new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

Wed Nov 29 22:45:34 MST 2017

So if Net Neutrality is failing now why keep it?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.oyen at icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> yeah. btw, comcast is actively throttling torrent traffic as we speak (it was posted on twitter about an hour ago). they are still throttling netflix. yet, they claim they are abiding by their customer agreement not to do this. so, this pretty much means that comcast (as the ISP) has already proven to lie to their customers and to the FCC. 
> 
> so, given that, what is to stop the other providers (like verizon, AT&T, cox, TW, T-mobile and others) from behaving just as badly?
> 
> now, the situation is this:
> since 1995 and the initial rollout of DSL, there were some 100 or so ISP's here in the valley. most were still dialup. there was 2 over the air (wireless other than cell) providers, cable was just getting started and dialup was still common. less than 4 years later, fully half of the ISP's have disappeared, broadband was getting cheaper and both the phone company and cable companies had their own in house ISP. 1996 was the turning point with the deregulation of the telco's, thus cutting out others from using DSL. THen you also had big software (such as microsoft) trying to get in on the action (they partnered with USWest, later to become QWest). fast forward to mid 2005.. virtually no independent ISP's existed (or there were very few) and dialup was fast becoming a distant memory in large cities. by this point, you started seeing the consolidation of pathways onto the internet. there was cellular (still slow), cable or DSL (no one uses T-1 or above anymore). With mergers happening well into 2010 and later, the number of available routes to the internet reduced down to the current 6. All of them own the facilities, intervening cable/wire or airspace. anyone trying to compete with that couldn't because those 6 entities have already set price points that no small operator could match (another barrier to entry).
> 
> so, here we are. we have 6 near monopolies with very similar plans, price points, and capabilities. they have grown powerful enough that they can dictate to local municipalities what is allowed or not. They have also lobbied to get protectionist laws put in place to prevent new competition.  There are a couple of new operators coming on the scene: satellite internet with planet wide coverage) and also aircraft mobile coverage that can cover most of the land area at any given time. Once those systems are fully operational, it might force the big 6 to take action, or improve their services to compete. btw, a LEO satellite system can have a 400 mile wide footprint and cost pennies to keep operational (we are talking micro satellites here). 
> 
> the big question, will this new scenario improve things or lead to more of the same? Also, how do we, as customers, make sure we have a good choice of services? Will the government have to step in and pull some anti-trust actions?
> 
> lots of complex questions and no easy answers.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Future engineering Dept.
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews wrote:
>> 
>> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
>> 
>> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely serviced by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net neutrality, Cox will be allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and Youtube to horribly slow speeds if they want, while allowing their own competing television services and streaming services to go through at high speed; they can "restore" normal speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon could block or throttle access to Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, while freely allowing access to their competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of course you pay extra, or not if the ISP doesn't want you to access a service at all.
>> 
>> In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This actually happens. See: https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en
>> 
>> Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network services such as Bittorrent. See: https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/
>> 
>> At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP is allowed to arbitrarily block access to websites. Would you want to pay $5/mo for the "right" to access facebook.com, google.com, or ubuntu.com, or play games via Xbox Live or Steam? I sure as hell don't. With net neutrality gone, nothing is stopping this theoretical scenario from actually happening.
>> 
>> If the goal is to free up network congestion from an ISP perspective, this is easily accomplished by imposing download limits (which Cox most certainly does, as well as all cellular providers, even under "unlimited" plans), and other content-neutral means (such as throttling during a peak time of day). Or ISPs can continue to raise prices.
>> 
>> -Matt
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss