Throttling to the lowest level of bandwidth to make it basically unusable isn't the same as blocking.
No, its not blocking.
If you are doing it to services that compete with your services, or those that compete with people that are paying you extra money for special treatment, or just doing it to discriminate among lawful uses of the internet outside of the definition of "reasonable network management" in the Report and Order, its "unreasonable discrimination."
The Report and Order prohibits, separately, both blocking (Rule 2) and unreasonable discrimination (Rule 3).
Based on what I have read of the order they absolutely can throttle down other traffic without breaking these new rules.
I'd like to see a coherent argument as to how it is possible to do so consistent with Rule 3, particularly for services that compete with services provided the the ISP, their affiliates, or those paying them to provide service, in light of the discussion in the section addressing paid prioritization in the context of Rule 3.
They don't have to block traffic to get the same/similar end results as blocking.
Hence Rule 3.
Throttling all non-local SIP/VOIP traffic down to 2k/sec would be legal.
At least if the provider itself was providing telephony services over the same network, it would be a clear violation of Rule 3 and, particularly, the discussion in the article of how Rule 3 applies to prioritization of paid traffic or the provider's own services over competing alternatives.
Even if the provider didn't provide such services, categorical discrimination by type of service would seem to be a presumptive violation of Rule 3, and it would seem to be very hard to place such categorical discrimination within the realm of reasonable network management as defined in the order.
This is worse than if they had done nothing at all. Instead of having isolated cases like "Comcast and BitTorrent" and "Comcast and Level 3/Netflix", now every backbone provider and ISP can legally do the same thing
Insofar as it was legal before, every provider could legally do it. So it couldn't be "worse than if they had done nothing". At worst, if the practice was allowed by the current order, it would be exactly the same as if they had done nothing.
But since the new order fairly specifically addresses this kind of discrimination, I don't think even that is right.
My cable company doesn't have to specifically block competing entertainment services. All they have to do is throttle media streaming in general in the name of "traffic management."
If they do it to "media streaming" but also provide their own streaming media services which are not throttled, it may be "traffic management", but I don't think it is likely to be "reasonable network management" as defined in the present order, rather than "unreasonable discrimination". One might note that the last sentence of the extended discussion of why and how paid prioritization would generally be prohibited by the no unreasonable discrimination provision is this: "The practice of a broadband Internet access service provider prioritizing its own content, applications, or services, or those of its affiliates, would raise the same significant concerns and would be subject to the same standards and considerations in evaluating reasonableness as third-party pay-for-priority arrangements."
Who defines reasonable and what are the technical specs for reasonable network management.
"Reasonable Network Management" is defined in the excerpts from the definitions section of the order provided with the official news release.
Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.
If an ISP wants all their local traffic to run perfectly then isn't it reasonable for them to have a higher QoS for their traffic than others?
The desire to have local traffic (i.e., services run by ISP and by those directly contracting with the ISP) run perfectly at the expense of non-local traffic is exactly what the FCC, in the excerpts from the Report and Order provided with the official news release, says is not reasonable in the long section on paid prioritization. So, no, its not likely to be found reasonable under the order because the order specifically addresses that situation and says that it is unlikely to ever satisfy the no unreasonable discrimination rule. More than just stating the conclusion with regard to paid prioritization, it specifically identifies several factors that weigh in favor of that conclusion, including, among others, that it "cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet" by raising "raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users", and that such "arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion", and that providers engaging in such tactics "would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic". Even if one could argue that favoring local-local traffic over traffic from the public internet was distinct from "paid prioritization" as such, clearly many of the factors that the FCC cites in its discussion of why paid prioritization would generally be unreasonable discrimination apply to a practice of favoring local-local traffic over traffic from the public internet no matter what name you apply to the practice.
So, again, I'd say -- from the information we have from the FCC -- such a practice seems very clearly contrary to the prohibition on unreasonable discrimination in the Report and Order.
Ahhhh...but I think I ALREADY see how they are gonna loophole their way out of this! You see they are gonna argue that they are NOT "giving favor to a third party" but mearly allowing them to pay for their own servers on the local network and thus keep from incurring bandwidth charges.
Look, I see what you are trying, but I don't see any way you can say that "allowing them to pay for something that keeps them from the negative treatment other services gets" isn't exactly paid prioritization.
All I can tell you is talking to a guy that works there my above post is how it works, and is planned for a nationwide rollout.
I'm sure it is how it works, I am sure it is planned for a nationwide rollout, I am sure that, in fact, the FCC was aware of practices like that, and I am fairly sure that this is the exact kind of practice that the non-discrimination provision and the special call-out to the relation of paid prioritization to that provision was put into the current Report and Order.
So personally I hope the FCC puts the brakes on their ass, but considering how we haven't seen any pro consumer laws in over 30 years I won't hold my breath.
If you haven't seen any pro-consumer laws in 30 years, that's a problem with your vision more than anything else.
If the passed regulation plan does not meet any of the goals of the net neutrality supporters (as huff po article suggests) then why pass it?
Since the HuffPo article was put together before anyone had even excerpts of the order passed today (which were provided in the news release after the vote on the order; the full text still hasn't been released) it should be noted that any resemblance between the characterization in HuffPo and the actual Report and Order would be coincidental.
As it turns out -- from the excerpts of the Report and Order provided in the official news release from the FCC -- the actual order specifically prevents blocking any legal websites, or blocking competing voice and video services on mobile broadband, and has much stronger anti-blocking and anti-discrimination protection on fixed broadband, and specifically lays out the position that paid prioritization will almost always constitute "unreasonable discrimination" in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions.
While its not everything net neutrality supporters wanted, it is also not something that "does not meet any of the goals of the net neutrality supporters."
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
That's not at all correct.
Both the WSJ and HuffPo pieces were written based on previous drafts of the Report and Order and speculation about what comments from the various commissioners about what changes were made in the Report and Order actually being voted on. While we still don't have the full text of the Report and Order, we do have "selected excerpts" in the official FCC news release, and the WSJ description (the exceprt provided in GP, not discussing the rest of the WSJ article) is pretty accurate both on wired and wireless. (That is, the looser -- for the carriers -- wireless rule is pretty much exactly what the WSJ describes, the more restrictive -- for the carriers -- wired rule includes a broader anti-discrimination prohibition and even more protection of end-users freedom of choice.)
To recap from GP:
WSJ says: "The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services."
HuffPo says: "Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. "
Relevant to the WSJ and HuffPo excerpts in GP, the actual Report and Order (from the excerpts in the official FCC news release) says:
Rule 2: No Blocking
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to ac
Oh but you are missing the sneakier way they are gonna get you...caps. I'm in one of the test markets for the new caps, which BTW are 36GB for residential, and 76GB for business. Now that is $106! for the bundle with basic cable and phone, or $180! for the "business" which is the same just with a higher cap. Now here is how they get you:
Vonage? Counts against the cap. Their VoIP? Don't. Linux and Mac updates? Count. Windows? Don't because they got "donated" a WSUS server. Anyone other than Netflix and Youtube? Counts. Their PPV along with Youtube and Netflix? Don't, and the only reason you are allowed Youtube and Netflix is they paid to put a local server. Starting to see a trend?
Yup. I'm seeing a probable violation of today's order. We don't have the full text available, but we do have the news release with excerpts, and it certainly looks like unreasonable discrimination by way of paid prioritization. From the excerpts of the order provided with the official news release PDF (may have availability problems due to high demand), DOC (seems to be available):
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination. . . . Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users. Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market. Third, pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion. Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform. Fourth, broadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic. In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard. The practice of a broadband
the internet has made it to my tv, i get it through my ps3. why would i want another device that basically does the same thing but less of it?
I get internet TV (Netflix, mostly) from my PlayStation. The search function for GoogleTV and its combination of internet-based video and traditional TV in results is a feature that I haven't seen anywhere else. OTOH, it seems from reviews that their are interface (particularly, controller) issues that need polish, and the major networks blocking it because they thought that easy access to their internet-delivered videos on customers TVs would mean losses in advertising sales does reduce the advantage it offers as a convergence device.
A demonstration for you: 1) Purchase Kindle 2) Purchase and download 1000 ebooks to Kindle 3) Throw kindle into incinerator 4) Purchase new Kindle and click "Sync" 5) 1000 ebooks "magically" appear on new kindle and more remarkable show no signs of fire damage.
