The Net Neutrality Thread

[Mike]

***
***Everything you wanted to know about Net Neutrality but were afraid to ask***
***

AT&T is no stranger to making a mockery of net neutrality rules. It heavily influenced the rules themselves and has several times taken advantage of loopholes to push its favored apps and services. AT&T is now making another attempt to further subvert the concept of net neutrality with its "sponsored data" plan.

AT&T launched a new billing program called Sponsored Data Monday at its developer conference at CES, which shifts mobile data costs from the consumer to the content provider. The idea is to create a two-sided charging model for mobile data, letting app developers and content providers foot the bill for their customers’ data use.

AT&T and other carriers have been hinting at such a subsidized mobile internet for some time, but this is the first time that it’s actually put those ideas into practice. Under the program a content or service provider would pay AT&T to exempt their app, websites or even specific bits of content from consumers’ mobile data plans. Anytime someone consumed such exempted content on the mobile network, AT&T customers wouldn’t see it deducted from their data buckets. Instead, AT&T would subtract that data from a kind of universal data pool bought by the content provider.

By having developers and providers pay the "freight" for data, AT&T will once again be derailing net neutrality. A system like this will obviously favor deeper-pocketed entities, raising the barrier to entry for everyone else. Subscribers, nearly all of whom now have data caps, will be much more likely to use services and apps that don't cut into their monthly allotment. AT&T will also effectively collect twice on the data, once with the monthly service charge to subscribers (that isn't reduced if customers don't hit their caps) and once from any developers/providers who buy in.

AT&T tried to spin this positively, saying that purchasing a data allotment would work as advertising for apps, services or other content providers. "Free" means more subscribers should take advantage of the offerings, resulting in more traffic and business. Its reps were careful to mention that those "sponsoring" data would not receive preferential treatment in terms of having competitors throttled (as it has done in the past), but that obviously won't be necessary when data-hungry customers are looking for the best deal, data-wise.

AT&T even suggested this new model could be useful for BYOD businesses, allowing charges for data consumed on work-related apps to be covered by that business, rather than the subscriber. For subscribers, this may look like a great deal, but for AT&T, it's a new revenue stream.

But it's what's tacitly admitted by this program -- something AT&T avoids addressing -- that's the most interesting. Giving providers and developers the option to pay freight on data exposes these data caps for what they are: an arbitrary limit that exists only as new source of revenue.

Data-heavy apps and services will be the ones most likely to take advantage of AT&T's sponsored data program. Customers will naturally gravitate towards anything that doesn't eat into their data caps, especially if it's something like a streaming audio or video app/site. Any developer that buys in will see an uptick in use and the more data-heavy the offering is, the more likely it is that customers will take advantage of the "free" data.

Because of this, data usage by customers will go up, with the most data-heavy apps and services seeing the biggest increase in usage. According to the company line, caps are in place to prevent data hogs from creating network congestion and degrading service. But this program effectively encourages users to consume more data and use more data-heavy services. As long as AT&T is still making money (via data "sponsors"), then all previous handwringing about network stability no longer matters.

AT&T is likely facing a decline in income for data overages as consumers become more adept at staying under their data caps. The trend should remain unchanged, meaning fewer overages as time goes on. This fixes the income problem but does nothing to address the (false) concern AT&T deployed to justify its implementation of data caps. AT&T wants everyone to use more data, which will increase the amount it can collect from providers and developers. All in all, it's more evidence that equating data caps with network capacity is nothing more than a lousy spin job attempting to justify the replacement of unlimited data with multiple revenue streams.



Source

[Mike]

For nearly a decade we've been trying to point out that the entire fight over net neutrality is something of a red herring. The concept of a neutral network is quite important for innovation. I think venture capitalist Fred Wilson does an excellent job talking about how much of a problem innovators might face in the future if we actuallylost net neutrality, in that it would massively benefit legacy internet players over innovators:

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a better streaming music service. It leverages the data on what you and your friends currently listen to, combines that with the schedule of new music launches and acts that are touring in your city in the coming months and creates playlists of music that you should be listening to in order to find new acts to listen to and go see live.

VC: Well since Spotify, Beats, and Apple have paid all the telcos so that their services are free on the mobile networks, we are concerned that new music services like yours will have a hard time getting new users to use them because the data plan is so expensive. We like you and the idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a service that curates the funniest videos from all across the internet and packages them up in a 30 minute daily video show that people will watch on their phones as they are commuting to work on the subway. It's called SubHumor.

