That makes sense, hulu/netflix is taking in all the profit from the switch while riding on the groundwork of the ISP when before it was mostly cable data being transmitted.
You need to force companies that are based on high bandwidth delivery like Netflix/Hulu to negotiate peering agreements that are beneficial for everyone involved and not just Netflix/Hulu.
This became an issue because the past few years there was a tipping point more people have netflix subs vs cable subs.
All the rest of the OMGZ WHAT IF was tossed in because its easy to draw emotion from people just like every other topic.
People don’t really care about any of this at the end of the day if they can watch videos without skipping/buffering and get to all the websites they normally browse.
I built and worked on a pretty large amount of TimeWarners ISP network and you could watch the trend over time of bandwidth being crushed for hub sites around holiday weekends or other high traffic times for video streaming. If you look backwards its pretty easy to see Netflix stands on the back of ISPs and is able to have cheaper service because that delivery cost isn’t on them last mile is expensive.
I posted a link to the “inside scoop” of the Netflix/Comcast dispute. It’s a good read for the people that don’t understand why Comcast was pissed about it.
well i’m glad i read all this. it’s the best information and discussion i have been a party to on the subject but it still isnt clear.
both sides have a decent case here. Telecoms vs. FAANG based on what you guys are describing, but i already knew all that. the Ajit Pai piece is still fairly declarative and hyperbolic describing outcomes and future prospects but not explaining the actual policies that cause these issues and how they were before Obama’s ruling and what the difference would be based on keeping them the same or changing them.
Is it that the policies themselves, however they are written, are so boring that no one wants to post them or doesnt know where they are?
As mentioned this isn’t black and white and a complex issue we don’t have an ideal solution for. With how slow the government moves by the time they get anything meaningful (well as meaningful as the gov gets) the internet landscape will have drastically changed.
A few points though…
- The people saying “free market” are absolutely right, if it was truly a free market. I have 1 option for internet so I’m stuck with whatever Spectrum does. If I had 5 choices I would be against net neutrality…an ISP starts pulling BS I’ll jump to the next one.
- The “Netflix takes up 30% of the bandwidth they would pay for it argument”. That works great for the huge companies out there now (Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) but what about the next Netflix that doesn’t have the capital to pay these fees? This is where it stifles innovation.
- Sure, if Spectrum starts charging for Facebook they’ll take the hit and more than likely pay in the above scenario. However what if Spectrum starts it’s own social network and forces you to that? Chances are it’ll suck because with it being your only option why make it better?
- It’s a stretch to say if ISP’s go Title II then the government will be paying for infrastructure…especially with the current political landscape I don’t see that happening.
So yeah, Title II isn’t the best route for this but at the same time it’s what we have now. I hate government oversight more than most but I just don’t see another way to make this work where consumers aren’t dicked over unless there is an explosion in ISPs in the coming months. 5G will probably help with that but that’s years off, and who knows how that’ll end up looking since they’re still finalizing/testing what it can really do.
Telecoms & ISPs want it. FAANG wants it. Government-centrists want it. They’re all on the side of “net neutrality”. But they all want their version of it.
… Is it that the policies themselves, however they are written, are so boring that no one wants to post them or doesnt know where they are?
Policy is easy. If it’s done by the FCC, whoever is in political power makes the rules (Obama in 2015, Trump in 2017, etc). If it’s done by the Telecoms, it’ll be done though congress with their lobbying efforts. Same with ISPs and with FAANG.
Clinton era policy: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
Obama era policy: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
The cliffs notes are that under Clinton the FCC treated Telecoms and ISPs differently, giving ISPs more regulatory “room”. Under Obama it treats them the same, specifically treating ISPs as if they’re Telecoms. Remember that the FCC is what keeps swear words off the radio, nudity off TV, etc. though it’s regulation of Telecoms.
Pai wants to go back to the Clinton era policy, giving the regulatory burden to the FTC not the FCC. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the consumer protection agency who’s mission is anti-monopoly and arguably makes more sense as the regulatory body to protect net neutrality.