1000 minus, of course, the number of those ebooks that Amazon has decided can no longer be downloaded since the time they were downloaded into the old Kindle. Now, depending on how your tastes in ebooks line up with Amazon's whims in maintaining their public interest, that difference might be zero, or 1000, or anywhere in between.
Is a search appliance for video that complex that they need a STB for it? Running as a stand alone application that you can put on a HTPC would be much more useful to me.
STBs that do one thing and require minimal management are more accessible to the general market than an application that needs to run on an HTPC, which is idea that hasn't taken off with non-geeks as much as it once seemed it might.
This plan was written by the Republican chair of the FCC.
Both the chair and the two other members of the FCC that have indicated that they support the version of the plan that will be voted on are Democrats; the two members of the FCC opposed are Republicans. Republicans in the House and Senate have threatened to attempt to exercise a legislative veto over any net neutrality related regulations and, failing that, to block all FCC funding if any net neutrality regulations are approved by the FCC.
One of the Democrats on the FCC was opposed to the earlier drafts of the plan that were publicly circulated because they contained insufficient protections for consumers and too many concessions to service providers interests, but has switch positions on the final plan (though still characterizing it as not ideal.)
While I -- like everyone else outside of the FCC commenting on the plan -- don't know what is in the current version that they are voting on, I am rather suspicious of a characterization of it as containing everything that pro-corporate, right-wing republicans want. That seems extraordinarily unlikely given the circumstantial evidence that is all we have available.
Mistaking a social problem for a technical problem and thus trying to fix it by technical means is a guaranteed path to failure.
One solution: Build a cheap, open, legal, spread-spectrum, compact, no-setup, easy network relay box. Set broadcast power within legal no-license limits.
And if those pointing to the problem of regulators serving the interest of large entrenched players are correct, the expected result of that is that the conditions which make the device you've proposed "legal" will be changed so that it is not.
Which is why technical solutions to social problems don't work.
Funny enough, if you look at the bottom of another heavily slanted Fox article [foxnews.com], you can find some actual information.
Since the actual order being voted on hasn't been published or leaked, the "actual information" is the same mix of reading the older drafts and guessing what changes have been made based on imprecise comments from FCC officials, including most especially the Dec. 1 speech by the FCC chair, that underlies the hyperventilation everywhere.
No one commenting on this has seen the actual rules that they are commenting on.
Am I being overly pedantic to say that I think it's Perl semantics that Ruby copied not Perl syntax? Perl syntax as OP says includes "cabalistic symbols" and other gnarly hard to read 5 minutes after you wrote it stuff..
A lot of that was kept in Ruby, though over time alternative syntax was added that better fits the Smalltalk-inspired OO structure of Ruby. Over time, the Perlisms, most of which are still supported in Ruby, have become Not Encouraged.
I sure hope RubyGems isn't the utter DLL hell that CPAN is.
RubyGems supports multiple installed versions of the same gem and explicit version requirements when including gems, so in principle "module version hell" can be avoided.
Well pro-corporate right wingers. You've won again.
The pro-corporate right-wingers are calling this a coup d'état by the left, based on the same level of speculation without the actual order details on which the left is characterizing it as a sell-out to industry.
Maybe, just maybe, before characterizing who won, we should find out what is actually ordered?
Commenters here and at Huffington Post are seriously suggesting we have a second American Revolution because you didn't get everything you wanted on a Net Neturality policy change?
Right, and on the other side, Fox News is publishing an opinion piece labelling this a "coup d'état".
The funny thing is that none of the people publishing these radical perspectives actually know what is in the order being voted on.
Like this [fcc.gov]? The original proposed rulemaking document is on the right-hand side towards the bottom.
The original NPRM isn't what they are actually voting on now, its just the original proposal. I think that at least one draft later than the original NPRM has become public, but even that isn't the final order that is being voted on.
Have you heard the Tea Partiers and Conservatives on this issue? They're braying about "government takeover" and calling net neutrality an assault on basic liberties.