VC: Well since YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix have paid all the telcos so that their services are free via a sponsored data plan, I am worried that it will hard to get users to watch any videos on their phones that aren't being served by YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix. We like you and your idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

But, just because the court this week struck down the FCC's weak attempt at forcing net neutrality rules on ISPs without resorting to classifying them as telcos, it doesn't mean that the answer is to classify them as telcos and give the FCC a broad mandate over them.

And that's because net neutrality fights have always been the symptom not the problem. A symptom of what? Of a near total lack of competition in the marketplace, a problem that has only become worse over time. Telco lobbyists will argue that we don't need net neutrality because we have real competition, but they base that claim on the laughably inaccurate data that the FCC has put together at broadbandmap.gov. The FCC has been releasing totally bogus broadband data for years, and among the problems here are that it counts mobile data services as real broadband competitors, even though the big mobile data providers (often the same as the big telcos: Verizon & AT&T) don't let you actually use mobile broadband as a full time service (not to mention that the speeds and reliability are a lot lower, while the costs are much, much, much higher). The reality is that there is less competition, as you basically still have one cable provider and one DSL/fiber provider in most places, with the DSL/fiber telcos actively trying to get out of the wireline business to concentrate on the more lucrative wireless world.

So, rather than picking a fight that is unlikely to be won (i.e., trying to get a timid Congress and or FCC to back the idea of presenting new net neutrality rules by reclassifying broadband ISPs -- something that is seen as politically unfeasible) it's time to recognize what the FCC should have realized a decade ago, but has always avoided: focus on encouraging real competition.

Two separate articles about this week's ruling discuss this in more detail, and you should read both. First is Ryan Singel's post about how the FCC won't save net neutrality, and we should focus on building real competition. He argues the best path forward is through municipal fiber operations that offer open access to service providers. The big broadband providers have known all along that this is the most effective weapon against their fight for a monopoly, which is why they've lobbied hard to outlaw even the possibility of such competition in a bunch of states.

The other piece to read is former FCC staffer, now Wharton professor, Kevin Werbach's take on all of this, which comes to the same basic conclusion. Congress and the FCC don't have the stomach to reclassify broadband and put in place net neutrality rules, so it's time to focus on the real issue, and that's increasing competition:

The best hope for a dynamic, affordable, and innovative Internet is real broadband competition.

Most of the greatest barriers to broadband competition are at the local level: State prohibitions adopted at the behest of the incumbent carriers, difficulties with zoning and access to rights of way, and limited willingness to invest in the kinds of municipal open access fiber optic utilities that are wildly successful in cities like Stockholm. The FCC has been hesitant to confront these impediments, perhaps because it was so focused on net neutrality.

And the reason it was so focused on net neutrality was because it was unwilling to take on the real issue all along. It would provide lip service to competition, but never make any move to support real competition. But Werbach is correct: local state-level prohibitions have made real competition quite difficult. Getting access to rights of way is the biggest challenge in building a competitive network.

Google Fiber is no solution. It's only available in a few places, and there are no indications that it will go national. And, despite early promises to run its network on an open access basis, Google has since backed away from that promise. That's a big problem. Still, what we have seen is that real competition can make a difference. Whenever Google shows up with Google Fiber, boradband connections suddenly, magically get better for customers of competing broadband ISPs as well.

That's how competition works. It drives investment and innovation. I have tremendous respect for Marc Andreessen, but I think he is wrong in thinking that there can't be significant investment in broadband with net neutrality in place. Everything else he says in that link is correct though: faster, better broadband is key to all sorts of economic opportunity, but there's no evidence that we get that when there's no competition (and no net neutrality). Instead, what we need to do is to drive real competition.

That can be at the network level, but making it easier for local providers, whether municipal or (better yet) locally owned, or it can be at the service level. We've talked before about Australia's efforts to build a fiber network across the entire country, but then let service providers compete on the network. Those are all plans that can work. The focus needs to be on competition, because once you have real competition, the net neutrality issue fades away.

Why? Because any service provider that tries to double charge Netflix or Hulu or Spotify to get to you becomes an option that users will leave. Competition keeps broadband providers honest. But dishonest broadband providers have spent years making sure there is no real competition, and since the government refused to take on this real issue, it instead focused on some weak net neutrality rules.

Those rules are gone.

What they've left exposed is a broadband market that's massively lacking in competition. It's time to fix that problem.

