WILL YOUR STATIONS BE LEFT, OFF THE WEB?

[CaptBob92]

I was reading the list of GOP spending cuts proposed by many new Republican freshmen for the federal budget and one thing jumped out at me, Their proposal includes stopping the FCC from preventing broadband providers from interfering with internet traffic on their networks. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the budget. I'd say this is more a rider ( thought they said they were all against riders )

But more important, doesn't this open the broadband providers up to becoming information gate keepers deciding whose information/entertainment is worthy of carriage on their systems and ultimately the internet as a whole and whose isn't? Since nobody including the FCC can stop them, what's to stop broadbanders from deciding that one station's radio or tv conservative program should be dropped while the liberal station down the street gets sent straight through? Remember, it doesn't take much work to accomplish just a few key strokes puts WCBS on line while WABC's stream slows or stops.

I understand the main concern is customers who download movies and large files but if this passes there is no concern on the part of the owners over what they carry or who they limit. Since cable systems and telco TV are not interconnected across the country what's to stop the local broadband provider from deciding he doesn't like Billy Bob's show at 3 pm each day and order his tech to slow Billy's stream so it's impossible to hear and not telling the home office he's doing it? So Billy Bob moves to a new provider,,he still looses all his listeners on the old one.

There is also the issue of services like HULU who provide free movies. Will the broadband provider slow all the movie streams but the ones he sells?

You might not think there are remifications for you but I'd hate to sit back ad wait then find out later you've come out on the short end of the deal.

 

[GeneSavage]

doesn't this open the broadband providers up to becoming information gate keepers deciding whose information/entertainment is worthy of carriage on their systems and ultimately the internet as a whole and whose isn't?

It does, but I'd quickly add that it opens up opportunities for competition for broadband providers: "Company XYZ limits your access to website ABC... come to 123 Broadband, where we give you the WHOLE internet!!!"

I'm bothered by broadband companies "filtering" what comes to & from my house; at the same time, I'm a BIG believer in letting the market decide.

This may not be (at least I HOPE it won't be) as big a deal as it certainly COULD be.

 

[Nostalgia]

I was reading an article about this this morning and was pleased to see this posting. Call it "filtering" or whatever PC phrase you want, but I call it what I see it as: "censorship".

 

[DonTheTrucker]

They're trying to stop the FCC from implementing "network neutrality" rules. The Congress passed a law last year that specifically forbade the FCC from seizing this power, and they did it anyway.

And before anyone comes crying about this, the FCC's version of net neutrality is nothing of the sort. It's just a way for them to seize more power, and nothing more.

Say goodbye to your unlimited Internet plans. If this is allowed to stand, you're going to be paying based on the amount of bandwidth you use.

 

[CaptBob92]

What are the specific points of network neutrality. I keep heaing the term and how it's bad but exactly what does it do and not do?

 

[w9wi]

They're trying to stop the FCC from implementing "network neutrality" rules. The Congress passed a law last year that specifically forbade the FCC from seizing this power, and they did it anyway.

And before anyone comes crying about this, the FCC's version of net neutrality is nothing of the sort. It's just a way for them to seize more power, and nothing more.

Say goodbye to your unlimited Internet plans. If this is allowed to stand, you're going to be paying based on the amount of bandwidth you use.

On the other hand, without network neutrality, as another poster suggests, your "20MBps" high-speed internet service might mean 20MBps if you're chatting with your ISP's tech support, browsing HBO.com, or downloading an update for your cable modem; 10MBps if you're grabbing Windows Updates from Microsoft or reading CNN.com; -- and 1MBps if you're trying to stream a program off Hulu or an online radio station.

The market solution (let people switch providers if they don't like their provider throttling Hulu) unfortunately doesn't work for the significant proportion of the population served by only one provider. You can tell me to drop Charter if I don't like their throttling policy but the only alternative is dialup.

The network providers are not without a point. With the massive online streaming of media, especially HD media, I would not be surprised if they're approaching the limits of what their networks can do. Throttling on a non-discriminatory basis -- where everyone's speed, for every source and every protocol, is slowed sufficiently to keep things within limits -- I have no problem with. What neutrality advocates are concerned with is when the ISP throttles different sources differently.

In practice I doubt neutrality will have much effect on radio broadcasters. TV is likely to be another story.

