different packets differently in the same way as the Post Office handles letter and parcels differently.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[AK Marc]

The USPS can charge different rates depending on who you are. Pre-sorted and not - special rates to some special package senders, Netflix and the like. Junk mail is charged at a vastly different rates than First Class. The USPS allows different classes based on the amount paid. The content is managed, even if only based on the sender. The USPS uses drug dogs and scanners to divine the contents. So yes, the content matters.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

But they can treat different packets differently in the same way as the Post Office handles letter and parcels differently.

Based on what? The packet size, port numbers and IP addresses?

Isn't that the whole point here? That the FCC doesn't want ISP's to have the right to filter or load shape certain content that originates or is destine to specific providers and customers? If we let them filter on port and/or IP addresses, you don't have what the FCC is trying to do.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[bobbied]

Which is NOT what the FCC wants from ISP's. There can be no "most favored packet" routes based on who is sending or receiving the packet. So Netflix packets get no special priority (positive or negative). ISP's won't be able to throttle, manage or shape data flowing in their networks. All they can do is route packets without respect for who they come from, where they are going or what they contain.

Re:Not imposing common carrier status

[AK Marc]

Right, which is why "common carrier" as currently defined is likely *not* what we want from the Internet. The USPS gives special treatment based on sender, and is a common carrier. So why not keep them as an information service, and change the rules to prohibit anti-competitive behavior?

After all, that's what this is really about, abusing the customer or competitors to increase profits. That should be illegal, and "net neutrality" should be the rules around those illegally abusive tactics done by ISPs.

Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[AlphaBravoCharlie]

That's what NetFlix, Hula, and anyone else should be suing ComCast and Verizon for.

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[mjm1231]

It's less complicated than that. If you are a Verizon or Comcast customer, you are paying for internet access, and you aren't getting it. Why hasn't there been a class action suit?

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[mrchaotica]

Because Verizon and Comcast customers are subject to binding arbitration. (Hey if they don't like it, they can always refuse and use one of the [nonexistent] other ISPs instead, so what's the problem?)

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[swb]

I agree in principal with you, but I'd guess it's the constellation of asterisks that come next to advertised bandwidth which are attached to all manner of limitations and constraints that may prevent you from getting the bandwidth you think you're buying, along with some kind of magical hand-waving about how they can't promise you a specific bandwidth to any particular site on the internet due to all manner of network engineering limitations.

If consumer connections had a SLA attached to them they would have a claim, but as of now the claim isn't really a contractual one, it's more of a moral one based on the vendor claiming to sell X but delivering less than X.

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[i kan reed]

I've been beginning to feel arbitration courts are a fundamental violation of my rights as protected by the 5th-8th amendments in a fundamental way and should be physically destroyed.

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[mrchaotica]

"Beginning to?!"

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[Bengie]

Yes, fraud is a moral issue. Not often you get to pay "up to" the amount on the sticker, then randomly decide that some products are worth less to you, so you may pay a small fraction of what you think it's worth.

An ISP is free to oversubscribe, but as soon as they push it to its limit and it starts to affect the end user, then the ISP is at fault for not being able to actually provide what they're selling. As long as the customer's traffic is on their ISP's network, the traffic should not be degraded.

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[Obfuscant]

I've been beginning to feel arbitration courts are a fundamental violation of my rights as protected by the 5th-8th amendments in a fundamental way and should be physically destroyed.

It's a private contract between two consenting entities. You agreed to it. It's not the government stepping on your rights, it's you waiving them voluntarily. It's like you waiving your right to "free speech" when you walk into a movie theater. OMG, the horror, I can't stand up and speechify in the middle of a movie! Those corrupt bastard movie theater owners are trampling on the First Amendment.

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[antdude]

Hula = http://www.hula.com/ :P

Re:Can you spell Restraint Of Trade?

[i kan reed]

My number one reason I hate free market absolutist types: they think contracts are magical and always negotiated on equitable terms.

I'm Sorry. I have ZERO faith in government.

[denis-The-menace]

I'll believe it only if it survives the many lawsuits that will come from the corps.

All this translate to in my mind is:
        "Yo, corps. That last cheque is not gonna cut it."

Re:Totally out of control administration

[Anonymous Coward]

So getting slapped down in court means they'll do it anyway?

Imagine your thoughts if teh evul BOOOOSH!!!! was President and his FCC did this.

Greetings Sir and or Madam!