Source

[Mike]

In Canada, where functional net neutrality rules are still in place, ISPs are looking to subvert these in order to double-dip on data charges or push preferred services. What they're aiming for is so-called "two-tier" data plans in which certain services won't count against users' data caps.

The premise of a two-tier Internet based on data usage stems from the proliferation of data caps among many providers, particularly for fast-growing wireless Internet services. The days of "unlimited Internet" are over at many providers, replaced by packages that include a fixed amount of data usage each month with expensive overage charges for those that exceed their monthly allocation.

Sensing consumer frustration with data caps, network providers have begun to offer access to some services or content that does not count against the monthly cap. The result is a new two-tier Internet: one Internet that counts against the monthly data cap and another that does not.

Rather than raise caps, lower prices on restrictive caps or eliminate them altogether, the ISPs are instead pushing for something not unlike AT&T's recently announced "sponsored data" plans. This would allow Canadian ISPs to either collect from internet services by having them pay "freight" on data or, failing that, push their own preferred platforms and services by having these not impact customers' data usage.

As usual, it's being presented as a "win" for customers. ISPs will "assist" frustrated users in staying under their data caps by either funneling them through ISP portals (and using these to push other preferred services) or by making a bit more money selling data usage to interested companies.

Canadian providers have also begun to examine how data caps can be used to differentiate between content. For example, Bell offers a $5 per month mobile TV service that allows users to watch dozens of Bell-owned or licensed television channels for ten hours without affecting their data cap. By comparison, users accessing the same online video through a third-party service such as Netflix would be on the hook for a far more expensive data plan since all of the data usage would count against their monthly cap.

All of this goes to prove that ISPs/wireless providers don't really care how much data their customers use. They only care how much money they can make from the data flow. This will encourage users to return to the good old days of buffet-style internet usage… provided, of course, that they use the ISPs preferred platforms and services. The message is clear: use all the bandwidth you want, just as soon as we've dipped our wicks into the revenue stream. As for the net neutrality concerns, the ISPs will likely address those the same way AT&T did. Everything's arriving at the same speed, sponsored or not, so what's the big deal?

The end result will be even less competition and users will be put in the position of using incumbent services (or inferior services) in order to avoid cap overages. Once these two-tier plans become the norm, the instinctual reaction from ISPs will be to further lower data caps. After all, users are getting so much data for "free," they're barely racking up overage charges. That's an unacceptable outcome, and very shortly, what's being pitched as a boon for frustrated customers will turn into a downward spiral of cap constraints and the elimination of competitive pressure.



Source

[Mike]

Troma Entertainment would never have reached its 40th year as arguably the world's longest running independent movie studio if Net Neutrality or the Open Internet did not exist. I know, I know, some might say, "That would be a good thing." Haha! But without Net Neutrality, we probably would not have visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, Macklemore, Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber and maybe even Anonymous. Net Neutrality is essential to free speech and allows for a free and diverse Internet of equal opportunity. The Internet, our last democratic medium, is severely threatened as I write this. The American courts and the US government have effectively decided to nullify net neutrality and the major media/broadband conglomerates are down in Washington, D.C. 24/7 spending kabillions of dollars to lobby against our beloved Open Internet.

The mega cartel that controls world media has their ass in a tub of butter. They control or own the cinemas, newspapers, T.V. stations, radio and even Broadway “legitimate” theaters. The only competition they face is on the Internet.

On the Internet, the playing field is level. Troma can compete with Disney if Troma has art or “content” that is interesting or compelling. The mediocre “suits” who control media do not want to get up in the morning and have to think. It’s much easier to have an oligopoly club where they control the marketplace 100%. It’s a club of smugness that promotes cheap-to-make walking feces like the Kardashians or brainless blockbuster movies with non-stop explosions. The “news” we get in The New York Times or on TV is pre-digested baby food. Because of this mainstream disgrace, so many of us go right to the internet for our news, art and commerce.

Net Neutrality is defined as the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites, but it’s more than that – it’s our freedom of speech! Free speech--not just giving it, but also free speech in the form of our right to receive diverse news, art, commerce or simply some fat, sweaty teenager blogging about Robin’s nipples in “Batman & Robin.”

