Net Neutrality - I don't get it

[cashcrop]

when they can slice a service into categories where else have they not charged more  for more and less for less and charged more for what is preferred and less for what is less preferred. 

airlines will eventually charge more for a seat on the end and less in the middle if some aren't already doing it.  hotels charge for city view, ocean view.  darn, states now have pay and no-pay lanes on highways.  i could go on and on.

yet they want the internet to remain equal for all?  strange!

i heard someone say that it will be difficult for a startup to compete with netflix.  i think those days are over.   just like coke and pepsi buys all of their competitors so does google and facebook and netflix and microsoft and apple and amazon.  they gobble what makes sense to them but gobble nonetheless.  there will be very few new masters of the universe but instead only global mega-mergers that then gobble up anything they want because everything is for sale even when it is not for sale.

i see NN as totally ridiculous.  case in point netflix should be charged more for hogging so much of the bandwidth and if i have to pay more for netflix because of that, well, that is just capitalism pure and simple.  what is the saying, you pay for what you get?  if say craigslist is hogging bandwidth and cable operators begin to charge them more and as a result craigslist charges to post an ad so be it - capitalism. 

no one in congress is bitching to the airlines about baggage fees at least not to the point that it has stopped them.  i don't see why they should be bitching about NN.




 

[dragoncar]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

[Spork]

No one that wants Net Neutrality understands it.  It means agnosticism for all traffic.  It means not caring about the protocol, the source or the destination.  That sounds awesome... like some sort of "freedom of speech" battle cry.

Except: not all  protocols are the same.  Some take real effort to make them work better.  You build a really generic network, then someone invents peer-to-peer protocols that just break the whole network.  You can engineer it to be bigger (and it will cost more), you can slow down that one protocol (and piss off a percentage of people) or you can just drag in the morality police and point and say "all those people are stealing stuff" and make a good percentage of them stop with scare tactics.

In the case of Netflix:  Let's just forget neutrality.  ISPs have totally engineered their networks for them.  And historically they were given backdoors into the network at cheap or free costs.  They installed cache systems to keep their content close to the client.  Routing was made to work for them.  Their model was built on "moving data is free."  They have never had neutral networks.

AND YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO! 

Their traffic takes special paths to keep out of the way of those startups.  Keeping things non-neutral keeps the connection to the internet unclogged.  Everyone wins.

Now... at some point the ISPs started realizing:  1/3 of all the traffic was this damn near free connection.  They've been building up their networks to subsidize Netflix.  And, they're also realizing (since many of them deliver cable tv) now they are losing customers to netflix.  In the old days, cable tv subsidized the network.  Big ass pipes used to carry content were paid for in part by the consumers of that content.  Now that class is shrinking, but the size of the data pipes is growing.  Your choices: charge more to customers for access or charge more to the person generating the traffic for access.

Comcast decided to ask Netflix to pay for their super cheap back door.  Netflix clamored "that's not net neutral".  Yeah?  Neither is your free back door or your cache or your route engineering!  So Comcast says "Ok.  Then you can use the public internet like everyone else."

You know what?  It killed Netflix.  People on Comcasts network would have really good transit times (better, now that no one can stream Netflix).  Speedtest servers will prove it's working fine.  That traffic has to fight with everyone on Tier 1 and 2 providers.  Before  Netflix probably had 100gb (or more) into Comcast... and now they need 100gb (or more) of bandwidth into their VERY EXPENSIVE upper tier providers.

So... Netflix finally paid.  And the FCC really can't say anything because: The outage was caused by treating Netflix as net-neutral.  The outage was fixed by treating them special.

So... it isn't the difference between an electric bill and an envelope full of poetry.  It's the difference between an electric bill and a crate of anvils.

What net neutrality really means:
* traffic can never be tailored to an application
* usage based billing -- just like a common utility.  This probably means most people pay more to get their data and the content providers pay more (and bill you more) to get it to you.

Most people don't want that.  If you don't use much bandwidth... you might.
 

[RyanAtTanagra]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

That's a good analogy.  Netflix is already paying the backbone providers (Cogent, Level 3, etc) for the massive bandwidth they consume.  Comcast (et al) also pays the providers for their end of the bandwidth.  Now they don't want to do this anymore because it's become so much bandwidth.  Yes a lot of it is from Netflix, but it is the Comcast customer requesting that bandwidth.  What Comcast needs to do is pay the providers for a pipe wide enough to be able to provide good service to their customers.  This can come out of their bottom line, or they can charge their end customers more to make up the cost.  Making Netflix pay for both ends isn't how the internet is designed and it's nothing but a bullying tactic by Comcast/Verizon/AT&T.

If Comcast wants to charge it's customers for different levels of service, that's one thing, that's already happening.  No one argues that they have to pay more for a faster connection (well I'm sure some do), but that's not what this is about.

[Spork]

That's not how it works at all.

Comcast provides Netflix with peering points at multiple points in their network (and probably also provides caching).  Most likely it is "free."

[dragoncar]

No one that wants Net Neutrality understands it.  It means agnosticism for all traffic.  It means not caring about the protocol, the source or the destination.  That sounds awesome... like some sort of "freedom of speech" battle cry.

Except: not all  protocols are the same.  Some take real effort to make them work better.  You build a really generic network, then someone invents peer-to-peer protocols that just break the whole network.  You can engineer it to be bigger (and it will cost more), you can slow down that one protocol (and piss off a percentage of people) or you can just drag in the morality police and point and say "all those people are stealing stuff" and make a good percentage of them stop with scare tactics.

In the case of Netflix:  Let's just forget neutrality.  ISPs have totally engineered their networks for them.  And historically they were given backdoors into the network at cheap or free costs.  They installed cache systems to keep their content close to the client.  Routing was made to work for them.  Their model was built on "moving data is free."  They have never had neutral networks.

AND YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO! 