Which makes more sense? Having the FTC, who’s already hit ISPs like AT&T for $80 million, in charge of net neutrality. Or the FCC, who hit CBS for $500k for Janet Jackson’s Superbowl nip slip…
- The “Netflix takes up 30% of the bandwidth they would pay for it argument”. That works great for the huge companies out there now (Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) but what about the next Netflix that doesn’t have the capital to pay these fees? This is where it stifles innovation.
A start up isn’t going to move the bandwidth those established companies move…This model has already been worked out go start company on Amazon cloud or somewhere else you pay for bandwidth.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
Just to quantify this Netflix accounts for something like 37-40% of ALL internet traffic.
Video accounts for something like 80% of all internet traffic.
I love people sharing this article…
At the end it says this “Technically, Portugal is bound by the European Union’s net-neutrality rules, but loopholes allow certain kinds of pricing schemes like the one outlined above.”
If you actually understand what you’re looking at you can add on data for specific apps ON TOP of your normal data plan and it SAVES you money :lol:
So these companies are already paying for bandwidth somewhere, whether if it’s through AWS or directly through a Tier 1 provider (I think Netflix uses both). That’s clearly understandable and they pay for their fair share. The issue at hand here is what happens once that traffic is on the internet. The way it works now, in an open and free internet, that traffic is no different than your online shopping, news articles, voip, or whatever else you’re doing…all traffic is created equal and the ISPs can’t do shit with it. And I think that’s the way it should be, I’m paying for the Internet, not what Spectrum thinks the internet should be.
Back to Netflix… I’m not sure why they should have to pay more to be delivered to the end user when other providers don’t have to (in this example). And you’re absolutely right, a startup wouldn’t start by using that amount of bandwidth but where’s the cutoff? Do you think AT&T is just going to ask Netflix for money? Nope, they’ll then go to Hulu, YouTube, Vue, Sling but they won’t charge DirectTV Now for it. That makes it harder for those services mentioned to compete, is that fair? Especially when you ISPs are basically an oligopoly and you can’t jump to a provider that isn’t doing that.
Also who do you think is going to pay for these charges? Will the ISPs pass the discount onto consumers?
The “you use a shit-ton of our network so we’re charging you” is only a small portion of the crap this allows. Remember when Google and Apple Pay first came out? Verizon blocked both of them on their network since they were coming out with their own solution, it wasn’t even out yet and they were blocking already usable services from being available. Theirs came out and sucked so they eventually gave up and allowed the other services since no one was using it anyways (and the name, ISIS, didn’t help either).
I honestly can’t think of another recent government regulation I support so I’ve done my research on this. From past history, there is no reason to believe the ISPs aren’t going to pull shit like this to give their own products a competitive advantage or make a buck. There are no government hand outs with net neutrality, there is no stifling broadband innovation. I honestly can’t think of a legitimate negative argument for this other than the government getting in the way of corporations but you could argue anti-trust laws are similar and I think they’re universally accepted.
This one is driving me crazy.
This article sums it up pretty well - The Net Neutrality Hysteria | PCMag
Netflix is actually the entire debate :lol:
The App blocking thing…
“Last year, as the industry thrashed out so-called “net neutrality” rule, Google and Verizon stuck a controversial compromise: They jointly agreed that open Internet proposals should not apply to the mobile market. Their position was that the wireless field is more competitive and changing more rapidly than the wireline broadband market, and shouldn’t be constrained by added regulation.”
FCC = non-economic concerns
FTC = economic concerns
The things you’re worried about are legitimate, but this gives power to the wrong agency.
The internet was never in some situation where it wasn’t open and free. The amount of commerce and business driven by the internet in the US creates a situation where companies can’t do anything to screw that up.
Back to Netflix… I’m not sure why they should have to pay more to be delivered to the end user when other providers don’t have to (in this example). And you’re absolutely right, a startup wouldn’t start by using that amount of bandwidth but where’s the cutoff? Do you think AT&T is just going to ask Netflix for money? Nope, they’ll then go to Hulu, YouTube, Vue, Sling but they won’t charge DirectTV Now for it. That makes it harder for those services mentioned to compete, is that fair? Especially when you ISPs are basically an oligopoly and you can’t jump to a provider that isn’t doing that.