 

[CaptBob92]

I read that the FCC caught broadband providers throtteling their competitor's feeds while keeping their own feeds up a few years back after customers complaigned and the neutrality issue was born. Id like to know what the FCC's plan for band nuetrality is. I've read much pontificating on the so caled fact it was bad but nothing to explain why yet.

 

[fybush]

Some essential reading on bandwidth capping and net neutrality is to be found at www.stopthecap.com.

I'd recommend it highly even if weren't another fine product of Rochester...

 

[CaptBob92]

thanks for all the info guys. After taking the evening to read your stuff and others on line I have to say it looks like just another grab to limit my choices and my freedom to search each side of the many issues that effect me and my country.

I vote for net neutrality. If the broad band guys haven't upgraded their lines by now that's their problem not mine,, whatever they suffer from not meeting federal guidelines is just the cost to them for doing business. It's capitalism! LOL

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Some essential reading on bandwidth capping and net neutrality is to be found at www.stopthecap.com.

I'd recommend it highly even if weren't another fine product of Rochester...

You do realize this exact thing (usage based billing) is going to be the result of the FCC's power grab, right?

 

[w9wi]

Some essential reading on bandwidth capping and net neutrality is to be found at www.stopthecap.com.

I'd recommend it highly even if weren't another fine product of Rochester...

You do realize this exact thing (usage based billing) is going to be the result of the FCC's power grab, right?

Is usage-based billing necessarily a bad thing? Seems to me allowing ISPs to perform discriminatory throttling disconnects user behavior from cost. It's an economically inefficient means of keeping demand within the ability to supply. The customer still thinks they can download that HD movie -- they're still going to *try* to download that HD movie -- their computer is still going to keep asking for bits of that file and sending "where is my next packet?" packets. Charge them per megabyte downloaded, and they'll consider next month's bill before clicking "Download" and tying up the network.



As far as the customer is concerned, it's pretty difficult to see a difference between government regulation and private monopoly. Either entity can impose costs and terms without the limit of competition. Indeed, at least in theory government regulation is responsive to the customer; private monopoly is responsive only to the capital that built it.*

Sure, in some (many) cases private monopoly exists *because* of government regulation. But there's no regulation preventing AT&T (or anyone else) from overbuilding my neighborhood & providing competition for Charter. AT&T's had years to do it - and they're not.

(they probably don't think they can make any money wiring this area for DSL/fiber; population density is too low)


OK, that was a bit lengthy Point is, if one is just thinking "regulation wrong, private sector right" one might be missing a large part of the economic picture.

_________________________________________________

There is something that bothers me about the website Scott linked. It evaluates broadband costs in dollars per megabyte. I would like to see a measurement in terms of the price for the least-expensive service that meets a minimum definition of "broadband". (say, 1MBps)

It's great to know that 50MBps service is cheaper in Silver Spring than in Manassas. If all I need is 5MBps -- but 50MBps is all I can get in Silver Spring -- broadband may actually be cheaper in Manassas. There's a tendency (and not just in the broadband market) to provide some impressive bargains to the top end & either charge the heck out of -- or not serve at all -- the more price-sensitive market.

_________________________________________________

* 1. No, I'm not naive enough to believe government is always, or even usually, responsive to the public.
2. Arguably, it is private business' *duty* to maximize return on investment, regardless of the effect on the public.

 

[GeneSavage]

I'll just throw in here quickly that "usage-based pricing" is kinda where we started on the internet, with AOL & others. Of course, at that time we were being limited to MB per month, not GB.

It would be interesting to know how & why it was decided to go with an "all you can eat" price structure... especially when broadband came along.

Also, metered internet absolutely WOULD hurt radio streams. Who times how long they listen to the radio, lest they use more electricity than they want that month?

At one point the UK & Canada (I think) had metered internet... don't know if that's still true. I know at least some UK listeners were frustrated that their former colonists could listen without thinking to webcasts.

I don't have a good answer for all of this... but I'm STILL a big believer in "let the market decide."

It was said broadband options were limited, and certainly there are places where your options are few or none. However, I would expect most locations to be able to use satellite-based broadband (Windstar, I think?), & I think there are some satellite-based broadband services for smart phones, aren't there?

Around here (outside of city limits), add broadband cable, G4 over cell towers (it helps to be near a major highway), & while I can't get DSL at my house yet, go maybe a half-mile and I could. The fiber optic broadband option is also rumored to be 6 months or less away from my address. I'm not aware of any "wireless internet" (a municipal-provided service in the tiny town I lived in a decade ago), but I think that's in part because there's always been plenty of other options.