Their traffic takes special paths to keep out of the way of those startups.  Keeping things non-neutral keeps the connection to the internet unclogged.  Everyone wins.

Now... at some point the ISPs started realizing:  1/3 of all the traffic was this damn near free connection.  They've been building up their networks to subsidize Netflix.  And, they're also realizing (since many of them deliver cable tv) now they are losing customers to netflix.  In the old days, cable tv subsidized the network.  Big ass pipes used to carry content were paid for in part by the consumers of that content.  Now that class is shrinking, but the size of the data pipes is growing.  Your choices: charge more to customers for access or charge more to the person generating the traffic for access.

Comcast decided to ask Netflix to pay for their super cheap back door.  Netflix clamored "that's not net neutral".  Yeah?  Neither is your free back door or your cache or your route engineering!  So Comcast says "Ok.  Then you can use the public internet like everyone else."

You know what?  It killed Netflix.  People on Comcasts network would have really good transit times (better, now that no one can stream Netflix).  Speedtest servers will prove it's working fine.  That traffic has to fight with everyone on Tier 1 and 2 providers.  Before  Netflix probably had 100gb (or more) into Comcast... and now they need 100gb (or more) of bandwidth into their VERY EXPENSIVE upper tier providers.

So... Netflix finally paid.  And the FCC really can't say anything because: The outage was caused by treating Netflix as net-neutral.  The outage was fixed by treating them special.

So... it isn't the difference between an electric bill and an envelope full of poetry.  It's the difference between an electric bill and a crate of anvils.

What net neutrality really means:
* traffic can never be tailored to an application
* usage based billing -- just like a common utility.  This probably means most people pay more to get their data and the content providers pay more (and bill you more) to get it to you.

Most people don't want that.  If you don't use much bandwidth... you might.

ISPs didn't "engineer their networks" for Netflix out of the goodness of their hearts.  They gave Netflix the edge distribution servers to reduce their own down-link traffic from their own "VERY EXPENSIVE upper tier providers."  For example, the USPS could theoretically let me send a letter from SF to NY by locally printing the letter in their NY office (lets assume this saves them money).  That's not altruistic, they are doing it to save on shipping costs.  To turn around and charge the recipient extra for "electronic printed mail" is extortion.

Nobody is saying you can't charge different amounts for different levels of service.  I'm fine with Comcast charging me more for a TCP packet than a UDP packet, or more for faster service, or more for more traffic (although they shouldn't then advertise that as "unlimited").  But the Comcast wants to charge Netflix for a packet that I, as a subscriber, requested and paid delivery for.  If Comcast is getting too much traffic from its tier provider, they should renegotiate their peering agreement.  They shouldn't look into envelopes of equal weight and charge more for delivery just because they can.

[arebelspy]

No one that wants Net Neutrality understands it.

I'm 100% for net neutrality, and I understand it.  It's insulting to dismiss people who disagree with you as simply ignorant, and it does a disservice to yourself, since you're saying you can't understand their arguments at all.

What if the electric company monitored what devices were using electricity and charged more for certain devices?  Oh, you're using an XBOX, we have a partnership with Microsoft.. that'll be cheaper.  Want to run your Playstation?  $5 surcharge please.

Lack of net neutrality means paying more for content that doesn't have agreements with the providers.

MMM site isn't part of Comcast's preferred network?  We'll just add some lag into visiting their forum.

No net neutrality?  Look forward to having the Internet priced like TV is nowadays.

[Spork]

ISPs didn't "engineer their networks" for Netflix out of the goodness of their hearts.  They gave Netflix the edge distribution servers to reduce their own down-link traffic from their own "VERY EXPENSIVE upper tier providers." 

Absolutely true.  It was for the benefit of both.   

Nobody is saying you can't charge different amounts for different levels of service.  I'm fine with Comcast charging me more for a TCP packet than a UDP packet, or more for faster service, or more for more traffic (although they shouldn't then advertise that as "unlimited").  But the Comcast wants to charge Netflix for a packet that I, as a subscriber, requested and paid delivery for.  If Comcast is getting too much traffic from its tier provider, they should renegotiate their peering agreement.  They shouldn't look into envelopes of equal weight and charge more for delivery just because they can.

This isn't about tier providers at all.  It is about peering.  These aren't the same at all.  This is "hey, plug your network into mine and bypass all those other guys".  Netflix isn't paying more for a packet you requested.  It's paying more to bypass their upper tier provider.

The reason this worked is: Comcast followed all the rules explicitly and that is what broke things. 


There is a lot of engineering that went in to make Netflix work on their network.  Comcast turned it off.  That's neutral.  Guess what broke?  Netflix.  Guess how it was fixed?  Non-neutrality.  Pay-for-peering instead of free peering.  Comcast actually had the bandwidth upstream... Netflix's upper tier is what got clogged.  And Netflix wasn't willing to pay to up it.

I think you'll also find other non-neutral things all through an ISP.  Someone pays more for traffic... they get priority.  If you don't negotiate a guaranteed delivery or latency agreement, you don't have one.  Guess what?  It costs more.  If you're willing to pay for it, they'll sell it to you.

[arebelspy]

Here's a two minute video primer for those that don't understand Net Neutrality: http://lifehacker.com/this-video-is-a-two-minute-primer-to-net-neutrality-1543438990

[Spork]

What if the electric company monitored what devices were using electricity and charged more for certain devices?  Oh, you're using an XBOX, we have a partnership with Microsoft.. that'll be cheaper.  Want to run your Playstation?  $5 surcharge please.

That's not at all a comparison.  A comparison is more like "what if the electric company charged more for people that used more electricity." 

MMM site isn't part of Comcast's preferred network?  We'll just add some lag into visiting their forum.

I'm not saying MMM isn't popular.  But you cannot compare MMM to "1/3 of all traffic on the internet".  Sorry.  It's not even close.

Netflix is 1/3 of all of it in the US.
Netflix + youtube is 1/2. 