The giant devil worshiping international media conglomerates want to create a super highway with expensive prohibitive tolls with faster and better internet for themselves. This will make it impossible for independent artists or innovators because they simply can’t compete. The result will be similar to US television, where the biggest companies own the networks and cable systems etc. and air constant iterations and reruns of their own content. It will become harder to get anything independent into the consciousness of the public. The Internet will become an NBC-ABC-CBS kind of world unless we the people take action.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Open Internet Order which set anti-blocking and anti-discrimination Network Neutrality rules. While the FCC claimed the rules would protect Open Internet, many of us Net Neutrality advocates felt the proposed rules had many loopholes and were made with the purpose of winning support from the telco lobbyists. Of course, we were right. The FCC stated that the rules would make it illegal for ISPs such as Verizon to block services or charge content providers like Netflix for faster Internet highways to their customers. Now, just a few weeks ago-the rules were invalidated by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia because the FCC chose years ago to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers and therefore has no right to regulate them.

If the court ruling stands, then ISPs can hike prices and charge content providers to deliver Internet traffic faster while also eliminating content providers that cannot pay the fees. As consumers, we need to be aware of our standing and that ISPs will now have more control over regulating the content sites we may want to see. If certain sites are faster while others are slow because they can’t pay the tolls, we will get pushed into using only the sites that are quick to load. Those of us who can’t pay the tolls on the super highway will be relegated to the bumpy, slow buffering dirt road. Troma and 1000’s of potential innovators will disappear. I predict Netflix and the like will make sweet-heart deals with the ISP/conglomerate club in order to close the door on competitive future innovators.

We will see the same thing happen with the Internet as we have with the car, telephone, food industry, and with television. People will be kept in the dark and given an illusion of variety, the sharing of information will be controlled by a few big conglomerates and change-the-world innovation like Kickstarter, Anonymous, Bitcoin, Troma and yes, 2 girls 1 cup will all be practically inaccessible. The biggest problem is how these 1st Amendment issues are intentionally being kept from the public. Beware of elected officials and TV talking heads who decry Net Neutrality as “purveyor of piracy and pornography.” This same bogus argument has been used by The Big (White) Boys and the MPAA since the time of VHS. The elite always throw a monkey wrench into new technology to delay it so they can and then take it over. They did it with VHS and they are now trying to do it with the World Wide Web.

We defeated SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) which had nothing to do with stopping piracy. It had to do with stopping competition on the Internet. Congress was surprised at the magnitude of the number of voters who protested against SOPA and who want to preserve an open internet. Many in Congress changed their position on SOPA as a result. We must all make our voices heard and let our elected representatives know that if Net Neutrality and Open Internet go away, they too will go away.

If you would like to learn more about our stance on Net Neutrality, please follow: www.lloydkaufman.com and www.troma.com

Permalink

source

[Mike]

Major ISPs have slowly seen their Netflix streaming experience deteriorate over the last six months, major carriers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T all dropping like a stone in the Netflix ISP streaming ranking index. We've discussed how, despite a bevy of well-intentioned claims, these ISPs are intentionally throttling connections for their own gains, there's still not really enough evidence to conclusively prove ISPs are up to no good here. Much of the network data just isn't publicly available, and there's an ocean of peering and CDN relationships between you, Netflix and your ISP that muddy the waters further.

That said, the Wall Street Journal this week complicated things somewhat with a report on the streaming shenanigans that offers this curious, anonymously-sourced paragraph, which suggests big ISPs are letting peering links saturate intentionally:

"Until the standoff gets resolved, the bulk of Netflix's traffic continues to flow across Internet intermediaries, including low-cost carrier Cogent Communications Group. People familiar with Cogent's and Netflix's thinking say the cable and telephone companies are delaying upgrading existing connections. Executives at major broadband providers, meanwhile, privately blame the traffic jam on Netflix's refusal to distribute its traffic more efficiently."

Again though, nobody can prove any of this because the network and peering data needed to do so is held tightly by all parties involved. Peering disputes generally involve core Internet companies agreeing to exchange equal amounts of data at hand-off points, often without compensation under confidential agreements. Historically, there have always been occasional skirmishes between companies as that balance gets out of whack. In recent years, those battles have intensified as last mile ISPs like Comcast have pushed for significantly more money to carry traffic, as we saw with the Comcast Level 3 peering fight from a few years ago.