Sometimes they're being that restrained, but other times they're also going much further, and calling it a coup d'état:
President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fittingly chosen the darkest day in 372 years to impose potentially devastating regulations on the up-to-now free market Internet.
As the moon was eclipsed earlier today, Congress and the American people will be eclipsed by this regulatory coup d'état -- orchestrated by the White House -- that will substitute the judgment of three Democrats at the FCC for the legitimate democratic process.
While TFA does a lot of ranting and raving about the upcoming regulation, it doesn't actually give any details about what's in the regulation.
That's because the actual order being voted on has neither been published nor leaked; only earlier versions and comments by commissioners.
Everyone is reading their own fears into the vote, and both proponents and opponents of net neutrality are portraying it as virtually the end of the world.
One of the linked articles does a bit better, telling you what the bill lacks (seemingly any restrictions on paid prioritization, which makes me wonder how you can actually call it a "net neutrality" bill at all),
There is no "bill". There is an FCC order that is being voted on by the FCC. While drafts of the order have been published, the order actually being voted on has not. Anyone who has made claims about what it contains has done so on the basis of either assuming language in prior drafts remains unchanged, or interpreting statements made by commissioners. Mostly, aside from the prior draft, this seems to come from a Dec. 1 speech by the FCC chair on the proposal, though a lot of the interpretations go very far from what was actually said by the chairman. For instance, the chairman actually said:
The proposed rules also recognize that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st Century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.
To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks -- for example, to deal with traffic that’s harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved.
The record also demonstrates the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.
A slashdot poster in this thread has reduced this to "no restrictions on paid prioritization", which clearly isn't what was stated.
The chairman went on to say this:
The record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principles to mobile broadband and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. This is not a new point, but one that I’ve made consistently since the beginning of this proceeding. For example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly.
Accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area -- including transparency and a basic no-blocking rule. Under the framework, the FCC would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.
The same slashdot poster characterized this as "wireless providers can continue to do whatever they want".
Again, not quite was stated.
Can someone please tell me what's actually in this bill?
Its not a bill, and no one can tell you exactly what is in it.
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.
Except there has never been an agreement on what "net neutrality actually means", and certainly the "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" form has never been the focus of the public policy debate.
The focus has always been more about whether and how to turn the FCC's open internet principles (articulated in 2005) into substantive rules. Those rules are:
consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen?
Even that's getting ahead of the facts...what is "this"? TFA provides a lot of subjective flaws that supposedly exist in the plan that is being voted on, but doesn't provide any facts about the plan, or even link to any site that provides the details of the plan. Which is unsurprising, since the actual plan that is being voted on hasn't been published, nor has it leaked.
Everyone on the internet, on both sides -- and both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are portraying the order as the end of the world -- is posting speculation based on the previously published draft and what changes they assume have been made to that draft.
And, personally, I'd say that the opponents of real net neutrality probably have more reason to fear than the proponents, since the one swing vote on the FCC that was opposed to the last draft but has signed on to support the new order was holding out for doing more to protect consumers and less to please the telcos. We can be certain this won't be everything that proponents have wanted, but we don't actually know what it is. That, itself, is a valid reason for concern, but TFAs hyperventilation is entirely unwarranted in the complete absense of concrete facts.
TFS is simply a direct quote from TFA, which is hysterical opinion which doesn't include any substantive facts. It would be nice if there were actually some news in the "News for Nerds".
And what's worse, is no one posting these opinions about how good or bad the order that will be voted on is knows what is in the order. While both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are saying that this order is a victory for the other side, with fairly hyperbolic descriptions on both sides, its worth noting the more the more substantive and to-the-point issue raised here -- both as regards the order and the commentary on it from both sides -- the order that will be voted on has neither been published officially nor leaked, all the commentary is based on speculation on earlier drafts.
So everyone crying "the sky is falling" is doing so without having even looked up.
But it's somewhat ridiculous to say that the reason for denying such apps is that the Xbox is "a family friendly games and entertainment console". By that standard, any number of violent games should be excluded
I don't think you understand. "Family friendly" is American corporate/political jargon for "observing mainstream American cultural taboos regarding depictions of sex". Its got nothing to do with friendliness to families.
Does a company really have the power to decide who and what can be developed for a piece of hardware it makes?