There isn’t a cut off you scale your shit accordingly like every company. Netflixs traffic makes up 40% of ALL internet traffic new companies have no issues starting up they get funding and scale out servers/internet connections/etc.
The internet has always been pay for bandwidth the Netflix situation is about peering agreements for companies that transit large amounts of data.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
The issue is being debated by a bunch of Facebook warriors who don’t understand or know the first thing about how ISPs/BGP/Traffic shaping/Cloud works :lol:
People are spreading fake news about OMG LOOK AT THIS MOBILE DATA PLAN IN Portugal…Its funny when the same company also offers home internet with no restrictions or special plans.
So for those one either side who think this will kill the internet, this is a solid read:
I just swam through 83 pages of dogshit (out of 210) for you autistic sperglords yall better get this to the front page.
jk just finished swimming through all 210 pages of the 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal and the 400 pages of the original 2015 Net Neutrality Regulations lol what if i was actually autistic that would be so funny lmao amirite guys rite amirite somebody gimme a high five im not actually autistic tho haha no way not me haha
Everyone here agrees that ISPs should not throttle/paywall/censor/restrict our content. Period. End of story. ISPs are notoriously shady, but here are some reassurances the FCC has given us:
FTC Privacy Regulation, sec.177 aka MARK SUCKERSPERG CAN’T STEAL YOUR PRIVATE RARE PEPE FETISH PORN COLLECTION:
Restoring FTC [Federal Trade Commission] jurisdiction over ISPs will enable the FTC to apply its extensive privacy and data security expertise to provide the uniform online privacy protections that consumers expect and deserve.*651
Direct quote from the homies: No throttling. FCC release, p.83
Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.*508
b-but im an ISP I don’t wanna be transparent I just wanna bait-and-switch my customers while they watch intergalactic bdsm porn SORRY HUNNY U GETTN REGULATED (FCC release p.82):
The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”*503
Conspiracy theorists put down your pitch-forks, ISPs cannot conspire. (FCC invokes Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85, FCC release)
Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per seillegal under the antitrust laws.*518
**UNLIMITED NETFLIXXX, [UNCENSORED EDITION] **
If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.
Obama & The Globalist Friendship Squad attempted to create a communist takeover safe space on the internet.
We also conclude that the Commission should have been cautioned against reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service in 2015 because doing so involved “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy …"
AT&T got uppity, tried to slide a fat & nasty nude into America’s DMs and the FCC said behave yourself hunny. FCC now reserves the right to return to Title II (Obama Net Neutrality) regulations if ISP fuckers get uppity.
176.We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.
TLDR
- Regulatory rollback throwback to 90’s.
- FCC claims the 2015 Regulations gave the government “extravagant statutory power over the national economy”. * laughs in Kenyan *
- Regulatory oversight of the ISP industry shifts back to FTC (Federal Trade Commission) as it has been since the invention of the internet.
- FCC is enforcing against throttling, censorship, restriction, etc. by invoking consumer protection and anti-trust laws (via FTC).
- If ISPs collectively conspire to paywall a content-provider, they are subject to FTC anti-trust penetration.
- FCC has reduced its own jurisdiction, because they’re typically geared toward stricter and narrower regulations (censoring profanity on the radio, cable, etc.) as opposed to regulating the entire internet service-provider industry.
- FCC repeatedly acknowledges that its new policy is deliberately business-friendly in hopes to expand the economy (internet plays a huge role obviously). Acknowledges that potential abuse of this friendliness will result in stricter policy.
- America has some of the shittiest internet in the world because our infrastructure is antiquated and fiber-optic trenching projects keep getting killed. Hopefully this provides the investment needed to fix that. Better infrastructure means faster speeds and cheaper service.