It appears you would benefit from my latest and greatest invention, the auto-panty-unbuncher! I know in today's troubling times with so many of your own 'citizens' trying to bring down the government you've worked so hard to mold into a gibbering theocracy, it can be stressful to think they just might succeed! So for you, proudly built this new device, which, in the heat of a conversation will automatically unbunch your panties for you! I've even put in a system to undo the wedgies that might result should you actually need it as well!

Love

Aunt Tom

But what about caching systems?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I've heard that Netflix has a caching server that it will happy colocate in the ISP's sites, so that Netflix customers can get good streaming quality without the ISP incurring massive traffic back to Netflix's CDN(s).

Now suppose I start my own company that competes against Netflix's streaming service. Is the ISP "throttling" if they accept Netflix's cache server in their network nodes, but won't accept mine? Or what if there are 10,000 would-be Netflix competitors - do all ISP's have to host 10,000 cache servers, all on the same terms?

Re:But what about caching systems?

[The Rizz]

These aren't the same thing at all; if someone has something on an internal network, it'll be faster just by virtue of how the internet works. It's the option of artificially slowing down some traffic that is the issue.

Re:But what about caching systems?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Right, but my point was that the ISP can still do things that favor one site's performance over another, even if they're not throttling.

Re:But what about caching systems?

[drinkypoo]

And his point, I'm guessing, is that they should be and will be able to do those things. Oversubscription is a separate issue and should be handled as such.

Re:But what about caching systems?

[WaffleMonster]

Now suppose I start my own company that competes against Netflix's streaming service. Is the ISP "throttling" if they accept Netflix's cache server in their network nodes, but won't accept mine?

Nope.

Or what if there are 10,000 would-be Netflix competitors - do all ISP's have to host 10,000 cache servers, all on the same terms?

ISPs want CDN servers because it lowers their costs. The same way mutually beneficial peering arrangements lowers costs. If you operate a service nobody uses no ISP will want your servers. The space they take up is not cost effective.

It has nothing to do with "blocking" or preferential treatment of packets from sources your in cahoots with.

Re:But what about caching systems?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I agree. But my point is that the public and activists are perhaps barking up the wrong tree when they focus on just packet throttling. I.e., they should maybe be focusing on anything that an ISP can do to favor one content provider over another, even if the mechanism is something other than packet throttling.

Net Neutrality == useless proxy war

[Anonymous Coward]

"Net neutrality" is nothing more than a proxy war being fought over how to apportion the profits being made by huge corporations on internet traffic.

On one side, supported by Democrats, are Google, Hollywood, and other content providers. On the other, supported by Republicans, we have infrastructure owners.

Nowhere do I see where "we the people" are going to benefit from government intervention here.

So please, stop drinking the "Net Neutrality for the PEOPLE" Koolaid. Cuz you ain't the people who stand to benefit.

Re:Net Neutrality == useless proxy war

[geminidomino]

Nowhere do I see where "we the people" are going to benefit from government intervention here.

Then you either lack the technical acumen to understand the issues at play here, or you have even weaker foresight than the average MBA.

and what about slow internet pipes?

[alen]

no one has to throttle netflix or anyone else since the outgoing pipes on most ISP's can't handle all the traffic
the big money guys buy CDN and special private circuits into the ISP's network dedicated to their traffic
the little guys cry network neutrality

you can pass NN, but until you force the ISP's to allow CDN's of their competition or force them into allowing private circuits its just a piece of paper

No throttling - impossible dream

[misnohmer]

Wherever there are finite bandwidth connections, there will always be throttling. Whether the throttling occurs based on type of traffic, end user limits, or "naturally" sort itself out via TCP or other protocols, throttling will occur as the bottlenecks fill up. If the carriers will not be allowed to do any throttling based on traffic type/source/etc, then the guy that decides to run a p2p file server will have his 500 connections open while your measly 1 netflix connection will get drowned out, as the "natural TCP throttling" tends to divide the bandwidth equally per connection (not per user). Then people will complain about the quality of service, but it will be neutral. What people are really wanting here is "don't throttle me", but that obviously cannot be satisfied for all users.

On the other hand, the providers can implement another type of throttling - financial. Once they start charging you for bandwidth used, folks considering watching a netflix movie for $x per show may start throttling themselves.

Re:No throttling - impossible dream

[wile_e8]

Strawman - this isn't about "don't throttle me", this is about "don't throttle me while letting the other guys doing that same thing as me go because they paid you $millions". Capacity is finite (although it would be nice if they put all those profits into improving that), but as long as they don't discriminate based on the source there should be fair competition between startups and entrenched services.