No net neutrality?  Look forward to having the Internet priced like TV is nowadays.

I'd say exactly the opposite.

Enforce net neutrality and you will have metered billing.  You'll have no network engineering.  You'll have no attention paid to protocol.

Uh oh, someone sent you a DDoS.  ChaChing!  Pay per byte for it please.

Unfortunately, I am pretty sure this is where we're headed.  I think it will become a common carrier and you'll pay per byte.

And services that rely on data will also pay-per-byte... increasing their costs as well. 

[biscuitwhomper]

The notion that preserving net neutrality means "no network engineering" is ludicrous.    As a former WAN engineer, I completely disagree with this statement.

Net Neutrality means that our monopolistic last-mile carriers have competition for their non-competitive products.    This terrifies them.

[arebelspy]

What if the electric company monitored what devices were using electricity and charged more for certain devices?  Oh, you're using an XBOX, we have a partnership with Microsoft.. that'll be cheaper.  Want to run your Playstation?  $5 surcharge please.

That's not at all a comparison.  A comparison is more like "what if the electric company charged more for people that used more electricity." 

No.  The electric company does charge more for using more electricity.  Just like my ISP charges me more for using more data.

But my ISP doesn't charge me based on the type of data packets going through.  And it shouldn't charge me more for certain data types, just like the electric company shouldn't charge me more for certain devices.

Certain pages loading faster than others just because they can (i.e. have gotten paid to do so) is bad for the internet.  Non-net neutrality is bad for the internet.

[arebelspy]

The notion that preserving net neutrality means "no network engineering" is ludicrous.    As a former WAN engineer, I completely disagree with this statement.

Absolutely.  Spork's set up a huge straw man that says net neutrality means no packet shaping.  Bullshit.

[Spork]

I'm not communicating well.... let me try something different.

The FCC clearly defines neutrality as being protocol agnostic (as well as source/destination agnostic).

So a few questions which of these is offensive:

* a shorter path to a provider.  (peering)  They plug straight into your network.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for network latency.  Some protocols work better if they get there faster.  Some games, for instance, do better if your "bullet" gets to the server faster.  VOIP works really poorly if there is a delay.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for jitter.  Consistent delay is sometimes better than faster.  VOIP again does better if the delay is consistent.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for bandwidth.  You might send traffic clear around the internet via the longest path just so it gets big pipes.  It might have lag, but it has bandwidth.  Non-interactive video works well this way.  (Netflix)
* installing a cache near the client that understands a single protocol or source or destination such that content gets to the client really fast
* slowing down a particular protocol -- when one new protocol is used by a small percentage and affects a large percentage of customers.  (The real answer is to re-engineer.  I know this. That could take a long time.)
* eliminating traffic categorized as malware.  Some percentage (hopefully small) of traffic is likely to be miscategorized.
* charging for any of the above

As I understand it (and no.... I am seriously not trying to build a strawman) -- all of the above violates net neutrality.

Caveats/full disclosure:  Yes, I have done work in this area.  No, I have never worked for Comcast.  Yes, I have been their customer (and didn't care for them). 

ARS... not that this affects the argument at all, but just an aside:  I totally didn't like the common curriculum based on the way the media presented it.  When you explained how it worked from the inside, I got a whole different concept of it.   This is what I'm trying to present:  how it really works on the inside.  Y

I am only showing upside.  I understand that.  There are downsides.  I understand that.  But know there are upsides.

In the Comcast/Netflix kerfuffle, the conflict was engineered to follow net neutrality to the letter of the law.  (That doesn't mean they weren't dicks... you can make that judgment on your own.)  It does mean strict adherence to NN just might not work the way people think it works.  The network is already not neutral.

[arebelspy]

If the ISP is selling a service they can't deliver, then they should stop that.

They should change their pricing.

Not based on what data I consume.  That's none of their business, and I don't want them deciding which data should cost more.

They should charge me for the data I use.  Regardless of if it's Netflix, MMM, or Comcast.net

I pay a monthly fee to my ISP to provide X amount of data at Y speed.  That data should be served at Y speed, until I hit X amount of bytes (and then whatever happens according to our contract - I get cut off, or pay extra, or whatever).

If they can't deliver that, stop selling it, and change your rates.  If they can, do it.

Would you be okay with Wal Mart buying the roads and charging more for Target trucks to use them when delivering goods?

[DollarBill]

Shouldn't be just how much you download??

[cashcrop]

There is a lot of engineering that went in to make Netflix work on their network.  Comcast turned it off.  That's neutral.  Guess what broke?  Netflix.  Guess how it was fixed?  Non-neutrality.  Pay-for-peering instead of free peering.  Comcast actually had the bandwidth upstream... Netflix's upper tier is what got clogged.  And Netflix wasn't willing to pay to up it.

I remember when this happened and they said Netflix finally did pay up (I thought that was the final outcome).

Anyway, this little paragraph makes the most sense to me.

Lesson learned here though is that surely few really knows what NN really means.



Anyway, all networks need to be managed so it isn't inconceivable to imagine special arrangements.

[arebelspy]

Netflix caved, yes.

And what happens is we, consumers, will pay twice: once to the ISP for the internet, once to Netflix via their increased fees they now have to put in place (and have announced).  I'm all for people paying for their use, but it should be charged through the ISP for the amount of data I used.  Not charged twice, once to me and once to Netflix.

[cashcrop]

Netflix caved, yes.

And what happens is we, consumers, will pay twice: once to the ISP for the internet, once to Netflix via their increased fees they now have to put in place (and have announced).  I'm all for people paying for their use, but it should be charged through the ISP for the amount of data I used.  Not charged twice, once to me and once to Netflix.

my air ticket "should" include baggage and a meal like it used to but it doesn't anymore.

airlines may say they are charging us less for tickets now that they have separated everything, but we know that isn't true.

you can stop using netflix.  i can drive instead of fly.

it is capitalism and given what the airlines and banks have done to consumers, i've learned there is no "should" in capitalism.