- Remember all the Congressmen who wanted to sell out our personal information earlier this year? Allegedly this FCC repeal will block that, because of FTC consumer privacy protection regulations don’t allow it.
How this will negatively affect you:
The major loophole lies here:
Many of the largest ISPs have committed to not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC…
FTC can only prevent throtting/blocking/etc because that’s what ISPs are advertising. If multiple ISPs each individually stop advertising it, it’s not immediately clear that the FTC can hold them all accountable to it. However, if the ISPs collude to collectively enact abusive policies, then the FTC can fuck them up. But if an ISP paywalls websites, they must explicitly notify consumers. If customers have no alternative ISP and are forced to obey their one ISP’s abusive policies, then the FTC can declare them a monopoly. That would whip up a shitstorm for the ISP, but it could still happen.
Later in the report the FCC admits that they are eliminating the Bright-Line Rules, which is bad for us.
FCC Bright-Line / Open Internet Rules
No Blocking
No Throttling
No Paid-Prioritization
The FCC Bright Line Rules are replaced with FTC regulations:
No monopolies. (lookin at you comcast)
No collusion. (still lookin at you)
No consumer abuse
No unfair business practice. (holy fuck comcast)
The report clarifies that the repeal of FCC Bright Line does not inhibit the FTC from enforcing an open internet, and regulation enforcement is delegated to the FTC heretofore. (FTC has a good record protecting consumers).
In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness, despite the paucity of evidence of such incidents, we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address such conduct. Other legal regimes—particularly antitrust law and the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices—provide protection for consumers.
The FCC admits that this has the potential to become a problem. They claim it is highly unlikely because the FTC can come in and penetrate ISPs who act as monopolies. Plus, content providers (Google, Amazon, etc.) have an obscenely higher market capitalization than ISP’s (Google alone has higher market cap than all ISP’s combined), and that they can easily pressure ISPs to obey.
For example:
Comcast tries to throttle Netflix.
Netflix says fuck you we won’t serve any of your Comcast kind here.
Comcast customers can’t watch Stranger Things.
Comcast customers screech autistically.
Everyone (who can) leaves Comcast.
If nobody can leave Comcast, the FTC can declare Comcast a monopoly and bust their nuts.
Thus the FCC concludes it is unlikely that ISPs will paywall their content providers because content-providers will easily prevent them from doing it. FCC asserts that monopolies like Comcast will be combated with FTC anti-monopoly regulation, increased competition, and more ISP choices for customers that will drive price down and quality up. FCC will address individual ISP violations case by case if/when they arise.
I can't imagine anything more unfair than Comcast monopolizing your internet and restricting it.Consumer Protection. The FTC has broad authority to protect consumers from “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”*495
The FCC could have done more, to be honest, since the nonzero possibility still exists that paid-prioritization of content may emerge in the future if the FTC fails to bust monopolies like Comcast, and/or if the markets fail to produce enough ISP competitors. Keep your eyes open and stay vigilant.
CONCLUSION: The repeal is better than we thought, but could be better keeping Open-Internet Rules.
So someone called in a bomb threat to stop the vote today… Didn’t work obviously, lol.
Ajit is a LEGEND:
so we’re cool with this?
because my facebook is LIT with people claiming the internet is over now.
The people who are upset are similar to the people who claimed Trump was actually Hitler and the US was over.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
In the real world Netflix will end up having to pay more to ISPs nothing will change for everyone
@LZ1 - I’ve been meaning to ask you this. The ruling doesn’t change anything immediately, but it allows ISPs to slow certain services over others right? So when they start charging Netflix on top of charging their own customers, is this not double dipping? Netflix is merely providing the content. It’s the end users who are driving the bandwidth.
The Netflix issue is complex. I shared this link earlier, but it bears repeating. Title: The Inside Story of How Netflix Came To Pay Comcast for Internet Traffic The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic
It’s not double dipping content providers like Netflix pay to cross connect and pay bandwidth fees.
Because of the way internet routing works if Netflix doesn’t have a decent deal with Comcast the data will still get there taking a less favorable path.