In these disputes it has always been a goal to make the other guy look like the greedy one for leverage, though the Netflix problems have reached a new level. Netflix offers ISPs free access to their own Open Connect Content Delivery Network, which improves streaming performance. Larger ISPs have refused to join, not wanting to give what they see as a competitor to their own services (like Verizon RedBox streaming) any leg up, instead relying on their own CDNs that, theoretically, should offer equally decent performance. That those ISPs are suddenly seeing such dismal streaming performance suggests someone along the chain is being either cheap, incompetent, or is up to no good. Potentially all three.

Incumbent ISPs don't exactly have what you would call a stellar reputation for playing nice with disruptive companies or competitors, thus the theory that AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are intentionally letting these peering points saturate then pointing the finger at Netflix in the hopes of making them look bad. If that's the goal it's not working: data released this week suggests that Netflix just reached a three year high in customer satisfaction -- despite the price hike and Qwikster nonsense of a few years back. If the goal is to make Netflix look stupid, it doesn't appear to be working so far, and as the lowest rated industry in these kinds of rankings, it's probably futile for pay TV companies to try.

The whole mess is a good example of how net neutrality violations, should they occur, might not knock you over the head with their obviousness as traditional discourse has suggested. In fact, they might not even be provable. ISPs are too smart, and too wary of getting socked with new regulations. Instead, what you'll see is gatekeeper abuses dressed up under the guise of legitimate technical issues. Verizon Wireless, for example, blocked activation of Google's Nexus 7 tablet on their LTE network for six months, blaming Google and obscure technical certification issues (while selling users their own, inferior tablet in the interim). Wireless carriers also blocked Google Wallet from devices for proclaimed security reasons, while at the same time pitching their own, Isis mobile payment platform.

People were quick to cry foul in both instances. Do incumbents have a history of this sort of thing? Yes. Can you prove carriers were up to no good in either instance? No. It all makes the point that you probably could get away with net neutrality violations without regulators batting an eyelash. You just need to be a little bit clever about it -- with a dash or two of believable technical jargon for good measure. It also makes the point that with real neutrality violations inhabiting such murky territory, we're going to see a lot more people crying net neutrality wolf -- which only helps those engaged in anti-competitive shenanigans.


Source

[Mike]

Now that I've had some additional time with the FCC boss Tom Wheeler's new net neutrality proposal and have talked to a few lawyers and consumer advocates, I'm starting to think the agency's announcement was almost entirely political theater. All the FCC really said is that it wouldn't appeal the Verizon case, and would begin a meandering public conversation about how to vaguely protect the Internet under shaky Section 706 authority the FCC knows it doesn't have. Layered on top were empty promises about improving competition and some empty threats about reclassifying ISPs as common carriers if they don't behave (which is supposed to be a threat, but every ISP lobbyist on K Street knows they won't do this if they weren't willing to do it already).

In short, the FCC vaguely promised to maybe think about some stuff after a glacial, year long conversation. Cue the absolute, unbridled, partisan hyperbole shitstorm:

"Ranking Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem," and plan to fight any new rules. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to block what she calls the "socialistic" proposal. "Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement."

You apparently don't understand that the FCC's proposal won't actually do anything, but you do know it's certainly socialist and freedom killing? The sad part is that issues like a healthy, functioning Internet with competitive balance really shouldn't be partisan at all. It's in the interest or everyone that networks work well and that honest, healthy competition improves service and drives down costs, while limiting the bad behavior of large network gatekeepers.

Well ok, not everyone. If you actually want to understand whether a policy will be good or bad for consumers, ignore all the think tanks and politicians and watch the ISP response. Specifically watch AT&T, which has the biggest lobbyist operations and the biggest mouth when truly consumer-friendly policy gets passed. AT&T supported the original rules because they had oodles of loopholes and didn't cover wireless (Verizon only sued in the hopes of killing off FCC authority entirely). Note how AT&T thinks all this socialist freedom killin' is just a splendid idea:

"AT&T, the second-largest wired broadband provider in the U.S., said it believes the FCC has the authority under Section 706 to preserve Internet openness...."AT&T has built its broadband business, both wired and wireless, on the principal of Internet openness," AT&T said in a statement. "That is what our customers rightly expect, and it is what our company will continue to deliver. That is also why we endorsed the FCC's original rule on Net neutrality, and is why we pledged to adhere to openness principles even after the recent court decision."

Knowing the FCC pretty well after more than a decade of watching them, what I think you'll ultimately see at the end of this new "conversation" is a cross-industry set of self-regulatory voluntary guidelines "prohibiting" ISPs from doing the kinds of things they never intended to do anyway -- like blocking your access to entirely legal websites. There might be particular cases where the FCC pushes for greater transparency in peering debates (especially if the ongoing Netflix standoff doesn't improve), but nothing that will truly rattle any slats. The primary goal here is making sure incumbent ISPs maximize revenues and keep the campaign contributions coming. Consumer protection is just pillow talk. For both parties.

What you won't see in any way (and probably wouldn't be enforceable under 706 anyway) is hard rules governing the more subtle sort of things network neutrality folks should actually be worried about, such as predatory pricing and the use of broadband usage caps as a weapon (like AT&T's "sponsored data"). This, unfortunately for consumers, is considered "creative pricing innovation" by both the current FCC and industry alike, and the only ones who should be freaking out at the moment are the people who are going to foot the bill for all this supposed creativity.


Source

[Scunthorpe]

The Internet should be a public utility, like landlines and electricity ARE and healthcare and higher ed SHOULD ALSO BE. "Socialism" has for years been America's favorite boogeyman (well, until the collapse of the USSR and the start of the "War on Terror" had us throwing Muslims under the bus -- er, bed). I don't like Comcast's encroaching monopoly one bit, and I am sick of manipulative tactics by corporations to squeeze every last penny out of people and give them an inferior product that they don't have much choice not to buy. Internet is a necessity in this day and age. It's the "virtual" superhighway that we built with our tax monies going to the DoD; why don't we treat it as a public utility like the "physical" superhighway that Ike built, also with our tax monies (going, I believe, to the DoD)?

Get rid of the majority of private big-money corporations and have the people declare ownership. Public-access TV; public-access Internet; public-access healthcare; public-access universities; public-access everything. Maybe if the people were the ones who owned the "means of distribution," they would default to being the ones who own the product! Huzzah, copyright for everyone means copyright for no one!

[joew771]

Yes, the internet should be a public utility and the government should be in charge of it, that is a wonderul idea.

^ sarcasm font

And the government should be in charge of my medical needs, and my education, and what I can put in my body, and what jobs I have to do, and how late I can stay up watching TV, and how long I can stay at Timmy's house, and they should come to my house and cut the crusts off of my peanut butter and jelly sandwiches too. And spank me when I've been naughty.

[Mike]

Yesterday reports started leaking about how FCC boss Tom Wheeler was getting ready to release his proposal for "new" net neutrality rules, to be voted on in a few weeks. They've now been introduced -- and Wheeler insists that all the whining and hand-wringing from yesterday was wrong. Except that's not true.

These new proposed rules are a response to a court tossing out the FCC's 2010 rules for not actually falling under the FCC's mandate. We pointed out that if the FCC were serious (and it's not), it should be focusing on increasing competition (which it's not). Congress certainly isn't going to do anything. Like previous FCC bosses, Commissioner Tom Wheeler has made it pretty clear that he's too timid to do anything serious, and instead will seek to find some sort of weak middle ground. Because there seems to be a rule that, if you're to become FCC Commissioner, you can't take a solid stand, but instead have to take a weak middle ground position and pretend it's a strong stand.

But what's currently being suggested may actually be worse. Because this opens the door to killing off net neutrality while pretending it's supporting net neutrality. As Stacey Higginbotham points out, even if Tom Wheeler believes this proposal makes sense, it's pretty ridiculous to claim it's net neutrality or about protecting an open internet. Wheeler should step up and admit what he's doing: killing off net neutrality to create a system that lets the big broadband providers double charge -- and then explain why he thinks that's necessary. Pretending this is net neutrality is a joke. Here's the basic proposals:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
   
2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
   
3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.
   

The key issue is that last one, in which the FCC claims it will still have the ability to stop "commercially unreasonable" activities by broadband providers, while refusing any attempt to explain what commercially unreasonable means. At the same time, it makes it pretty clear that "commercially reasonable" (again, undefined) rules will be allowed -- and it's likely this means allowing ISPs to create "fast lanes" by which they can charge more, so long as anyone with a lot of cash can also pay more.

This is not net neutrality. Yes, the 2nd rule means that no ISP will get away with the outright banning of access to websites, but no ISP was seriously considering that anyway. This bans a practice no one was going to do, meaning it doesn't ban anything. But by opening up "commercially reasonable" discrimination, it's allowing ISPs to create privileged "fast lanes" by which large internet players can "pay" to have preferred access to users. If you have a fast lane, by definition you also need a slow lane. So the (reasonable) fear here is that smaller entities, who can't pay for the fast lane, basically start out with degraded service compared to the big guys who can (and will) pay.