[arebelspy]

it is capitalism and given what the airlines and banks have done to consumers, i've learned there is no "should" in capitalism.

That's why we have certain regulations, to promote free and open trade, and stop monopolies.

You can choose a different airline that does include baggage and a meal.  Often one doesn't have a choice between ISPs, due to their government granted monopolies.

If there was only one airline that serviced your city and they looked inside the luggage you carried with you and charged you more based on them liking the contents or not, that'd be the same thing, and just as reprehensible as non-net neutrality.

[Spork]

If the ISP is selling a service they can't deliver, then they should stop that.

They should change their pricing.

Not based on what data I consume.  That's none of their business, and I don't want them deciding which data should cost more.

They should charge me for the data I use.  Regardless of if it's Netflix, MMM, or Comcast.net

I pay a monthly fee to my ISP to provide X amount of data at Y speed.  That data should be served at Y speed, until I hit X amount of bytes (and then whatever happens according to our contract - I get cut off, or pay extra, or whatever).

If they can't deliver that, stop selling it, and change your rates.  If they can, do it.

Would you be okay with Wal Mart buying the roads and charging more for Target trucks to use them when delivering goods?

So... I think that's a very likely outcome.   

Personally: I hate metered billing.  I'm not sure it makes things cheaper, though it probably spreads the cost out more proportionally.

This also solves Comcast's other problem:  Fewer people want TV (and it has long been subsidizing the internal network links.)  People will start getting TV from the net exclusively.  (That's my prediction anyway.) 

This may not affect most mustacians, but I think the average consumer will pay more.  The existing channel lineups are easy to engineer.  They're known sizes.  You can multicast them.  Streaming is bursty.  It's single streams instead of multicast.  It will drive costs up, then it will be divided up by metered billing.

...but that's just my prediction.

[Spork]

it is capitalism and given what the airlines and banks have done to consumers, i've learned there is no "should" in capitalism.

That's why we have certain regulations, to promote free and open trade, and stop monopolies.

You can choose a different airline that does include baggage and a meal.  Often one doesn't have a choice between ISPs, due to their government granted monopolies.

I totally agree with this sentiment. 

[Spork]

my air ticket "should" include baggage and a meal like it used to but it doesn't anymore.

airlines may say they are charging us less for tickets now that they have separated everything, but we know that isn't true.

you can stop using netflix.  i can drive instead of fly.

it is capitalism and given what the airlines and banks have done to consumers, i've learned there is no "should" in capitalism.

Interesting (to me) side tidbit:  The extra charges are actually a product of the regulations.  Airlines are gaming the system. 

For example: assume a ticket (bags and meal included) from Dallas to New York is $500.  There's $50 taxes.  Total: $550.   (I'm making up the numbers for illustration only.  Don't call me on the actual costs or taxes.)

Now: Drop the ticket price to $450.  Exclude meals/baggage.  Taxes go to $45 for a total of $495.  They can now charge you $55 in fees/meals for the exact same thing.  Your total is now $550.  The difference is that the airline cut is $505 instead of $500.

I'm sure there are other taxes.  I'm ignoring them on purpose.  This refers to federal taxes that go to the aviation trust coffers. 

[wtjbatman]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

[dragoncar]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

No, not in this analogy, it's not.

[Jamesqf]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry (that is, video &c) is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

Yeah, and your regular letter keeps getting delayed because the mail carrier has to keep going back to the post office for more 50 lb packages.

And because it costs exactly the same* to send a 50 lb package as a regular letter, people start thinking that it's cool to send packages, even though regular letters would serve the purpose better.  Witness the link above to the 2-minute video explanation of net neutrality, which could have been condensed to a few paragraphs of text, and read (at least by the literate, fossils though we may be) in half the time, with better comprehension.

*Most non-wireless ISPs seem to charge simply for a connection of a particular rated speed, regardless of how much data you shove across it.

[wtjbatman]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

No, not in this analogy, it's not.

Actually it is

[danclarkie]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry (that is, video &c) is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

Yeah, and your regular letter keeps getting delayed because the mail carrier has to keep going back to the post office for more 50 lb packages.

And because it costs exactly the same* to send a 50 lb package as a regular letter, people start thinking that it's cool to send packages, even though regular letters would serve the purpose better.  Witness the link above to the 2-minute video explanation of net neutrality, which could have been condensed to a few paragraphs of text, and read (at least by the literate, fossils though we may be) in half the time, with better comprehension.

*Most non-wireless ISPs seem to charge simply for a connection of a particular rated speed, regardless of how much data you shove across it.

But this is not correct.

The above scenario would be prevented with data caps, which are already legal and in place for many people.

The issue of net neutrality is saying that two postal items of the same weight, and same destination, will be delivered at different speeds SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTS.

For example.
Using the same postal/courier service.

• A 1kg bag of rice from "cheap rice co" (costing $1) might take 28 days to travel from one address to the other.
• A 1kg bag of rice from "big corporate co" (costing $20) might take 2 days to travel the between the same addresses.

Simply because "Big Rice Co" pay the courier service to deliver their rice in 2 days and delay the "cheap rice co" for 28 days and thus gain a corporate advantage.

The previously "neutral" medium of transfer has been corrupted by financial incentives to deliver an unfair playing field.

[dragoncar]

How would you feel if you paid to send a letter to someone, and then USPS charged that person a "poetry delivery fee" because the letter contains poetry instead of an electric bill?

Except the poetry (that is, video &c) is a 50lb package, and the regular letter is 12oz.

Yeah, and your regular letter keeps getting delayed because the mail carrier has to keep going back to the post office for more 50 lb packages.