I can't help but think that if "last mile" providers start filtering certain types of traffic, other start-up providers will come along and provide what people want access to, and steal their customers... and the free market wins.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. ;D

 

[SirRoxalot]

The idea of net neutrality is that ISPs don't have the right to throttle bandwidth based on content. They certainly have the right to limit bandwidth by contract, or by imposing traffic caps on users according to the terms of the contract. There are also caps on content providers or websites based on the service that they've purchased for access to their servers. And, terms of service can also include the right to host a server.

What the industry wants to do is control access to sites based on prioritizing data for customers who pay extra. This is not dissimilar from what Google does with the results of its searches. For example, if Netflix wants customers to be able to stream movies in real time with minimal buffering, minimal stutter, and minimal loss of quality, their network traffic needs to take priority over something that's not as time-sensitive, like e-mail or IM. ISPs want to charge for extra for that.

The issue of censorship comes into play if you have to pay to allow your content to be carried by an ISP. In some cases, the ISP has to pay for access to that content, and the cost is passed along to customers who choose to access that content. This is the cable TV model.

If ISPs get involved with filtering based on content, they lose their status as common carriers. In that case, they make themselved liable for illegal content that is carried on their infrastructure. I'm sure that the lawyers would love it if the deep pockets of the telecoms became available in lawsuits against illegal content on the web.

AFAIK, Congress has NOT come up with any legislation preventing the FCC from controlling the Internet. The recent lawsuits have turned on the idea that Congress HASN'T given the FCC the right to regulate Internet traffic. The FCC assumed it had that right since it controls telecommunications in this country. The courts have decided that the Internet is beyond the purview of the FCC under current law, and that new law needs to be created if they want to regulate activities of ISPs, and not just the media that carries their data.

 

[TVradioguru]

Interesting discussion! You hit the nail on the head. The ISPs are the ones who face regulation, not "The Internet". A techy friend of mine pointed out something the other day that rings true when you think about it..

The Internet backbone is made up of common carrier lines owned by for profit corporations, not the general or international public. Telco providers have taken a big revenue hit with loss of long distance and time or bandwidth based revenue, so they want it back. If that means throttling back bandwidth or limiting access to certain services for pay, it seems like they would have the right to do so or the government risks delving into a restraint of trade pandoras box.

 

[KeithE4]

The Internet backbone is made up of common carrier lines owned by for profit corporations, not the general or international public. Telco providers have taken a big revenue hit with loss of long distance and time or bandwidth based revenue, so they want it back. If that means throttling back bandwidth or limiting access to certain services for pay, it seems like they would have the right to do so or the government risks delving into a restraint of trade pandoras box.

Wouldn't an ISP be liable to a restraint-of-trade charge if they, for example, slowed down access to Hulu while allowing NetFlix to be accessed at full-speed? Especially if said ISP signed a contract with NetFlix for preferred access?

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Internet backbone is made up of common carrier lines owned by for profit corporations, not the general or international public. Telco providers have taken a big revenue hit with loss of long distance and time or bandwidth based revenue, so they want it back. If that means throttling back bandwidth or limiting access to certain services for pay, it seems like they would have the right to do so or the government risks delving into a restraint of trade pandoras box.

I'm not sure about the "hit" that telcos have taken because of the loss of long distance or other old technology telephony. Look at your bills for telecommunications services in the last 10 years. Was anybody paying your telecom provider less money 10 years ago? I've gone from $40 a month for a simple phone and dial-up access to about $90 a month for phone and high-speed Internet. Sure, the telcos had to install more fiber, but that fiber also means significantly decreased maintenance costs, and massively greater bandwidth capacity over the long haul. I'm pretty sure that they've paid for that fiber pull several times in the last few years. And, changing over from the old proprietary switching systems to IP-based switches that are available from a variety of manufacturers in a very competitive market didn't hurt their bottom line as equipment reached end-of-life.

The telecoms ain't suffering. They're looking at the fat profits that the cable companies are making, and want a piece of that pie. Now that consolidation has gotten up back to a very small number of backbone providers, the competitive forces that regulated prices are fading. I'm not saying that there's price fixing in the industry, but it's amazing how similar the prices are for services from different providers.