Re:No throttling - impossible dream

[WaffleMonster]

Wherever there are finite bandwidth connections, there will always be throttling. Whether the throttling occurs based on type of traffic, end user limits, or "naturally" sort itself out via TCP or other protocols, throttling will occur as the bottlenecks fill up. If the carriers will not be allowed to do any throttling based on traffic type/source/etc, then the guy that decides to run a p2p file server will have his 500 connections open while your measly 1 netflix connection will get drowned out, as the "natural TCP throttling" tends to divide the bandwidth equally per connection (not per user).

Give policy peeps some credit they are well aware of the difference between network management and throttling shenanigans. Simply put application of "network management" preferentially is the issue rather than management itself.

If content wants to play games by nerfing congestion algorithms for competitive advantage this is separate issue from the typical eyeball network which will simply forward whatever it gets subject to local constraints/queue management.

I agree with the sentiment people get sad when their streaming service lags and tend to automatically jump on conspiracy bandwagons both real and imagined as explanation. Thankfully while hearsay may act to promote change in regulatory environment it has no place with respect to enforcement.

Re:No throttling - impossible dream

[misnohmer]

WaffleMonster, I believe you hit the nail on the head - the key is differentiate between bandwidth management and discrimination or preferential treatment. The problem will be how to clearly draw the line between them. If an ISP will start throttling higher bandwidth streams, such as video, before it starts throttling low bandwidth voice calls, some will see is as discrimination, while it may simply be "keep the most customers happy" policy, which prioritizes low bandwidth stream. If an ISP starts throttling p2p downloads so that other customers can stream netflix, p2p operators will scream discrimination, or conspiracy theorist will infer ISP is in bed with Netflix. So while I agree that ISP's that get special status from the government (any company that the government will force me to allow them to dig through my yard, a.k.a. easements) should be regulated by the government and prevented from unfair business related throttling, I think the problem will be clearly defining what that is and then proving it if it occurs. I have in my previous lifetime worked in network management on private links between company offices and such, and believe me, I've never seen a way to throttle that everyone will perceive as fair. Someone will always scream foul. I don't know what a complete solution is to this problem, but one thing that comes to mind is there should never be any throttling occurring unless the connection is close to full (though how you define that is up for debate).

Re:No throttling - impossible dream

[misnohmer]

Having spent time setting up bandwidth management policies (for private companies, not public ISP access) I have to tell you it isn't as straightforward as it seems. Your first and biggest issue is how to recognize applications. Encryption makes it orders of magnitude harder, not to say that without it's easy. Filtering based on source is often the most reliable way to identify traffic type. Second problem will be identifying what traffic can be throttled - some video applications (e.g. Netflix) will automatically lower bitrate when throttled, others do not. ISP may choose to throttle netflix first because they know it will not affect customer experience as much as throttling another video service that does not support lower rates. Then someone will scream that is discrimination against Netflix, So let's say that by some miracle technology you could distinguish video from other streaming, then what? If you throttle everyone equally, then you are putting the service that does not have dynamic bitrate at a disadvantage - you know, what small startup that doesn't have the resources to develop or license such a dynamic streaming agorithm - again, discrimination. So sadly, your bright line will get really fuzzy really quick.

Just make them common carriers already

[jonwil]

Making Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobile, Sprint, T-Mobile, Time Warner and all the other ISPs common carriers will make it illegal to do any of the BS they have been doing lately and solve the problem once and for all.

Heck, it might even make it illegal for ISPs to continue with the "copyright alert system".

Re:Just make them common carriers already

[JoeDaddyZZZ]

Agreed, wire company or media company, but not both. Make the wire a utility.

Re:Just make them common carriers already

[denis-The-menace]

but the profits! Please no!

Netflix slowdown may be coincidental.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

From the article:

A likely explanation for recent slowdowns is that Netflix usage went up, but peering and transit bandwidth didn't. Verizon and Comcast also haven't joined Netflix's "Open Connect" content delivery network, which can improve Netflix performance by placing video caches closer to customers.

After this story published, one commenter pointed out that the declines in performance came after Netflix started delivering its so-called "Super HD" and 3D video to all customers, even those whose ISPs are not members of Open Connect. This may have increased the traffic load.

Things could get worse for Verizon customers. While Comcast is still bound to follow the FCC's net neutrality rules due to conditions placed on its merger with NBCUniversal, Verizon is under no such obligation...

Both companies are slow to upgrade their peering infrastructure and they both have been in disputes with bandwidth providers over compensation (eg. Level3). Net neutrality never applied in these two cases.

Re:Netflix slowdown may be coincidental.