And because it costs exactly the same* to send a 50 lb package as a regular letter, people start thinking that it's cool to send packages, even though regular letters would serve the purpose better.  Witness the link above to the 2-minute video explanation of net neutrality, which could have been condensed to a few paragraphs of text, and read (at least by the literate, fossils though we may be) in half the time, with better comprehension.

*Most non-wireless ISPs seem to charge simply for a connection of a particular rated speed, regardless of how much data you shove across it.

But this is not correct.

The above scenario would be prevented with data caps, which are already legal and in place for many people.

The issue of net neutrality is saying that two postal items of the same weight, and same destination, will be delivered at different speeds SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTS.

For example.
Using the same postal/courier service.

• A 1kg bag of rice from "cheap rice co" (costing $1) might take 28 days to travel from one address to the other.
• A 1kg bag of rice from "big corporate co" (costing $20) might take 2 days to travel the between the same addresses.

Simply because "Big Rice Co" pay the courier service to deliver their rice in 2 days and delay the "cheap rice co" for 28 days and thus gain a corporate advantage.

The previously "neutral" medium of transfer has been corrupted by financial incentives to deliver an unfair playing field.

^this guy gets it. 

Content providers are already charged by their ISPs based on the volume of traffic (in the analogy, size and weight of packages).  Their ISPs have peering agreements with, say, Comcast based on (you guessed it) volume of traffic.  I pay Comcast to deliver that traffic to me.

Comcast wants to charge content providers for traffic volume already contracted/paid for, based on the content, not volume, of that traffic.

It's like saying "wow, dragoncar sends a lot of poetry (which he pays postage for)... lets charge the recipient for receiving poetry (but not utility bills) at the PO box he pays a monthly fee for."

It's fine to charge for volume, but not for content.

[danclarkie]

If the net neutrality changes come into play, you can potentially almost certainly kiss goodbye to the MMM forum.
The big players will pay the fees to remain available to the public, whilst smaller bloggers/forums like this will, obviously, not pay $$$ a year to the ISPs to be bundled in.

Your ISP will be able to say "If you want financial advice, we offer unrestricted access to CNN and CBNBC finance, these cover all of your investment and finance needs"

Once the framework is in place to block content, bad things happen and stuff goes downhill rather quickly...

Obviously the first things to go will be the piracy, torrent, and streaming sites.
Next will be the sites that offer ways to get around the filters, such as proxy websites and VPN websites.
Websites with perceived links to terrorism will go.
Then websites sympathetic to extremist causes (Animal rights groups, anti-capitalism groups, Occupy protest websites)
Then websites that report news on any of the above groups.
Until, in the end, you get a state sanctioned internet which restricts access to any content that the government or large corporations do not agree with.

And everyone will sleepwalk into it by either not understanding it, or believing that it is in their best interest (to protect them from baddies).

Call me a "tin hat" but the countries that currently implement the DNS filtering technology for this purpose are:

• China
• Iran
• United Arab Emirates
• Armenia
• Ethiopia
• Saudi Arabia
• Yemen
• Bahrain
• Burma (Myanmar)
• Syria
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan
• Vietnam

The US want's to add itself to that list.
inb4 Reductio ad Hitlerum


With such filtering in place, a public forum like this becomes almost untenable at any scale.
It will take only a few cases of someone posting information that is "blocked" on the forum here before the ISP's kill access to the forum to prevent it being used to circumvent the restrictions in place.

Say you ISP filters news from "Example News Corp" unless you pay the extra $20 a month.
Your ISP gives access to MMM as usual, for free.
Someone who has paid the $20 extra fee goes to "Example News Corp" and reads a MMMesque article and decides to post it to MMM in full.

You can then use MMM forum to access the "Example News Corp" content that otherwise would cost you $20 a month to see.

Your ISP fixes this issue by blocking access to MMM unless you pay the $20 a month.

People that don't know MMM, and don't already pay the $20 a month, will never see MMM and never hear of it.

Hurrah! The slow death of the internet!


Source: I live in a country with strict DNS filtering in place, I have also spent time in China where such systems are substantially developed and in place.

[ak907]

I'm not communicating well.... let me try something different.

The FCC clearly defines neutrality as being protocol agnostic (as well as source/destination agnostic).

So a few questions which of these is offensive:

* a shorter path to a provider.  (peering)  They plug straight into your network.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for network latency.  Some protocols work better if they get there faster.  Some games, for instance, do better if your "bullet" gets to the server faster.  VOIP works really poorly if there is a delay.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for jitter.  Consistent delay is sometimes better than faster.  VOIP again does better if the delay is consistent.
* applying protocol specific ACLs to optimize for bandwidth.  You might send traffic clear around the internet via the longest path just so it gets big pipes.  It might have lag, but it has bandwidth.  Non-interactive video works well this way.  (Netflix)
* installing a cache near the client that understands a single protocol or source or destination such that content gets to the client really fast
* slowing down a particular protocol -- when one new protocol is used by a small percentage and affects a large percentage of customers.  (The real answer is to re-engineer.  I know this. That could take a long time.)
* eliminating traffic categorized as malware.  Some percentage (hopefully small) of traffic is likely to be miscategorized.
* charging for any of the above

As I understand it (and no.... I am seriously not trying to build a strawman) -- all of the above violates net neutrality.

Caveats/full disclosure:  Yes, I have done work in this area.  No, I have never worked for Comcast.  Yes, I have been their customer (and didn't care for them). 

ARS... not that this affects the argument at all, but just an aside:  I totally didn't like the common curriculum based on the way the media presented it.  When you explained how it worked from the inside, I got a whole different concept of it.   This is what I'm trying to present:  how it really works on the inside.  Y

I am only showing upside.  I understand that.  There are downsides.  I understand that.  But know there are upsides.

In the Comcast/Netflix kerfuffle, the conflict was engineered to follow net neutrality to the letter of the law.  (That doesn't mean they weren't dicks... you can make that judgment on your own.)  It does mean strict adherence to NN just might not work the way people think it works.  The network is already not neutral.