That means that services that don't pay up are throttled. By definition.

It's exactly what the big ISPs have wanted all along, which is a system to double charge big companies, who will now have to pay for both their own bandwidth and a portion of your bandwidth. If you think "hey, I already pay for my bandwidth," you're right. And now you'll likely have to pay much more, because the big companies who pay are going to pass the costs on to you. And, you'll have fewer interesting new services because the barriers to entry will be higher. So, the end result is the immensely profitable duopoly of internet service providers get more profitable and you pay more. Big internet companies pay off the broadband providers to stay fast, while startups and innovation are basically more difficult to create, because they're going to have to set aside a huge chunk of money to pay for some of the bandwidth that you're already paying for (and probably not getting anyway).

The Comcasts and AT&T's and Verizons of the world are going to parade up and down about how this will let them invest in better networks and provide better services, but there is absolutely no incentive here for them to actually do so. In fact, they have every incentive in the world to degrade service in the "slow lane" to make it less useful, driving more companies to need to pay for the fast lane.

These aren't rules for an open internet or for net neutrality. These are rules to kill that off.

"Commercially reasonable" are the weasel words here that effectively sell out the internet. The old rules were dreadful, and these rules are still just in proposal stages, but Wheeler's first foray into net neutrality is a joke. He's doing the same thing as his predecessor in refusing to stand up and say what he actually means, because he knows that what he's proposing is bad news.


Source

[Mike]

Search the internet and there are tons of articles about more efficient ways to board airplanes. Many will point to the work of astrophysicist Jason Steffen who algorithmically tested a variety of boarding methods to come up with his optimized version. The best video of this particular method is in this YouTube video where the Steffen method was tested.

The short version is that you board alternate rows at a time, starting with the window seats on one side first, then on the other, then a similar process with middle seats and aisle seats.

What does any of this have to do with net neutrality? Well, Vox.com recently had an article about the Steffen method, along with a variety of other airplane boarding methods and notes that the way we board airplanes makes absolutely no sense. In fact, the report suggested that (other than Southwest Airlines -- which lets passengers just pick their own seat) most airlines pick the absolute worst ways to board, massively increasing the time needed for the boarding process.

So here's the question: why haven't airlines adopted these better methods, sticking with what are clearly the worst methods? Everyone seems to agree that speeding up turnaround times could save airlines a tremendous amount of money. Steffen himself has estimated that faster turnaround could save the airline industry over a billion dollars. So you'd think they'd do that. But...they don't. And Vox points out why:

One possible answer is that the current system actually makes them more than they'd save by switching. As Businessweek pointed out, airlines often allow some passengers to pay extra to board early and skip the general unpleasantness. If the entire boarding process was faster to begin with, many people might not pay extra to skip it.

For passengers, though, this makes no sense. Most of us are waiting in line longer than necessary, and those who pay extra are sitting on planes longer than necessary. No one is getting to their destinations any faster, and everyone is paying higher base prices for tickets, because airlines have to pay extra to the crew for their time used during these delayed turnarounds.

In fact, that same BusinessWeek article notes that boarding times are getting much slower over time, and also details how various airlines seem to revel in making the whole process as confusing and annoying as possible -- while offering fees to folks who want to "upgrade" to a better experience.

And that, finally, takes us to the net neutrality connection. Broadband providers insist they need to do things like prioritize some traffic in order to deal with network congestion, but that's bogus. It's only the non-technical management who makes those claims. Ask the technology guys, and they will quickly say that basic upgrades can easily accommodate all traffic. But the broadband providers are now like the airlines. They could very easily offer a better overall service, but they're quickly recognizing that by offering a crappy service, they can charge more to get a select few to pay up for a "fast lane" approach. So the incentives are totally screwed up. There's little incentive for airlines to improve the boarding process, so long as having such a crappy process leads people to pay extra fees to avoid the crappy process.

In the broadband space, it's even worse, because there's even less competition, so there are even fewer incentives for the broadband providers to actually do the necessary upgrades. Instead, they have all the incentive in the world to make their broadband connections purposely inefficient, to pressure people into paying more. Is it really any wonder that Netflix streaming quality was so terrible until Netflix suddenly agreed to start paying up.

Just like the airlines, broadband providers have little incentive to actually build what's best, and plenty of incentive to degrade the general experience.


Source