[Tailhook]

In my case Netflix performance problems (via Comcast) were certainly happening before the ruling. 18 months ago Netflix was responsive; video started quickly and never stalled during play. During the last year there is usually at least one interruption during any given hour when the steam runs dry. It hasn't gotten noticeably worse since the ruling. Claims that the ruling created these problems seem like hysteria to me.

As for the "Super HD" and 3D video theory; that seems plausible. It seems like it's Netflix servers that struggle, as opposed to network congestion; streams stall and then suddenly recover and work fine as if their system is overloaded and shifts clients to usable capacity.

If high definition video is a contributor then this is self inflicted and deeply stupid. Cord cutters aren't trying to improve their media fidelity. Why compromise the performance of your service by overloading your system with HD content when your customer has already proven to be largely indifferent to HD? In all likelyhood the typical Netflix subscriber is the same person that still hasn't bothered to get a Blu-ray player.

That's certainly true in my case. A name-brand blu-ray is what? $50-100? It's not like I can't afford it. I could have a tower of the things if I wanted. I just don't care.

throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I download

[Nyder]

You want to play unfair? Well, Comcast, guess what? I can download what I want at a better quality then you can offer, so no need for your cable. Oh, you don't like people using Netflix? Well, fuck you then, I'll just download off usenet and torrents (via a vpn).

Quit being stupid greedy fucks. Forcing me to use your services by fucking with everyone else's services isn't stupid and very short sited. I might currently have to use your internet, but enough people are getting sick of bullshit that you pull and are doing stuff about it. And for the record, I will not use your services, ie, Cable TV/Internet Phone mainly because you pull bullshit all the time. Plus you are way too expensive for the quality and services you provide.

The REAL good news

[DigitalSorceress]

So, when the FCC re-rules ISPs as Common Carriers, the real good news is that means that 6 strikes rules and other copyright stuff is out the window... after all, a big part of common carrier status is taht you are exempt from having any responsibility for controlling the content you're carrying - so you can't be sued by a copyright owner because user susy q used your infrastructure to share/copy movie x.

(Ok, so I bet they still WILL do crap like that because they're so far in bed with copyright owners... HHHMMM COMCAST/NBC? but it would be nice to stop them having their cake and eating it too... one can dream)

I really am happy that the FCC and the Obama administration "get it" - the Internet has become vital to our economy and a free, fair, open Internet is key to innovation and continued growth. If the 'net were allowed to become an expensive toll road, it would only feed the pockets of the already wealthy whilst simultaneously raising the barrier to entry for anything new/innovative.

Well thats a good thing as it will...

[3seas]

... stop the US from slipping further down the drain of internet quality. Adn the US is far from the top as it is.

Re:Totally out of control administration

[bigpat]

So getting slapped down in court means they'll do it anyway?

The judge actually ruled that they could impose net neutrality, but only if they first labeled the companies as common carriers... which they most certainly are. All along the FCC should have been regulating these Internet network providers as telecommunication services and not merely as "Information Services". That designation made sense when companies like AOL were providing "Information Services" over existing telephone wires and thousands of ISPs were setting up shop with modem banks that used existing telecommunications networks for their communications, but it was always the case that the underlying infrastructure that connected these ISPs and connected the ISPs to the customers was regulated as a common carrier. Fast forward twenty years and we don't really have ISPs in the 1990s sense, at least not ones that are separate from the telecoms anymore.

Re:Ain't my panties in a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! If you wish, I can also sell you a pair of glasses that make Obama look like any ethnicity you're comfortable with?

Love

Aunt Tom

Netflix Throttling?

[gameboyhippo]

I called AT&T about this and they blamed Netflix. I don't know what the truth is. I can stream Amazon in HD fine most days, but even with an 18Meg pipe, Netflix looks like garbage. Hopefully when Google comes to town this year, I can finally get rid of AT&T.

Re:Netflix Throttling?

[jeffmflanagan]

> I can stream Amazon in HD fine most days, but even with an 18Meg pipe, Netflix looks like garbage.

I wonder if Netflix is currently over-utilized due to the recent House of Cards season 2 release. I know I'm using it more than usual, and the video quality while watching House of Cards is worse than even standard-def TV.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[ArbitraryName]

You want to play unfair? Well, Comcast, guess what? I can download what I want at a better quality then you can offer, so no need for your cable. Oh, you don't like people using Netflix? Well, fuck you then, I'll just download off usenet and torrents (via a vpn).

You understand that's not sustainable, right? Only so many people can cancel cable and go internet only before internet prices increase and speed drops.

Rule changes are ephemeral

[Nimey]

Obama's hands are tied because the Republicans will reflexively obstruct if he tries to get this through Congress, but the real problem with doing this via FCC rule change is that as soon as a Republican gets elected President network neutrality goes out the window.

