Comcast Video on Demand and VOIP will not be part of the cap (they use a slightly different protocol). Keep an eye out to see if Comcast allows other types of data to not count towards the cap.
For example if Comcast were to partner with Rhapsody they could say that their data would not could towards the cap. That would put other music download services at a disadvantage.
Or, for example if Comcast were to partner with Microsoft so that XBOX DLC did not count towards the cap but Sony DLC would count. That could influence you to buy and XBOX over a PS3.
I think it is through exceptions to their cap, via partnerships, that Comcast and other ISPs see as their way towards Access Tiering.
Would Comcast's own digital services fall under the cap?
For example, would Comcast's VoIP count towards the cap? If not then should vonage or skype count towards the cap?
Would Comcast's VOD count towards the cap? If not then should other VOD , such as netflix instant play or hulu or jooost count towards the cap?
Could Comcast partner with a video game maker and then say that network traffic for that video game doesn't count towards the cap? For example what if Comcast partnered with Microsoft and said all XBOX live traffic wouldn't count towards the cap. Would Playstation or Nintendo or PC traffic count towards the cap?
Could Comcast partner with a web service provider, such as Google and say that all Google traffic doesn't count towards the cap but AOL or Yahoo traffic does count.
Could Comcast partner with a specific web site, such as Digg and say that all Digg traffic doesn't count towards the cap but Slashdot traffic does count.
The problem may not be the cap itself but who gets to say what falls under the cap. The meter should run equally for all data flowing down the pipe.
This is one of the real big threats to the telcos cable TV roll out. I have Verizon's FiOS 20Mbps service and a Mac mini hooked up to my HDTV. I wonder how Apple's service will compete with Verizon's video-on-demand. I would think that it would be a pretty serious competitor to VOD. I hope that I can access the video library via my mac remote and frontrow.
The telcos seem to be setting themselves up for lawsuits down the road. Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, said today in a press release that all of this is about "hypothetical business plans" and thus shouldn't be addressed now.
If Net Neutrality isn't addressed proactively then we will see it end up in the courts where some activist judge could potentially really mess up the internet.
The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the telcos to come out and openly debate the merits of their Tiering plans instead of using front groups and lobbyist, short of that the next best thing might be some form of legislation.
But the worst thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for lawsuits.
I think bittorent's deals can eventually help Net Neutrality. If big content providers are successful using bittorent to distribute their properties then they will start to cry foul when bittorent traffic is relegated to the slow speed tier. The content providers such as Warner have properties that the ISPs want (TV shows/on demand movies etc...) and thus they can push the ISPs to keep bittorent traffic untouched.
The more the big content providers find ways of distributing content directly to the consumer the more interested they will become in telling ISPs to stay out of the gatekeeper business.
I really think people keep ignoring how tiering will work in reality. ISPs/telcos are not going to block or restrict bandwidth to sites. (please refrain from replying with port 25/craigslist/small isp examples) They are craftier than that. They plan to partner up with specific content providers and provide them additional dedicated bandwidth which they will define as Private Bandwidth. This will allow them to say that they are not blocking anyone from using the Public internet.
For example: they will bundle in 5mbps dedicated bandwidth to MSN sites at no extra charge to the consumer.
The net effect will be that the ISP's partners will have an advantage over those content providers that will not be receiving dedicated bandwidth. Over time this will have the effect of reducing competiton and innovation on the internet. You can not compete with that dedicated bandwidth.
Net Neutrality proponents should start thinking about how the ISPs really will implement tiering; no one on the other side of the argument really believes that the ISPs really could get away with blocking/restricting. You won't be able to convince them unless you really start talking about how Access Tiering really will come to be.
I don't think ISP's will degrade or restrict access to web sites (stop your typing about port 25 and craigslist now). I do think what they will do is offer private or exclusive bandwidth to their partners. For no extra charge to the end user I expect them to cordon off a portion of their fiber bandwidth to be used exclusively by their partner.
Let's say you have a fiber connection and a 15mbps plan. I think the ISP would give you a value added extra 5mbps for dedicated for use by a third party, let's say MSN.
So in your house you have your son using up bandwidth playing counterstrike, your daughter chatting away on skype while downloading a Warner movie using Bittorrent and your significant other watching a streaming video on how to boil water from YouTube.