Clearly, a company has the power to do so when it has the kind of systems set up to deny unapproved software that every console maker uses.
Whether or not they ought to have that power.
Today they are saying no to an adult game. Okay, sure, I wouldn't want my kids getting their hands on this game, but that is up to ME as the parent to monitor and choose.
Well, if you want that choice, you shouldn't purchase hardware that restricts you to using software approved by the hardware manufacturer.
I thought this was part of American "First Sale" doctrine? As in, once someone buys it, they are allowed to do anything they like with it?
Its not. The "First Sale" doctrine doesn't let purchasers do "anything they like", it allows them to resell the item without permission from the copyright holder.
I would say a lot of people will agree with this choice today, but what happens when the precident is already set and they start making decisions that folks don't actually like?
I think we've seen this already with Apple's decisions regarding what iOS apps to allow in the App Store.
Slashdot Mirror
No, its not blocking.
If you are doing it to services that compete with your services, or those that compete with people that are paying you extra money for special treatment, or just doing it to discriminate among lawful uses of the internet outside of the definition of "reasonable network management" in the Report and Order, its "unreasonable discrimination."
The Report and Order prohibits, separately, both blocking (Rule 2) and unreasonable discrimination (Rule 3).
I'd like to see a coherent argument as to how it is possible to do so consistent with Rule 3, particularly for services that compete with services provided the the ISP, their affiliates, or those paying them to provide service, in light of the discussion in the section addressing paid prioritization in the context of Rule 3.
Hence Rule 3.
At least if the provider itself was providing telephony services over the same network, it would be a clear violation of Rule 3 and, particularly, the discussion in the article of how Rule 3 applies to prioritization of paid traffic or the provider's own services over competing alternatives.
Even if the provider didn't provide such services, categorical discrimination by type of service would seem to be a presumptive violation of Rule 3, and it would seem to be very hard to place such categorical discrimination within the realm of reasonable network management as defined in the order.
Insofar as it was legal before, every provider could legally do it. So it couldn't be "worse than if they had done nothing". At worst, if the practice was allowed by the current order, it would be exactly the same as if they had done nothing.
But since the new order fairly specifically addresses this kind of discrimination, I don't think even that is right.
If they do it to "media streaming" but also provide their own streaming media services which are not throttled, it may be "traffic management", but I don't think it is likely to be "reasonable network management" as defined in the present order, rather than "unreasonable discrimination". One might note that the last sentence of the extended discussion of why and how paid prioritization would generally be prohibited by the no unreasonable discrimination provision is this: "The practice of a broadband Internet access service provider prioritizing its own content, applications, or services, or those of its affiliates, would raise the same significant concerns and would be subject to the same standards and considerations in evaluating reasonableness as third-party pay-for-priority arrangements."
"Reasonable Network Management" is defined in the excerpts from the definitions section of the order provided with the official news release.
Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.
If an ISP wants all their local traffic to run perfectly then isn't it reasonable for them to have a higher QoS for their traffic than others?
The desire to have local traffic (i.e., services run by ISP and by those directly contracting with the ISP) run perfectly at the expense of non-local traffic is exactly what the FCC, in the excerpts from the Report and Order provided with the official news release, says is not reasonable in the long section on paid prioritization. So, no, its not likely to be found reasonable under the order because the order specifically addresses that situation and says that it is unlikely to ever satisfy the no unreasonable discrimination rule. More than just stating the conclusion with regard to paid prioritization, it specifically identifies several factors that weigh in favor of that conclusion, including, among others, that it "cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet" by raising "raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users", and that such "arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion", and that providers engaging in such tactics "would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic". Even if one could argue that favoring local-local traffic over traffic from the public internet was distinct from "paid prioritization" as such, clearly many of the factors that the FCC cites in its discussion of why paid prioritization would generally be unreasonable discrimination apply to a practice of favoring local-local traffic over traffic from the public internet no matter what name you apply to the practice.
So, again, I'd say -- from the information we have from the FCC -- such a practice seems very clearly contrary to the prohibition on unreasonable discrimination in the Report and Order.
Look, I see what you are trying, but I don't see any way you can say that "allowing them to pay for something that keeps them from the negative treatment other services gets" isn't exactly paid prioritization.
I'm sure it is how it works, I am sure it is planned for a nationwide rollout, I am sure that, in fact, the FCC was aware of practices like that, and I am fairly sure that this is the exact kind of practice that the non-discrimination provision and the special call-out to the relation of paid prioritization to that provision was put into the current Report and Order.
If you haven't seen any pro-consumer laws in 30 years, that's a problem with your vision more than anything else.
If the passed regulation plan does not meet any of the goals of the net neutrality supporters (as huff po article suggests) then why pass it?
Since the HuffPo article was put together before anyone had even excerpts of the order passed today (which were provided in the news release after the vote on the order; the full text still hasn't been released) it should be noted that any resemblance between the characterization in HuffPo and the actual Report and Order would be coincidental.
As it turns out -- from the excerpts of the Report and Order provided in the official news release from the FCC -- the actual order specifically prevents blocking any legal websites, or blocking competing voice and video services on mobile broadband, and has much stronger anti-blocking and anti-discrimination protection on fixed broadband, and specifically lays out the position that paid prioritization will almost always constitute "unreasonable discrimination" in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions.
While its not everything net neutrality supporters wanted, it is also not something that "does not meet any of the goals of the net neutrality supporters."
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
That's not at all correct.
Both the WSJ and HuffPo pieces were written based on previous drafts of the Report and Order and speculation about what comments from the various commissioners about what changes were made in the Report and Order actually being voted on. While we still don't have the full text of the Report and Order, we do have "selected excerpts" in the official FCC news release, and the WSJ description (the exceprt provided in GP, not discussing the rest of the WSJ article) is pretty accurate both on wired and wireless. (That is, the looser -- for the carriers -- wireless rule is pretty much exactly what the WSJ describes, the more restrictive -- for the carriers -- wired rule includes a broader anti-discrimination prohibition and even more protection of end-users freedom of choice.)
To recap from GP:
WSJ says: "The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services."
HuffPo says: "Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. "
Relevant to the WSJ and HuffPo excerpts in GP, the actual Report and Order (from the excerpts in the official FCC news release) says:
Rule 2: No Blocking
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to ac
Oh but you are missing the sneakier way they are gonna get you...caps. I'm in one of the test markets for the new caps, which BTW are 36GB for residential, and 76GB for business. Now that is $106! for the bundle with basic cable and phone, or $180! for the "business" which is the same just with a higher cap. Now here is how they get you:
Vonage? Counts against the cap. Their VoIP? Don't. Linux and Mac updates? Count. Windows? Don't because they got "donated" a WSUS server. Anyone other than Netflix and Youtube? Counts. Their PPV along with Youtube and Netflix? Don't, and the only reason you are allowed Youtube and Netflix is they paid to put a local server. Starting to see a trend?
Yup. I'm seeing a probable violation of today's order. We don't have the full text available, but we do have the news release with excerpts, and it certainly looks like unreasonable discrimination by way of paid prioritization. From the excerpts of the order provided with the official news release PDF (may have availability problems due to high demand), DOC (seems to be available):
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
.
.
.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users. Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market. Third, pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion. Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform. Fourth, broadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic. In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard. The practice of a broadband
I get internet TV (Netflix, mostly) from my PlayStation. The search function for GoogleTV and its combination of internet-based video and traditional TV in results is a feature that I haven't seen anywhere else. OTOH, it seems from reviews that their are interface (particularly, controller) issues that need polish, and the major networks blocking it because they thought that easy access to their internet-delivered videos on customers TVs would mean losses in advertising sales does reduce the advantage it offers as a convergence device.
1000 minus, of course, the number of those ebooks that Amazon has decided can no longer be downloaded since the time they were downloaded into the old Kindle. Now, depending on how your tastes in ebooks line up with Amazon's whims in maintaining their public interest, that difference might be zero, or 1000, or anywhere in between.
STBs that do one thing and require minimal management are more accessible to the general market than an application that needs to run on an HTPC, which is idea that hasn't taken off with non-geeks as much as it once seemed it might.
This plan was written by the Republican chair of the FCC.
Both the chair and the two other members of the FCC that have indicated that they support the version of the plan that will be voted on are Democrats; the two members of the FCC opposed are Republicans. Republicans in the House and Senate have threatened to attempt to exercise a legislative veto over any net neutrality related regulations and, failing that, to block all FCC funding if any net neutrality regulations are approved by the FCC.
One of the Democrats on the FCC was opposed to the earlier drafts of the plan that were publicly circulated because they contained insufficient protections for consumers and too many concessions to service providers interests, but has switch positions on the final plan (though still characterizing it as not ideal.)
While I -- like everyone else outside of the FCC commenting on the plan -- don't know what is in the current version that they are voting on, I am rather suspicious of a characterization of it as containing everything that pro-corporate, right-wing republicans want. That seems extraordinarily unlikely given the circumstantial evidence that is all we have available.
There is a tech solution.
Uh, no, there isn't.
Mistaking a social problem for a technical problem and thus trying to fix it by technical means is a guaranteed path to failure.
One solution:
Build a cheap, open, legal, spread-spectrum, compact, no-setup, easy network relay box. Set broadcast power within legal no-license limits.
And if those pointing to the problem of regulators serving the interest of large entrenched players are correct, the expected result of that is that the conditions which make the device you've proposed "legal" will be changed so that it is not.
Which is why technical solutions to social problems don't work.
Since the actual order being voted on hasn't been published or leaked, the "actual information" is the same mix of reading the older drafts and guessing what changes have been made based on imprecise comments from FCC officials, including most especially the Dec. 1 speech by the FCC chair, that underlies the hyperventilation everywhere.
No one commenting on this has seen the actual rules that they are commenting on.
Am I being overly pedantic to say that I think it's Perl semantics that Ruby copied not Perl syntax? Perl syntax as OP says includes "cabalistic symbols" and other gnarly hard to read 5 minutes after you wrote it stuff..
A lot of that was kept in Ruby, though over time alternative syntax was added that better fits the Smalltalk-inspired OO structure of Ruby. Over time, the Perlisms, most of which are still supported in Ruby, have become Not Encouraged.
I sure hope RubyGems isn't the utter DLL hell that CPAN is.
RubyGems supports multiple installed versions of the same gem and explicit version requirements when including gems, so in principle "module version hell" can be avoided.
Well pro-corporate right wingers. You've won again.
The pro-corporate right-wingers are calling this a coup d'état by the left, based on the same level of speculation without the actual order details on which the left is characterizing it as a sell-out to industry.
Maybe, just maybe, before characterizing who won, we should find out what is actually ordered?
Commenters here and at Huffington Post are seriously suggesting we have a second American Revolution because you didn't get everything you wanted on a Net Neturality policy change?
Right, and on the other side, Fox News is publishing an opinion piece labelling this a "coup d'état".
The funny thing is that none of the people publishing these radical perspectives actually know what is in the order being voted on.
Like this [fcc.gov]? The original proposed rulemaking document is on the right-hand side towards the bottom.
The original NPRM isn't what they are actually voting on now, its just the original proposal. I think that at least one draft later than the original NPRM has become public, but even that isn't the final order that is being voted on.
Have you heard the Tea Partiers and Conservatives on this issue? They're braying about "government takeover" and calling net neutrality an assault on basic liberties.
Sometimes they're being that restrained, but other times they're also going much further, and calling it a coup d'état :
President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fittingly chosen the darkest day in 372 years to impose potentially devastating regulations on the up-to-now free market Internet.
As the moon was eclipsed earlier today, Congress and the American people will be eclipsed by this regulatory coup d'état -- orchestrated by the White House -- that will substitute the judgment of three Democrats at the FCC for the legitimate democratic process.
While TFA does a lot of ranting and raving about the upcoming regulation, it doesn't actually give any details about what's in the regulation.
That's because the actual order being voted on has neither been published nor leaked; only earlier versions and comments by commissioners.
Everyone is reading their own fears into the vote, and both proponents and opponents of net neutrality are portraying it as virtually the end of the world.
One of the linked articles does a bit better, telling you what the bill lacks (seemingly any restrictions on paid prioritization, which makes me wonder how you can actually call it a "net neutrality" bill at all),
There is no "bill". There is an FCC order that is being voted on by the FCC. While drafts of the order have been published, the order actually being voted on has not. Anyone who has made claims about what it contains has done so on the basis of either assuming language in prior drafts remains unchanged, or interpreting statements made by commissioners. Mostly, aside from the prior draft, this seems to come from a Dec. 1 speech by the FCC chair on the proposal, though a lot of the interpretations go very far from what was actually said by the chairman. For instance, the chairman actually said:
The proposed rules also recognize that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st Century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.
To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks -- for example, to deal with traffic that’s harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved.
The record also demonstrates the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.
A slashdot poster in this thread has reduced this to "no restrictions on paid prioritization", which clearly isn't what was stated.
The chairman went on to say this:
The record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principles to mobile broadband and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. This is not a new point, but one that I’ve made consistently since the beginning of this proceeding. For example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly.
Accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area -- including transparency and a basic no-blocking rule. Under the framework, the FCC would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.
The same slashdot poster characterized this as "wireless providers can continue to do whatever they want".
Again, not quite was stated.
Can someone please tell me what's actually in this bill?
Its not a bill, and no one can tell you exactly what is in it.
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.
Except there has never been an agreement on what "net neutrality actually means", and certainly the "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" form has never been the focus of the public policy debate.
The focus has always been more about whether and how to turn the FCC's open internet principles (articulated in 2005) into substantive rules. Those rules are:
Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen?
Even that's getting ahead of the facts...what is "this"? TFA provides a lot of subjective flaws that supposedly exist in the plan that is being voted on, but doesn't provide any facts about the plan, or even link to any site that provides the details of the plan. Which is unsurprising, since the actual plan that is being voted on hasn't been published, nor has it leaked.
Everyone on the internet, on both sides -- and both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are portraying the order as the end of the world -- is posting speculation based on the previously published draft and what changes they assume have been made to that draft.
And, personally, I'd say that the opponents of real net neutrality probably have more reason to fear than the proponents, since the one swing vote on the FCC that was opposed to the last draft but has signed on to support the new order was holding out for doing more to protect consumers and less to please the telcos. We can be certain this won't be everything that proponents have wanted, but we don't actually know what it is. That, itself, is a valid reason for concern, but TFAs hyperventilation is entirely unwarranted in the complete absense of concrete facts.
TFS is simply a direct quote from TFA, which is hysterical opinion which doesn't include any substantive facts. It would be nice if there were actually some news in the "News for Nerds".
And what's worse, is no one posting these opinions about how good or bad the order that will be voted on is knows what is in the order. While both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are saying that this order is a victory for the other side, with fairly hyperbolic descriptions on both sides, its worth noting the more the more substantive and to-the-point issue raised here -- both as regards the order and the commentary on it from both sides -- the order that will be voted on has neither been published officially nor leaked, all the commentary is based on speculation on earlier drafts.
So everyone crying "the sky is falling" is doing so without having even looked up.
But it's somewhat ridiculous to say that the reason for denying such apps is that the Xbox is "a family friendly games and entertainment console". By that standard, any number of violent games should be excluded
I don't think you understand. "Family friendly" is American corporate/political jargon for "observing mainstream American cultural taboos regarding depictions of sex". Its got nothing to do with friendliness to families.
Does a company really have the power to decide who and what can be developed for a piece of hardware it makes?
Clearly, a company has the power to do so when it has the kind of systems set up to deny unapproved software that every console maker uses.
Whether or not they ought to have that power.
Today they are saying no to an adult game. Okay, sure, I wouldn't want my kids getting their hands on this game, but that is up to ME as the parent to monitor and choose.
Well, if you want that choice, you shouldn't purchase hardware that restricts you to using software approved by the hardware manufacturer.
I thought this was part of American "First Sale" doctrine? As in, once someone buys it, they are allowed to do anything they like with it?
Its not. The "First Sale" doctrine doesn't let purchasers do "anything they like", it allows them to resell the item without permission from the copyright holder.
I would say a lot of people will agree with this choice today, but what happens when the precident is already set and they start making decisions that folks don't actually like?
I think we've seen this already with Apple's decisions regarding what iOS apps to allow in the App Store.