You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Customers, individuals and companies, of internet service providers pay for a level of service, defined by expected speed and bandwidth. This does not mean you only get that speed local to the ISP's network! (the problem with Comcast, prioritizing and only having enough bandwidth to serve content local to their leg of the internet)
This is the beauty of the internet, you pay for bandwidth like water flow, all else is equal. It provides the platform for small times blogs like MMM, to get bigger quickly and easily; without facing obstacles like having to pay even more on top of their regular access to reach readers due to bigger competitors paying to prioritize and speed access to their content, thereby de-prioritizing and limiting access to the smaller competitions content.

All the technologies you are talking about are used by the ISP's to reduce the cost of providing that bandwidth. They are inherit to the agreement to run a large network. Alternatively companies can choose to purchase and utilize better and more expensive technologies to provide raw bandwidth (see Google Fiber).

What people mean when they talk about net neutrality is that given two points of connection on the internet streaming video or visiting a web page should perform the same no matter who is doing the streaming between those two links (i.e. packets tagged being from Comcast's video service, or Netflix's). When this stops being the case the internet will become a very different place, much more like the old style media.
     This is made infinitely worse by the fact that there is almost no competition in the majority of the US, you often have no real choice in providers (do you want dial up or Comcast, Comcast or incredibly laggy and expensive satellite?). This is often due to legislatively granted monopolies. These companies can't scream don't regulate us on one side, but then pay for legislation (look up the experience of local town and small ISP's trying to provide service) guaranteeing their monopoly.

All this being said I think there be more to the Netflix agreement than I am fully cognizant of. People are still correct to be, and should still be, very vigilant in watching for dangerous changes in the Internet's operating model.

[oldtoyota]

No one that wants Net Neutrality understands it.

I'm 100% for net neutrality, and I understand it.  It's insulting to dismiss people who disagree with you as simply ignorant, and it does a disservice to yourself, since you're saying you can't understand their arguments at all.

Thank you! I got told yesterday that "Net Neutrality" is a "buzzword" and that I didn't understand it. You are absolutely right about the above.

[GuitarStv]

No one that wants Net Neutrality understands it.

I'm 100% for net neutrality, and I understand it.  It's insulting to dismiss people who disagree with you as simply ignorant, and it does a disservice to yourself, since you're saying you can't understand their arguments at all.

What if the electric company monitored what devices were using electricity and charged more for certain devices?  Oh, you're using an XBOX, we have a partnership with Microsoft.. that'll be cheaper.  Want to run your Playstation?  $5 surcharge please.

Lack of net neutrality means paying more for content that doesn't have agreements with the providers.

MMM site isn't part of Comcast's preferred network?  We'll just add some lag into visiting their forum.

No net neutrality?  Look forward to having the Internet priced like TV is nowadays.

THANK YOU!

I am 100% for net neutrality and I understand exactly what it means.

Particularly in Canada where we have very limited choices of service providers (Bell, Rogers, or Cogeco . . . and usually only two of the three in any particular area).  These internet service providers also have a monopoly on television services.  It would suck to have all Netflix traffic slowed down to the point of unusability because Rogers decided to launch their own competing (shittier) internet TV.

[Spork]

If we're talking about Comcast v Netflix, we're talking about peering.  Period.  That (and a little other network magic) is what this is about.  Let's for a moment forget analogies to mail, water, electricity, roads etc.  Analogies help explain broad concepts, but we're talking about something very specific.

I've tried to ask this question... and I'm serious... I am really trying to understand what is offensive here.

Is it:
* the fact that lots of behind the scenes engineering has been done to make Netflix work
-or-
* the fact that they are being asked to pay for it.
-or-
* possibly both

[arebelspy]

If we're talking about Comcast v Netflix, we're talking about peering.  Period.  That (and a little other network magic) is what this is about.  Let's for a moment forget analogies to mail, water, electricity, roads etc.  Analogies help explain broad concepts, but we're talking about something very specific.

I've tried to ask this question... and I'm serious... I am really trying to understand what is offensive here.

Is it:
* the fact that lots of behind the scenes engineering has been done to make Netflix work
-or-
* the fact that they are being asked to pay for it.
-or-
* possibly both

The second.

Netflix should not have to pay for that.  Comcast sold me an Internet connection to access X amount of data at $Y.  If it's costing them too much to access that data, they should increase their prices.

They shouldn't sell what they can't provide.  They shouldn't charge companies based on the content they're delivering.  My ISP should go out, get the packet of data I requested, and serve it to me.  If they can't do that (which they have contractually said they can), they need to pay THEMSELVES to fix it so they can.

And yes, that may include making a deal with Netflix to host some of Netflix's content on their servers.  At their expense.  (Which will actually save them money, dynamite.)

How long until a religiously owned ISP offers better streaming on Passion of the Christ than on porn? 

I paid for you to go out and get a packet and deliver it to me.  What that packet is made of is irrelevant.  If the packets I'm requesting are too heavy, charge me more.  But don't charge me more if it's the same as any other packet just based on the content of it.

[danclarkie]

Explain why, Comacast spent time, money, and effort to put in place these concessions for Netflix when Netflix's entire business model runs entirely against Comcasts Cable TV business...

They did it because it benefited them.

They did it because the service offered to paying customers is one of neutral internet.

Comcast HAVE TO by law provide neutral internet even to services that run ENTIRELY AGAINST their cable TV packages.

Any work that Comcast have done to assist Netflix was done simply because it made financial sense for them to do so.
You make it sound like Comcast have done Netflix a favour, and now want Netflix to pay them for the extra services that they have put in place.

The fact is, Comcast put these concessions in place because they had to. Their existing infrastructure could not deliver the Netflix traffic at the rate that they are contractually obligated to.