You want to check your stocks so you go to google, google has to share that 15mbps connection with the other apps and is slow, so you switch over to MSN and find it blazingly fast in comparison. So you start to use MSN more and more and google less and less. Is that because MSN is doing a better job then google? No it is because the ISP has partnered with MSN. Over time this will limit your choices and you will find that you only use you ISP's partner services.
Has your ISP violated the tenets of Net Neutrality? They are not blocking your or slowing down access to sites.
I too am not sure we need additoinal legislation but I want to make sure that ISP's don't change the way the "last mile" works.
There are a couple of ways to protect Net Neutrality without passing legislation.
Play a game of chicken with the telcos. Keep moving legislation through Congress and scare the telcos into a choice of self-regulation or government intervention.
Tie Net Neutrality provisions into the new local, state and national IPTV cable franchise agreements. (which I am pushing for in my town: http://www.redbanktv.org/ )
Large investors and fund managers need to see that Access Tiering could be good in the short run for their telco investments but potentially hurtful to their other investments. Then they need to press the telcos at investor meetings and dog and pony shows.
I'm sure there are ways to spin the money issue either way on Net Neutrality. I think Net Neutrality proponents are better off sticking to their core principals about how the internet needs to remain a level playing field.
I'm not saying they don't have a valid point; I'm just saying it sounds too much like something a telco giant would talk about. Stay on point with the "Net Neutrality is good for competition and the future of the internet" and you will have a bigger impact.
If you support Net Neutrality then you should be making your case locally. If your existing cable company's cable franchise is up for renewal or if AT&T or Verizon are applying to operate a cable TV franchise in your town then you should be asking them about Net Neutrality.
If they won't address the issue then you should press your local officials to reject their application.
If the local cable application goes away then we need to make Net Neutrality part of the discussion when state or national franchise applications take place.
If your town disagrees with a company's business practice then you shouldn't do business with them.
As much as you might want federal regulations to be put in place to ensure Net Neutrality, moves like this by content companies may do more than 100 savetheinternet.com's combined.
Would a telco restrict bandwidth for bittorent if the content providers start using bittorrent for real distribution? I don't think they would want to butt heads with Warner because that might jeopardize the telco's access to Warner's content; which the telco will need for their IPTV cable service.
So moves like this may well protect bittorent traffic from falling victim Tiered Access plans.
I still think a good way to address Net Neutrality is to raise the question during your local town hall hearings on granting AT&T or Verizon a local cable franchise. I'm doing that in my town: http://www.redbanktv.org/ and I encourage you to do so in your town.
Let's think about what Verizon did when Harrisburg wanted to put up a muni-WiFi. They ran straight to the state congress and got new regulations passed to protect their monopoly.
These guys spend so much lobbying for regulation to protect their business and now you want to hold them up as being the protectors of free markets?
Net Neutrality may be the first time ever that the big telcos are on the "keep the government out of our business" side of the argument.
The free market is what makes our economy great but do you really buy the big telcos carrying the banner for the "free market" fight? I want the little start ups and innovative companies to be the ones using the free market principals to change the world; that only happens if the internet is a level playing field.
To the "free market" proponents I say this: This is not the right fight. The telcos thrive on government interference, they spend more on lobbying for legislation than just about anyone else, and do you really think that they believe in your "free market" principals?
Look at what Verizon did to Harrisburg when they wanted to run a muni-WiFi. They went straight to the state legislators to get new regulation to protect their turf.
Don't buy big telcom as the defender of "free markets", they don't give a rat's a** about free markets.
The telecoms love to play this off as a Regulation vs Non-Regulation issue but they don't really care about that; they just want what's best for them.
The telecoms don't want regulation when it comes to Net Neutrality but as soon as a town says they want to run a municipal WiFi then they run straight to their State or Federal lobbyist to push for regulation against muni-WiFi's
Don't be dragged into a Free Market vs. Too Much Regulation argument. The telecom's don't care about that and you shouldn't either. These issues are purely about what's best for the future of the internet.
This issue must be raised in every town hall across the country where the telecoms are applying for new video over IP cable TV franchises.
If a telecom has applied for a franchise in your town the do this: Show up at the local council meeting and ask your local government to ask the telecoms what their position is on keeping the internet a level playing field?
This issue needs to work from the local governments up; not from the federal level down. The telecom's money is useless at the local level.