Re:Rule changes are ephemeral

[rsborg]

Obama's hands are tied because the Republicans will reflexively obstruct if he tries to get this through Congress, but the real problem with doing this via FCC rule change is that as soon as a Republican gets elected President network neutrality goes out the window.

The obvious follow through is to prevent any Republican from becoming President if you value the internet not reverting back into pay-for-access cable TV. The democrats aren't much better, but at least they pay lip-service to non-conservative causes.

say'n and doin

[fluffythdestroy]

Saying a one thing but doing it is another thing. All I know is that lobbyist are very strong here since netflix and comcast generates huge loads of money. I don't think Comcast is ready to give up the attacks but this is a good day for net neutrality.

So it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of the cable companies, I'll say that straight out.

The FCC really, really wants to be able to regulate the Internet. They're doing this in the name of "net neutrality" right now. This is the same ruse that was used in Great Britain. They'll end up using this to regulate what we can put on the Internet. Hell, the FCC regulates what you can put on the public airways now in broadcast TV. What makes you think they won't do the same thing on the Internet?

For more info on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

Anyway, considering who's in charge of the RIAA and who's in charge of the movie industry lobby, there's reason to be concerned.

There's got to be a better way. We sure as hell shouldn't leave it up to the FCC or the cable companies.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[drinkypoo]

You understand that's not sustainable, right? Only so many people can cancel cable and go internet only before internet prices increase and speed drops.

Only so many people can cancel cable and go internet before the mainstream cable companies lose their dominance, because without their media empires they have to compete on a level playing field.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Municipal Broadband Saber Rattling?

[Bob9113]

The statement reads to me a lot like saber rattling. He basically says, "Remain neutral voluntarily, and don't challenge this next round of rules, or I will make you common carriers." That seems like an interesting approach. Mostly it kicks the can down the road, which is unfortunate since the cable and telco lobbies won't stop trying, but it does seem like it'll get the job done for now at least.

The last bullet point caught my attention:

6. Enhance competition. The Commission will look for opportunities to enhance Internet access competition. One obvious candidate for close examination was raised in Judge Silberman's separate opinion, namely legal restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer broadband services to consumers in their communities.

So is he saying, "Cut the crap with local ordinances prohibiting competition"? If so, big props to him. There are natural barriers to having sufficient competition for an efficient free market even under ideal conditions, but at least removing the fiat barriers would be nice.

Also: Beta is not an efficient interface for the primary authors of Slashdot's traffic generating content. Lean, static, and dense must remain a comment UI option or a big chunk of your content will disappear.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[alen]

you are probably doing comcast a favor
torrenting a show once and then watching it from your local copy is better for them than streaming the same show multiple times from netflix

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[jxander]

True, but at least this would force some action.

Right now, the prices of Cable TV (content) vs Cable Internet (connectivity) are artificially linked, inflated and imbalanced. Let them split off and see how the "free market" reacts. If it means cable internet prices skyrocket, at least it might spark some genuine competition.

Business Opportunity?

[msmonroe]

This just seems like even net neutrality is no upheld and eventually struck down this will create a huge opportunity for some start-up to come in and offer non-throttled fiber; which will shoot Comcast, Verizon, ATT in the foot with their plans to control the internet and reap huge profits. I know it's a huge investment probably a billion dollars but the cable is owned by communities that they run into; in theory anyone can rent them. Seems like google already has this idea in mind for the future. I think Comcast, Verizon, ATT are only thinking about trying to keep the status quo which must deter cord cutters and try and stay with their present business models. I always argue with my friends that business is like a living organism; when the climate changes it must evolve aggressively or die; most die. I think Comcast, Verizon, ATT must aggressively either find or create a new business niche to survive; they are presently trying desperately to fight against change. I am sure it is a futile move on their part.

Re:Business Opportunity?

[globaljustin]

sock puppet alert

Re:Business Opportunity?

[msmonroe]

sock puppet alert

awesome!

Re:Business Opportunity?

[globaljustin]

yeah i may have spoken too soon...upon a second read of your comment you seem real

I agree that it was Teleco's failure to innovate & think beyond quarterly profits that caused all of this...I don't think a competitor can just 'hook up fiber' and knock sense into the Teleco's with competition. In labratory settings, **maybe** but this is the real world and there are ***severe*** barriers to entry to a startup Teleco that could nationally challenge Comcast or Verizon.

This isn't economics class. The real world is an Oligopoly in most industries here in America. High barriers to new businesses. Very high. Artificially high thnx to lobbyists.

Teleco's have a monopoly. You can't choose between Verizon or AT&T for your home internet service. You get one hardline option.

It's a state-controlled monopoly...which makes AT&T and Comcast essentially like a company in Nazi germany or Soviet Russia. Either way. Same outcome!

This was my submission...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Everybody else's full-handle is used in their submissions (including people with SPACES and names 3-5x longer than mine) so why am I "Karl C" and not "Karl Cocknozzle?"

Truncating my last name is an insult to generations of Cocknozzles that have come before me.

Re:This was my submission...

[liquidsin]

I clicked your username to see if it shows on your page, and sure enough there's the submission, with your proper full name. I'm hoping Dick Butkus submits a story, just to see if it's changed to "Richard B". HEY DICK! YOU READING THIS?!

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[KingMotley]

Only if the same copy is watched more than once, otherwise, I suspect the torrent overhead is worse, much worse.

Best line

[CCarrot]

From (one of) TFA:

In a statement to the Washington Post, Verizon said it was investigating the report and that the customer rep was misinformed.

"We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed," the statement read. "Many factors can affect the speed of a customer’s experience for a specific site, including that site’s servers, the way the traffic is routed over the Internet and other considerations.
We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We’re going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic."

Here come the whips and chains...hate to be a Verizon rep right about now...

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[ArbitraryName]

Compete with who?

Yay!

[nurb432]

At least it sounds like we are heading the right direction. But since most federal actions have so many loopholes and hidden traps, ill be a bit reserved, but hopeful.

submitter (as usual) needs to learn English

[sribe]

"Throttling" is not the same as "blocking", therefore a ban on "blocking" is not the same thing as a ban on "throttling".

Re:submitter (as usual) needs to learn English

[Andhesaidtome]

Exactly. The article clearly states the goals as being no blocking, and transparency around traffic management. They will be able to throttle whatever traffic types /sources they want, they'll just have to be open about the fact that they do.

Re:Total prohibition of throttling?

[Bengie]

Provisioning != throttling

thanks Obama

[globaljustin]

I'm stoked for this news & I'm relieved that the new FCC chairman is not a bitch like Julius Janikowski

common carriage != censorship

[globaljustin]

your analogy is trolling...it's way off

the FCC is doing the right thing...common carriage principles go back to the early Postal Service in the US and it is a sound legal framework

only non-techs make the arguments you are making...

also, i love how you attempt to turn a conversation about a **good step** by Obama in regulating our Capitalist Big Brother into the opposite...

beware the above post is a full-on troll

Re:Why SHOULDN'T Netflix Pay?

[rotaryexpress]

Ummm...
Netflix doesn't get a free ride, they have to pay for outbound bandwidth on their side. You pay for inbound bandwidth on your side.

"I'm Sorry. I have ZERO ____"

[globaljustin]

I'll believe it only if it survives the many lawsuits that will come from the corps.

why did you bother to tell us this? if you wanted to discuss the in's and out's of 'common carriage' you would have...um...you know, mentioned it more than just a quick set up to accuse Obama of pulling a Chris Christie with Comcast (?)

by your sig it's obvious you're an Obama hater...so automatically you're going to look like a troll

you're position is that, yes this is the **right policy**, but somehow you're making the fact that Obama is attempting to go the direction YOU AGREE WITH but fail then therefore it's 'all bullshit'

or are you against net neutrality? which is it?

i have ZERO expectation that you'll ever make a comment edifying to this discussion

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[SirAudioMan]

We have the same problem here in Canada too. Depending on where you live you have your choice of either ONE cable company or ONE DSL company. Now, by law the huge common carriers have to be able to sell their bandwidth and services to 3rd party providers. For example where I live in Ontario I have Cogeco (which now owns Atlantic Broadband down in the US btw, I also used to work for them for several years). They offer the typical internet, tv and voip where they charge an arm and a leg for service. When I was working for them I got discounts/free service (taxable however) for all three services. So for $30/month I received 15:2 Mbps internet, unlimited telephone in North America, and a few hundred cable channels with about 30-40 being in HD. While the internet is actually pretty good and doesn't appear to be throttled (yet), the cable channel quality sucks balls! HD channels are garbage with heavy heavy compression and random dropouts.

Fast forward to about 8 months ago when I left the company. My entire bill went from about $30 to $300!!!!! I originally ditched the cable channels completely and moved to Netflix where the quality is much better. I also ditched their voip telephone and moved over to Voip.ms with my own ATA. I still use the interent which includes a 'generous' 125Gb datacap with a $1.50/Gb of overage. Last month I had $21 in overages charges.

The other day I decided to make a simple wire loop antenna for picking up over-the-air HD signals just to see what I could pick up for free. I live about 40km west of Toronto and am am about 50km from Buffalo, NY. The results are impressive as I can easily get approx 20-25 full HD channels, most from Toronto and a few from Buffalo, NY. I calculated that with a better antenna I will be able to receive all the major Canadian and American networks in full 19Mbps ATSC. Not only is it free but the OTA HD broadcast are far superior to the QAM HD channels offered by cable.

Cost of services with cable (after I left the company):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TV Channels, 250, but I only watched maybe 20-30 = $200/month
Unlimited Voip Telephone = $50/month
Internet, 15:2 Mbps with a 125 Gb Cap = $50
TOTAL: $300/month

Cost of what I have now:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TV Channels, 20-25 = $FREE and much better quality
Netflix = $8/month
Very cheap voip through Voip.ms = $3-5/month
Internet (same as above) = $65/month - I lost a bundle discount when I ditched tv and phone
TOTAL: $73/month

So by cord cutting I am saving a huge amount of money each month and basically have almost the same level of service as before. Sure I don't get Discovery or speciality channels like that but all that is on those channels is crappy reality TV anyhow. I do miss Nat Geo though :(

Mark

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[Gavagai80]

Not if it's one of the many shows Comcast owns, which Netflix pays them when you watch.

Re:I'll Be Over Here Holding My Breath

[ColdWetDog]

*dies*

It is an ill wind that blows nobody good.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[ArbitraryName]

If vast quantities of people dropped their cable TV subscriptions and instead downloaded or streamed video over their internet pipe speed wouldn't drop? That's an interesting assertion. You are saying that Comcast (for example) would be able to simultaneously lose a great deal of revenue and upgrade their internet pipe faster than customers were demanding it.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[ArbitraryName]

Torrents and Netflix are different ways of getting video over the internet. That's not what we're comparing. This is about comparing getting your video over the internet instead of getting it via cable TV.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Except

[koan]

The FCC doesn't have the authority.

Re:Federal judges

[koan]

Well that really depends on who is delivering the assfucking now doesn't it.

Split between guaranteed and best effort bandwidth

[tepples]

Then perhaps home users should be paying for two different allocations of bandwidth: one guaranteed allocation for steady streams, such as VoIP and online multiplayer gaming, and another larger best-effort fraction for burstier, less latency-sensitive applications such as web page viewing, downloads, streaming video on demand (with a 10-60 second buffer), and the like. People who run a lot of simultaneous video streams would want to book more guaranteed bandwidth.

Collusion and interference with a third ISP

[tepples]

It's a private contract between two consenting entities. You agreed to it. It's not the government stepping on your rights, it's you waiving them voluntarily.

If the government has allowed the duopoly ISPs to collude to introduce binding arbitration, and the government has forbidden anyone else from laying fiber to start a third ISP, then yes, the government is stepping on citizens' rights.

Re:Collusion and interference with a third ISP

[Obfuscant]

If the government has allowed the duopoly ISPs to collude to introduce binding arbitration,

Well, at least we're one step up from the automatic claim that they're all monopolies. How did the ISP "collude" me into agreeing to something I didn't want to? Guns?

and the government has forbidden anyone else from laying fiber to start a third ISP,

Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.

then yes, the government is stepping on citizens' rights.

I suppose you could claim that the government is suppressing your first amendment rights to free speech because it gave the bastard corrupt movie theater owner a building permit and a business license and he's "colluding" you into being quiet during the movie.

Re:Collusion and interference with a third ISP

[Bengie]

Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.

In many areas, an ISP cannot get right of way access without being a common carrier, which means cable or telcom. So yes, ISPs are not allowed to compete with telcom or cable companies on equal footing.

DOCSIS would compete with FiOS

[tepples]

DOCSIS ISPs would end up competing with the telco's FTTP network (such as FiOS in Verizon or formerly-Verizon territories).

Re:DOCSIS would compete with FiOS

[ArbitraryName]

They do that now. Nothing would change.

O(1) channels vs. O(n) VOD

[tepples]

Getting video over cable TV channels will always be cheaper than getting it on demand. Unlike Internet video and cable TV video on demand, cable TV channels are sent using the functional equivalent of multicast. All subscribers in a neighborhood receive a stream that the cable company sends once. Video on demand uses O(n) bandwidth for n viewers in a neighborhood; channels use O(1).

Re:O(1) channels vs. O(n) VOD

[ArbitraryName]

Getting video over cable TV channels will always be cheaper than getting it on demand.

Yes. That was the entire point.

Re:O(1) channels vs. O(n) VOD

[tepples]

There's one way around this: cache the most popular VODs right at the CMTS (DOCSIS counterpart to DSLAM).

Re:Split between guaranteed and best effort bandwi

[Obfuscant]

Then perhaps home users should be paying for two different allocations of bandwidth: one guaranteed allocation for steady streams, such as VoIP and online multiplayer gaming, and another larger best-effort fraction for burstier, less latency-sensitive applications

Perhaps they should differentiate that way. But then you'd have people buying the cheaper service and complaining that their VoIP or Netflix is being throttled.

Re:Split between guaranteed and best effort bandwi

[tepples]

Even if the guaranteed bandwidth is no more than ISDN, that's well over enough for two simultaneous VoIP calls. If people complain about not being able to get high speeds to best-effort services such as Netflix or another OTT VOD provider, the ISP can provide a load meter for each neighborhood and direct users to it when upselling a higher package..

Which layer 1?

[tepples]

Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber

Several governments have in fact done that.

although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.

Which medium were you thinking of?

Okay, just a thought experiment here.

[seebs]

Say someone runs a mail server which responds to known spam sources by slowing down to a character a second or so.

Should this be illegal?

Because whenever I see simple descriptions of what "net neutrality" ought to be, it seems to me that they are advocating making basic security provisions like "throttle or block attackers" illegal too, because there's no exceptions suggested for them.

Re:Okay, just a thought experiment here.

[Bengie]

Net Nuetrality should only affect Layer2/3. People are free to use other mail services. We're targeting the infrastructure of the Internet for regulation, not the services that use the infrastructure.

Re:Okay, just a thought experiment here.

[dkf]

Say someone runs a mail server which responds to known spam sources by slowing down to a character a second or so.

Should this be illegal?

If that is done by the email server, it's no problem. If it is done by the ISP by noting that you're accessing a particular IP address (e.g., 123.45.67.89) and port and deciding that they're going to slow that down Just Because, that's a problem.

What we want is conceptually simple: all customers' traffic to all addresses should have essentially the same priority unless the customer chooses to opt for a higher level of service (with the increased charges that implies). Or at the very least it should be the customer who gets to choose what sort of trade-offs they live with, and not the ISP deciding to hobble a third-party service's usability just because it happens to compete with a commercial offering by that ISP or their friends.

Forcing separation between the ownership of the physical network and the ownership of the virtual services offered over the physical connection... that makes a lot of sense. Let the virtualised service providers fight it out among themselves instead of tangling it all up in the natural monopoly business side of things that is physical networking.

Re:Okay, just a thought experiment here.

[seebs]

Thanks! I appreciate this because it's the first time I've seen an actual response that makes a useful technical distinction. That said:

So let's say I did do it at the router level. I have my mail server watch for spam signs, and when it sees them it tells the router to start throttling all packets from the IP address it thinks looks spammy. Should this be allowed? It seems to me that it should. The question is whether we can write a law that permits me to throttle probably-abusive traffic without allowing me to throttle traffic which is legitimate, and merely too popular for my infrastructure.

per-subscriber QoS

[Chirs]

The ISP should be able to shape traffic between subscribers based only on their relative bandwidth and SLA, not the traffic type. The ISP should only do traffic-type-based shaping if the subscriber asks them to, and the shaping should only affect that subscriber.

Re:If that was true.

[halltk1983]

Yes, using a proxy would yield a faster connection, much like taking a feeder road to a different interstate may yield in shorter overall commute time based on traffic during your commute. Routing takes the shortest functional path, it largely doesn't take into account the percentage used and go to find a different path, it'll just try to continue using the shortest one. RIP, OSPF, IGRP all work that way. Using a proxy sets you up on two paths to follow: to get to the proxy and then from the proxy to the service. Unless the proxy is also on your provider, in which case, you're not helping.

Re:This is expected

[Rakarra]

The judge who tried to restrict the FCC should be smacked down with contempt of congress.
Enough said.

The judge made the right call. It sucks, but he made the right call.
The FCC tried to treat the carriers as both common carriers and non-common carriers. They are NOT common carriers, so you cannot apply common carrier-specific rules to them, which is what the FCC was trying to do.

Re:throttling, crappy HD quality, is why I downloa

[Rakarra]

Oh, you don't like people using Netflix? Well, fuck you then, I'll just download off usenet and torrents (via a vpn).

"Oh no! He's screwing over our competitors because we're screwing over our competitors too! *sobs*"