Comcast offer "Unlimited internet access, at "X"mbps for $Y/month"
If they have to bend over backwards to be able to support that offer under the weight of Netflix traffic, well maybe they shouldn't be making that offer in the first place?

FWIW, I watch US Netflix in Dubai.
The packets have to travel almost half the globe, via a bunch of DNS filtering trickery, to reach my Xbox, but still do in full HD without lag.
To say that Comcast is unable to offer the same service within the continental United States, without making large concessions that Netflix should pay for, ... I find hard to swallow.

As it stands, I am currently pay a $ surcharge on my Netflix subscription to pay for Comcast to deliver the content without restriction inside the US?
How is that reasonable?

[Spork]

If we're talking about Comcast v Netflix, we're talking about peering.  Period.  That (and a little other network magic) is what this is about.  Let's for a moment forget analogies to mail, water, electricity, roads etc.  Analogies help explain broad concepts, but we're talking about something very specific.

I've tried to ask this question... and I'm serious... I am really trying to understand what is offensive here.

Is it:
* the fact that lots of behind the scenes engineering has been done to make Netflix work
-or-
* the fact that they are being asked to pay for it.
-or-
* possibly both

The second.

Netflix should not have to pay for that.  Comcast sold me an Internet connection to access X amount of data at $Y.  If it's costing them too much to access that data, they should increase their prices.

Ok.

As a followup:  If Netflix decided they wanted to be dual homed... I.e. If they decided that they wanted commercial services and chose Comcast for that service.  Is it okay for Comcast to charge them for that? 

I.e: a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is.

They [Comcast] shouldn't sell what they can't provide. 

(Bold above is my addition intended for clarity, and not intended to change your meaning.  If I did so, that was my mistake.)
This is a different topic (slightly).  Comcast *can* provide it.  They have the upper tier bandwidth to take Netflix traffic from their internet provider.  Speedtests during the Netflix outage proved there was bandwidth available.  It was the Netflix and the Tier2/3 providers that didn't have the bandwidth.  It was Netflix (in this very specific case) that was selling something they couldn't provide.

[Spork]

The fact is, Comcast put these concessions in place because they had to. Their existing infrastructure could not deliver the Netflix traffic at the rate that they are contractually obligated to.

What I am saying is: No, they can.  Netflix cannot deliver at the rate they're obligated to.  It's a difference. 

[Insanity]

If we're talking about Comcast v Netflix, we're talking about peering.  Period.  That (and a little other network magic) is what this is about.  Let's for a moment forget analogies to mail, water, electricity, roads etc.  Analogies help explain broad concepts, but we're talking about something very specific.

I've tried to ask this question... and I'm serious... I am really trying to understand what is offensive here.

Is it:
* the fact that lots of behind the scenes engineering has been done to make Netflix work
-or-
* the fact that they are being asked to pay for it.
-or-
* possibly both

the question becomes -
Who is responsible for that infrastructure change?  If the response is Comcast, then they have a choice - do they try to be fair to those who do not want Netflix and pass the cost on to the Netflix customer or do they do an across the board rate hike?  If the response is Netflix, then you have Netflix PR saying that this is Comcast's way of charging a fee.

Just like everything else, ultimately the customer pays.

[arebelspy]

If we're talking about Comcast v Netflix, we're talking about peering.  Period.  That (and a little other network magic) is what this is about.  Let's for a moment forget analogies to mail, water, electricity, roads etc.  Analogies help explain broad concepts, but we're talking about something very specific.

I've tried to ask this question... and I'm serious... I am really trying to understand what is offensive here.

Is it:
* the fact that lots of behind the scenes engineering has been done to make Netflix work
-or-
* the fact that they are being asked to pay for it.
-or-
* possibly both

The second.

Netflix should not have to pay for that.  Comcast sold me an Internet connection to access X amount of data at $Y.  If it's costing them too much to access that data, they should increase their prices.

Ok.

So we're all good, we agree?  Cool, thread over. Thanks for the thoughts.  :)

As a followup:  If Netflix decided they wanted to be dual homed... I.e. If they decided that they wanted commercial services and chose Comcast for that service.  Is it okay for Comcast to charge them for that? 

I.e: a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is.

I have no input on whatever other services they decide to start and sell and work out a contract for, especially since I lack the details of said contract.

I do have the details of my contract with Comcast, which is X amount of data for $Y per month at Z speed.

If the problem is on Netflix's end, that's fine.  As long as Comcast is shoving bytes to me as fast as they contractually agreed to, regardless of the content of the data, up to the limits that we agreed to, we're good.  If Netflix can't keep up, okay, as long as Comcast is fulfilling its obligation.  That isn't happening.  The monopolistic ISPs are overselling all the time.

(Note: I don't actually use Comcast, but they're an easy placeholder for [my ISP].)

[arebelspy]

Who is responsible for that infrastructure change?  If the response is Comcast, then they have a choice - do they try to be fair to those who do not want Netflix and pass the cost on to the Netflix customer or do they do an across the board rate hike?  If the response is Netflix, then you have Netflix PR saying that this is Comcast's way of charging a fee.

Just like everything else, ultimately the customer pays.

If it's Comcast that needs to pay because they can't deliver what they promised, they should change their promises.  Not charge someone else.

When MMM wants his site faster, he upgrades his site.  He doesn't pay Comcast.

If Netflix can't deliver, and needs to pay for better hosting (peering, at that level), that's fine.  But Net Neutrality keeps it so that the person who isn't fulfilling their end of the bargain pays, and then doesn't allow bullshit deals based on content and who owns it.

[Spork]

As a followup:  If Netflix decided they wanted to be dual homed... I.e. If they decided that they wanted commercial services and chose Comcast for that service.  Is it okay for Comcast to charge them for that? 

I.e: a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is.

I have no input on whatever other services they decide to start and sell and work out a contract for, especially since I lack the details of said contract.

Ok.  Then we agree there, I think.