Raising the question of Net Neutrality at the local level will, at the very least, set precedent that this question belongs on the table. Think of what will happen if some small town actually stands up and says: We will not grant you permission to operate a cable TV franchise in our town because we don't like your future plans for the internet.
You need to get involved locally to push this issue forward.
Please see what I am doing in my town, Red Bank NJ, to see how raising these questions can help. Please visit my simple blog at: http://www.redbanktv.org/
If Slashdot members in each community where Verizon is applying to get a cable TV franchise would speak up about Net Neutrality at their local town council meetings then we have a chance at kicking a leg out from under the telcos.
The legislation that will allow for national cable TV franchises will not be passed into law for at least a year (if at all). That gives us time to approach small towns and tell them to make Verizon put provisions into their cable TV franchise agreement for Net Neutrality.
I know it sounds like a crazy and far fetched idea but it can work.
All we need is a few key towns to stick up for Net Neutrality and we will have the precedent needed at the national level.
Verizon needs to roll out their TV service as fast as they can. Holding them up at the local level is, in my opinion, the best way to protect Net Neutrality.
Check out what we are doing in my town: www.redbanktv.org Thanks -- Tom
Schwab, thanks for the encouragement. I see your points and I know it is a tough fight. I still think this battle is best fought at the local level.
Here is why: Verizon and the other telecoms are running fiber in towns intending to be able to offer internet, phone and cable TV over the fiber. Their business model can not work if they are not allowed to offer cable TV. In order to be able to run cable TV over the fiber the telecoms must go town to town applying for a cable franchise. It is as part of these new franchise agreements that we stand the best chance of working in Net Neutrality provisions.
Whether or not a telecom/ISP will obey that verbiage in the agreement is a whole other issue.
I am pushing our town to include a Network Neutrality provision in Verizon's cable TV franchise agreement. I feel this is the best way to advance the Network Neutrality issue. The telecoms will steamroll the politicians at the state and federal level, but we stand a chance at the local level.
It's simple. We say to the telecoms: If you want to run a cable franchise in our town then you need our permission. If you want out permission then you will agree to respect the tenets of Network Neutrality.
Please visit my website to follow what we are doing at the local level.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Video on Demand and VOIP will not be part of the cap (they use a slightly different protocol). Keep an eye out to see if Comcast allows other types of data to not count towards the cap.
For example if Comcast were to partner with Rhapsody they could say that their data would not could towards the cap. That would put other music download services at a disadvantage.
Or, for example if Comcast were to partner with Microsoft so that XBOX DLC did not count towards the cap but Sony DLC would count. That could influence you to buy and XBOX over a PS3.
I think it is through exceptions to their cap, via partnerships, that Comcast and other ISPs see as their way towards Access Tiering.
Would Comcast's own digital services fall under the cap?
For example, would Comcast's VoIP count towards the cap? If not then should vonage or skype count towards the cap?
Would Comcast's VOD count towards the cap? If not then should other VOD , such as netflix instant play or hulu or jooost count towards the cap?
Could Comcast partner with a video game maker and then say that network traffic for that video game doesn't count towards the cap? For example what if Comcast partnered with Microsoft and said all XBOX live traffic wouldn't count towards the cap. Would Playstation or Nintendo or PC traffic count towards the cap?
Could Comcast partner with a web service provider, such as Google and say that all Google traffic doesn't count towards the cap but AOL or Yahoo traffic does count.
Could Comcast partner with a specific web site, such as Digg and say that all Digg traffic doesn't count towards the cap but Slashdot traffic does count.
The problem may not be the cap itself but who gets to say what falls under the cap. The meter should run equally for all data flowing down the pipe.
This is one of the real big threats to the telcos cable TV roll out. I have Verizon's FiOS 20Mbps service and a Mac mini hooked up to my HDTV. I wonder how Apple's service will compete with Verizon's video-on-demand. I would think that it would be a pretty serious competitor to VOD. I hope that I can access the video library via my mac remote and frontrow.
The telcos seem to be setting themselves up for lawsuits down the road. Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, said today in a press release that all of this is about "hypothetical business plans" and thus shouldn't be addressed now.
If Net Neutrality isn't addressed proactively then we will see it end up in the courts where some activist judge could potentially really mess up the internet.
The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the telcos to come out and openly debate the merits of their Tiering plans instead of using front groups and lobbyist, short of that the next best thing might be some form of legislation.
But the worst thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for lawsuits.
I think bittorent's deals can eventually help Net Neutrality. If big content providers are successful using bittorent to distribute their properties then they will start to cry foul when bittorent traffic is relegated to the slow speed tier. The content providers such as Warner have properties that the ISPs want (TV shows/on demand movies etc...) and thus they can push the ISPs to keep bittorent traffic untouched.
The more the big content providers find ways of distributing content directly to the consumer the more interested they will become in telling ISPs to stay out of the gatekeeper business.
I really think people keep ignoring how tiering will work in reality. ISPs/telcos are not going to block or restrict bandwidth to sites. (please refrain from replying with port 25/craigslist/small isp examples) They are craftier than that. They plan to partner up with specific content providers and provide them additional dedicated bandwidth which they will define as Private Bandwidth. This will allow them to say that they are not blocking anyone from using the Public internet.
For example: they will bundle in 5mbps dedicated bandwidth to MSN sites at no extra charge to the consumer.
The net effect will be that the ISP's partners will have an advantage over those content providers that will not be receiving dedicated bandwidth. Over time this will have the effect of reducing competiton and innovation on the internet. You can not compete with that dedicated bandwidth.
Net Neutrality proponents should start thinking about how the ISPs really will implement tiering; no one on the other side of the argument really believes that the ISPs really could get away with blocking/restricting. You won't be able to convince them unless you really start talking about how Access Tiering really will come to be.
I don't think ISP's will degrade or restrict access to web sites (stop your typing about port 25 and craigslist now). I do think what they will do is offer private or exclusive bandwidth to their partners. For no extra charge to the end user I expect them to cordon off a portion of their fiber bandwidth to be used exclusively by their partner.
Let's say you have a fiber connection and a 15mbps plan. I think the ISP would give you a value added extra 5mbps for dedicated for use by a third party, let's say MSN.
So in your house you have your son using up bandwidth playing counterstrike, your daughter chatting away on skype while downloading a Warner movie using Bittorrent and your significant other watching a streaming video on how to boil water from YouTube.
You want to check your stocks so you go to google, google has to share that 15mbps connection with the other apps and is slow, so you switch over to MSN and find it blazingly fast in comparison. So you start to use MSN more and more and google less and less. Is that because MSN is doing a better job then google? No it is because the ISP has partnered with MSN. Over time this will limit your choices and you will find that you only use you ISP's partner services.
Has your ISP violated the tenets of Net Neutrality? They are not blocking your or slowing down access to sites.
There are a couple of ways to protect Net Neutrality without passing legislation.
One of the big mistakes of the Net Neutrality discussion is that is has boiled down to a Legislation v No Legislation battle.
If you take away the legislation part of this discussion I'm not sure that the lefties and free market guys wouldn't swap positions on Net Neutrality.
The push for legislation has steered this discussion more than the issue itself.
I'm sure there are ways to spin the money issue either way on Net Neutrality. I think Net Neutrality proponents are better off sticking to their core principals about how the internet needs to remain a level playing field.
I'm not saying they don't have a valid point; I'm just saying it sounds too much like something a telco giant would talk about. Stay on point with the "Net Neutrality is good for competition and the future of the internet" and you will have a bigger impact.
http://www.redbanktv.org/
If you support Net Neutrality then you should be making your case locally. If your existing cable company's cable franchise is up for renewal or if AT&T or Verizon are applying to operate a cable TV franchise in your town then you should be asking them about Net Neutrality.
If they won't address the issue then you should press your local officials to reject their application.
If the local cable application goes away then we need to make Net Neutrality part of the discussion when state or national franchise applications take place.
If your town disagrees with a company's business practice then you shouldn't do business with them.
I'm pushing these issues locally. You can see how at: http://www.redbanktv.org/
As much as you might want federal regulations to be put in place to ensure Net Neutrality, moves like this by content companies may do more than 100 savetheinternet.com's combined.
Would a telco restrict bandwidth for bittorent if the content providers start using bittorrent for real distribution? I don't think they would want to butt heads with Warner because that might jeopardize the telco's access to Warner's content; which the telco will need for their IPTV cable service.
So moves like this may well protect bittorent traffic from falling victim Tiered Access plans.
I still think a good way to address Net Neutrality is to raise the question during your local town hall hearings on granting AT&T or Verizon a local cable franchise. I'm doing that in my town: http://www.redbanktv.org/ and I encourage you to do so in your town.
Let's think about what Verizon did when Harrisburg wanted to put up a muni-WiFi. They ran straight to the state congress and got new regulations passed to protect their monopoly.
These guys spend so much lobbying for regulation to protect their business and now you want to hold them up as being the protectors of free markets?
You've got to be kidding.
Net Neutrality may be the first time ever that the big telcos are on the "keep the government out of our business" side of the argument.
The free market is what makes our economy great but do you really buy the big telcos carrying the banner for the "free market" fight? I want the little start ups and innovative companies to be the ones using the free market principals to change the world; that only happens if the internet is a level playing field.
To the "free market" proponents I say this: This is not the right fight. The telcos thrive on government interference, they spend more on lobbying for legislation than just about anyone else, and do you really think that they believe in your "free market" principals?
Look at what Verizon did to Harrisburg when they wanted to run a muni-WiFi. They went straight to the state legislators to get new regulation to protect their turf.
Don't buy big telcom as the defender of "free markets", they don't give a rat's a** about free markets.
The telecoms love to play this off as a Regulation vs Non-Regulation issue but they don't really care about that; they just want what's best for them.
The telecoms don't want regulation when it comes to Net Neutrality but as soon as a town says they want to run a municipal WiFi then they run straight to their State or Federal lobbyist to push for regulation against muni-WiFi's
Don't be dragged into a Free Market vs. Too Much Regulation argument. The telecom's don't care about that and you shouldn't either. These issues are purely about what's best for the future of the internet.
-- Tom
This issue must be raised in every town hall across the country where the telecoms are applying for new video over IP cable TV franchises.
If a telecom has applied for a franchise in your town the do this:
Show up at the local council meeting and ask your local government to ask the telecoms what their position is on keeping the internet a level playing field?
This issue needs to work from the local governments up; not from the federal level down. The telecom's money is useless at the local level.
Raising the question of Net Neutrality at the local level will, at the very least, set precedent that this question belongs on the table. Think of what will happen if some small town actually stands up and says: We will not grant you permission to operate a cable TV franchise in our town because we don't like your future plans for the internet.
You need to get involved locally to push this issue forward.
Please see what I am doing in my town, Red Bank NJ, to see how raising these questions can help. Please visit my simple blog at: http://www.redbanktv.org/
-- Tom
If Slashdot members in each community where Verizon is applying to get a cable TV franchise would speak up about Net Neutrality at their local town council meetings then we have a chance at kicking a leg out from under the telcos.
The legislation that will allow for national cable TV franchises will not be passed into law for at least a year (if at all). That gives us time to approach small towns and tell them to make Verizon put provisions into their cable TV franchise agreement for Net Neutrality.
I know it sounds like a crazy and far fetched idea but it can work.
All we need is a few key towns to stick up for Net Neutrality and we will have the precedent needed at the national level.
Verizon needs to roll out their TV service as fast as they can. Holding them up at the local level is, in my opinion, the best way to protect Net Neutrality.
Check out what we are doing in my town: www.redbanktv.org
Thanks -- Tom
Schwab, thanks for the encouragement. I see your points and I know it is a tough fight. I still think this battle is best fought at the local level.
Here is why:
Verizon and the other telecoms are running fiber in towns intending to be able to offer internet, phone and cable TV over the fiber. Their business model can not work if they are not allowed to offer cable TV. In order to be able to run cable TV over the fiber the telecoms must go town to town applying for a cable franchise. It is as part of these new franchise agreements that we stand the best chance of working in Net Neutrality provisions.
Whether or not a telecom/ISP will obey that verbiage in the agreement is a whole other issue.
-- Tom
I am pushing our town to include a Network Neutrality provision in Verizon's cable TV franchise agreement. I feel this is the best way to advance the Network Neutrality issue. The telecoms will steamroll the politicians at the state and federal level, but we stand a chance at the local level.
It's simple. We say to the telecoms: If you want to run a cable franchise in our town then you need our permission. If you want out permission then you will agree to respect the tenets of Network Neutrality.
Please visit my website to follow what we are doing at the local level.
http://www.redbanktv.org/
Tom@redbanktv dot org