Net Neutrality

[Penguin]

EDIT: Possible Rule 14 Violation

-Penguin

[Skuzzy]

I am warning everyone.  This topic is difficult to discuss without dragging politics into it.

So, be forewarned, if you do, you will be suspended from the board for one week.

[Somerled]

one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.

Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast. 

[Raptor]

one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.

Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast. 

Thats what my understanding of it was.


On a related note, the internet is not a big truck. The internet is not something you can just dump something on. The internet is a series of tubes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs

[Stoney]

one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.

Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast. 

This was what I was curious about.  Seems like anti-trust laws would be in play here.  What are the drawbacks of some of the proposed net neutrality rules.  I read something about "Ma Bell" type regulatory practices, but again, hard to cut through the political static on some of this...

[falcon23]

I dont recall as my head was somewhere else back then..LOL

 But How did it work when MCI went and used southwestern bells lines in the 80's??
Did SWB charge MCI for use?? or were the lines used by MCI free of charge??I think this was before southwestern bell had to be broken up into what became AT&T..

Wouldnt the same line of thinking apply here also?
  SKUZZY???

[Stoney]

I dont recall as my head was somewhere else back then..LOL

 But How did it work when MCI went and used southwestern bells lines in the 80's??
Did SWB charge MCI for use?? or were the lines used by MCI free of charge??I think this was before southwestern bell had to be broken up into what became AT&T..

Wouldnt the same line of thinking apply here also?
  SKUZZY???

I believe the regulatory rules that were in place stated that the Baby Bells were allowed to use Ma Bells infrastructure to provide service.  Ironically, SBC, which used to be a baby bell, eventually bought up AT&T and a couple of other baby bells.  So now, we pretty much have a different Ma Bell. 

[Vulcan]

You need some sort of middle ground or consumer internet prices will go through the roof. And competition to keep pricing down only works as long as there are competitors. ISPs need to be able to manage traffic, you cannot build the infrastructure to provision full CIR at full line speeds (ie designed to operate at 100% capacity) - but you need to be able to control what gets through when there is contention.

Outside of the USA ISPs already do this and there are no peering issues like most of you seem to think will happen.

[Westy]

"Did SWB charge MCI for use??"

All LEC companies did and the access fees were big and as a result
there was not a lot of money made on LD calls. The bug money was
(and still is) made from providing complex services to businesses and
corporations.

[Skuzzy]

A restructuring of how all the access points on the Internet needs to be done.  The current structure allows any given service to simply put an ISP out of business by allowing users to flood the network with data from the remote service.  It is not fair to the ISP to have to upgrade their network to be able to handle a remote companies network load.

ISP's are already being sued for trying to limit that flow so their networks do not suffer from DoS (denial of service) to other services.

Basically, we have an unsustainable business model.

A potential solution is for each and every company to pay for their guaranteed outbound bandwidth and only the outbound bandwidth.  No inbound traffic would impact the specified outbound bandwidth.  In this model, Level3 would pay Comcast for a specific amount of bandwidth into their network.  Comcast would pay Level3 for its outbound bandwidth as well.

Now the onus for Netflix performance into Comcasts network falls to Level3, who is Netflix's ISP.  If Netflix wants more bandwidth into Comcast, then Level3 can pay Comcast for it and charge it back to Netflix.

This model allows both small and large ISP's to compete fairly, which is why it will never be adopted.  So that is why I did not go into extreme detail about how it would work.  No sense in wasting time on an idea that will never happen.

[RTHolmes]

^ neat solution

[bj229r]

Tac, I need to augment what you have already said.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that all the ISP's are having to pay to upgrade thier networks in order to satisfy the Netflix load, as an example.  Those ISP's are looking for someone to pay for those upgrades.  Raising prices to all the end users will happen if they are not able to figure out how to get some type of subsidy from those services which are placing extreme loads on thier networks.

Do not take what I am offering as being for or against this mess.  Personally, I wish Netflix, Youtube and other such services would die.  It certainly would make my life easier.

The other possibility, if the FCC, etc becomes more involved than they already are, is they won't doany more upgrades, because it's impossible to get their investment back. How many innovations did you see in the decades beFORE the ATT breakup, when prices, etc were set by a regulatory committee?

[bj229r]

I was listening to a guy in the business yesterday, and he was pointing out the grief that is caused to providers by people doing UPloading (can't say I understand the technical reasons of it) But that a lot of ISP's are tracking it and sending warnings to users. (probably a good way to catch file-piraters also)

[Stoney]

This model allows both small and large ISP's to compete fairly, which is why it will never be adopted.  So that is why I did not go into extreme detail about how it would work.  No sense in wasting time on an idea that will never happen.

What would prevent this from being adopted?

[Tac]

What would prevent this from being adopted?

lobbying power of the big companies.