Now, when that contract is at it's term end, I would also assume it's okay that either side either does or does not agree to renew?  And I'd assume the renewal price is also negotiable.

Do we agree there?

[cashcrop]

it is capitalism and given what the airlines and banks have done to consumers, i've learned there is no "should" in capitalism.

That's why we have certain regulations, to promote free and open trade, and stop monopolies.

You can choose a different airline that does include baggage and a meal.  Often one doesn't have a choice between ISPs, due to their government granted monopolies.

I totally agree with this sentiment.

i too can see the difference between many airlines and just a few ISPs.

[arebelspy]

As a followup:  If Netflix decided they wanted to be dual homed... I.e. If they decided that they wanted commercial services and chose Comcast for that service.  Is it okay for Comcast to charge them for that? 

I.e: a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is.

I have no input on whatever other services they decide to start and sell and work out a contract for, especially since I lack the details of said contract.

Ok.  Then we agree there, I think.

Now, when that contract is at it's term end, I would also assume it's okay that either side either does or does not agree to renew?  And I'd assume the renewal price is also negotiable.

Do we agree there?

I don't even know what you're talking about.  What contract?

I pay my ISP to deliver packets of data over the internet.  They should be a dumb pipe (common carrier) and go get that data and serve it to me.

They shouldn't charge the company at the other end of that data more to deliver it than they'd charge MMM to deliver a page of his blog, regardless of if it's porn, a torrent of MP3s, or a plaintext file.

[Spork]

As a followup:  If Netflix decided they wanted to be dual homed... I.e. If they decided that they wanted commercial services and chose Comcast for that service.  Is it okay for Comcast to charge them for that? 

I.e: a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is.

I have no input on whatever other services they decide to start and sell and work out a contract for, especially since I lack the details of said contract.

Ok.  Then we agree there, I think.

Now, when that contract is at it's term end, I would also assume it's okay that either side either does or does not agree to renew?  And I'd assume the renewal price is also negotiable.

Do we agree there?

I don't even know what you're talking about.  What contract?

I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

[Insanity]

Who is responsible for that infrastructure change?  If the response is Comcast, then they have a choice - do they try to be fair to those who do not want Netflix and pass the cost on to the Netflix customer or do they do an across the board rate hike?  If the response is Netflix, then you have Netflix PR saying that this is Comcast's way of charging a fee.

Just like everything else, ultimately the customer pays.

If it's Comcast that needs to pay because they can't deliver what they promised, they should change their promises.  Not charge someone else.

When MMM wants his site faster, he upgrades his site.  He doesn't pay Comcast.

If Netflix can't deliver, and needs to pay for better hosting (peering, at that level), that's fine.  But Net Neutrality keeps it so that the person who isn't fulfilling their end of the bargain pays, and then doesn't allow bullshit deals based on content and who owns it.

So you are ok with forcing people who aren't using the full pipe (or as much of the pipe) to pay for something they aren't using and be potentially forced to give up their only internet connectivity so that you can have your netflix?

I don't know if I agree with that.

Look, I'm of the belief taxes should be paying for this infrastructure and make everyone in the country chip in because it is for the betterment of society and regulate costs (similar to medical).  But if it is going to be privatized with very little pricing control - you want the service, you pay for it. Don't dump your costs on me.

[arebelspy]

So you are ok with forcing people who aren't using the full pipe (or as much of the pipe) to pay for something they aren't using and be potentially forced to give up their only internet connectivity so that you can have your netflix?

No.  The people who aren't using it shouldn't pay.  They should get what they pay for, same as any other customer of the ISP.  If the ISP is pricing its plans poorly, that's their fault.

The person using way less bandwidth because they don't constantly stream videos should pay less.  The person streaming should pay more.

Not because of what type of data they're using, but because of the amount of use.

Either way the customer should pay however much for a certain amount of data, and it's irrelevant where that data comes from.  If they want to pay more to have more data so they can stream Netflix, fine.  If they want to pay less and use Lynx, fine.  But they should both pay based on usage, not on what they're browsing. 

No one should be paying for what they don't use.

(For the record: I don't use Netflix.  Just like I don't burn flags.  But I still support net neutrality in the same way I support free speech.)

Look, I'm of the belief taxes should be paying for this infrastructure and make everyone in the country chip in because it is for the betterment of society and regulate costs (similar to medical).  But if it is going to be privatized with very little pricing control - you want the service, you pay for it. Don't dump your costs on me.

I absolutely agree.  And that's what net neutrality ensures.  We each pay for what we use.

[arebelspy]

I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

That's fine.  And if Netflix needs to pay because the bottleneck is on their end, and raise their rates because of that, I'm fine with it.  I'm not some Netflix zealot that thinks they shouldn't pay their share.  But what was happening is that Comcast was purposefully slowing down Netflix traffic.  That is bullshit.  I pay for X data for $Y at Z speed.  Serve it to me.  If you can't, you've broken our contract. 

Net neutrality can still exist, and have this exact same scenario play out with netflix paying.

In this case here's what should have happened: Comcast serves up exactly what data packets I request, at the speed promised.  If they can't, they have to fix it (upgrade their infrastructure, and/or stop promising things they can't deliver).  If they can, and the bottleneck is on Netflix side, Netflix has to pay to upgrade.

Either way, the ISP should be delivering exactly what they promised, regardless of the contents of the data that is being served.

[Spork]

I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

That's fine.  And if Netflix needs to pay because the bottleneck is on their end, and raise their rates because of that, I'm fine with it.  I'm not some Netflix zealot that thinks they shouldn't pay their share.  But what was happening is that Comcast was purposefully slowing down Netflix traffic.  That is bullshit.  I pay for X data for $Y at Z speed.  Serve it to me.  If you can't, you've broken our contract. 

I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

[Insanity]

I absolutely agree.  And that's what net neutrality ensures.  We each pay for what we use.

As long as you are talking about data transferred not data rate of transfer that is correct.