It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically marginalized, its that there is no indication that these aspects of the internet are at all threatened. Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm skeptical when these for-profit enterprises cloak themselves in internet utopianism to lobby for policies that have the primary or even sole effect of giving themselves a bigger slice of consumer entertainment dollars.
And if core values are threatened, why not have laws narrowly tailored to that danger? Why not just make it illegal for ISP's to discriminate against websites based on politics, race, etc? Surely that'd be easier to get passed, and people would be happy, if that's what this all was really about.
>an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies.
Because that isn't what this is. The arguments between these massive companies are deciding the future of peer-to-peer communications on the internet.
If the ones who own the wires win, the internet will be officially divided into two classes: servers and clients. Netflix will still be as fast as it ever was (if not faster) if it pays, and if it doesn't, the wire-owners' new replacements will be just as fast as Netflix was. All of the current players will be making massive content and distribution deals with each other, and the internet will become cable TV.
There's no technical reason that the internet has to be structured that way. This is all just massive incumbents locking out all small fry, and consequently all newcomers. The scale this is being played out in is so large that Netflix is really the newcomer in the situation; this is not just a matter of protecting an oligarchy of entertainment providers, but even a war between content producers and content distributors that has implications that affect how fast the traffic between you and your mother will be, and what programs you will be allowed to use to produce and receive that traffic.
Ultimately it's a defense of a primitive accumulation. Some people own the wires because they were first. We can either let them manipulate the market so all of their vendors have razor-thin margins and all of their consumers have the most constrained agreements and highest prices, or restrict the right of the owners to shape and filter traffic for business purposes.
Because, as much as possible, we dont want ISPs to discriminate against any website, whether it is discrimination based on politics, or commercial interests.
I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself.
I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the site by throttling bandwidth as soon as it gets popular.
Everyone pays for bandwidth, You all pay an ISP for x amount of bits per second, and y amount of transit. You pay more, for more. Unless you live in the US and you've been fucked by the incumbent monopoly.
If you're netflix, you pay a tier 1 carrier for bandwidth. as you get bigger you pay for an CDN. Bigger still, you make your own. (YMMV of course.)
to make it super cost effective, you negotiate your own peering agreement directly, as its cheaper than using cogent/level3 + akami and the like. (hence why google has so much dark fiber.)
The whole two tier internet business, has always been the case. Thats why there is both UDP and TCP. Thats why there is a priority header. Thats why there is QoS.
Yes people say that peering is free. They are simply wrong. To peer you need bandwith, which requires cables in the ground. Places like LONAP and LINX exist for mutual benefit. However at LINX private interchange traffic has been much larger than "public" interchange for years
I agree with your general message; this freedom for all is confusing to me because it's not at all natural for the operating companies.
Your statement about UDP is wrong though. TCP vs UDP is not a two-tier mechanism for quality. UDP delivers more effective throughput in most cases, as long as the application doesn't need the features that TCP provides. Consider that most TCP connections start with a UDP exchange for the DNS resolution. Even in conditions where you own all the bandwidth you may wish to use UDP.
We need a chairman of the FCC that is old enough that they'll retire afterwards. Nobody wants to be the one who pulls the trigger on common carrier because they all plan to work at telecom, cable companies, and radio networks after they step down.
Tom Wheeler is 66. Before becoming FCC chairman, he was managing director at a VC fund that funded early stage companies. He has also founded several companies. He was also on the board of directors of EarthLink, which is a competitive ISP with interests adverse to the entrenched cable companies. Aside from a stint at NCTA in the 80's, long before they were in the IsP business, his business background is far more skewed in favor of Internet companies.
Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/
I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
I'd recommend applying for http://taskforce.is and sending Sina an email(his contact details are available on the application form). Ask for access to our mailing list and shoot off a group message, we have a wide ranged of politically devout developers.
The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart.
Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.
The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.
Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?
I don't think your average customer assumes anything about what their service payment covers. I bet most think it just covers the wire into their house. Would the perceived regulatory need go away if cable companies made clear: "we reserve the right to charge the sources of data you download, not withstanding the service charges for your connection."
I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.
If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter?
This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.
Honest question: has bandwidth providing costs actually grown very much, or are ISPs just profit hungry and try to rip off everything they can? Because if it's the first one, something should actually be changed for them to compensate.
rayiner|11 years ago
And if core values are threatened, why not have laws narrowly tailored to that danger? Why not just make it illegal for ISP's to discriminate against websites based on politics, race, etc? Surely that'd be easier to get passed, and people would be happy, if that's what this all was really about.
pessimizer|11 years ago
Because that isn't what this is. The arguments between these massive companies are deciding the future of peer-to-peer communications on the internet.
If the ones who own the wires win, the internet will be officially divided into two classes: servers and clients. Netflix will still be as fast as it ever was (if not faster) if it pays, and if it doesn't, the wire-owners' new replacements will be just as fast as Netflix was. All of the current players will be making massive content and distribution deals with each other, and the internet will become cable TV.
There's no technical reason that the internet has to be structured that way. This is all just massive incumbents locking out all small fry, and consequently all newcomers. The scale this is being played out in is so large that Netflix is really the newcomer in the situation; this is not just a matter of protecting an oligarchy of entertainment providers, but even a war between content producers and content distributors that has implications that affect how fast the traffic between you and your mother will be, and what programs you will be allowed to use to produce and receive that traffic.
Ultimately it's a defense of a primitive accumulation. Some people own the wires because they were first. We can either let them manipulate the market so all of their vendors have razor-thin margins and all of their consumers have the most constrained agreements and highest prices, or restrict the right of the owners to shape and filter traffic for business purposes.
bandushrew|11 years ago
I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself.
I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the site by throttling bandwidth as soon as it gets popular.
KaiserPro|11 years ago
This simply isn't how the internet works.
Everyone pays for bandwidth, You all pay an ISP for x amount of bits per second, and y amount of transit. You pay more, for more. Unless you live in the US and you've been fucked by the incumbent monopoly.
If you're netflix, you pay a tier 1 carrier for bandwidth. as you get bigger you pay for an CDN. Bigger still, you make your own. (YMMV of course.)
to make it super cost effective, you negotiate your own peering agreement directly, as its cheaper than using cogent/level3 + akami and the like. (hence why google has so much dark fiber.)
The whole two tier internet business, has always been the case. Thats why there is both UDP and TCP. Thats why there is a priority header. Thats why there is QoS.
Yes people say that peering is free. They are simply wrong. To peer you need bandwith, which requires cables in the ground. Places like LONAP and LINX exist for mutual benefit. However at LINX private interchange traffic has been much larger than "public" interchange for years
bdamm|11 years ago
Your statement about UDP is wrong though. TCP vs UDP is not a two-tier mechanism for quality. UDP delivers more effective throughput in most cases, as long as the application doesn't need the features that TCP provides. Consider that most TCP connections start with a UDP exchange for the DNS resolution. Even in conditions where you own all the bandwidth you may wish to use UDP.
SkynetSystems|11 years ago
[deleted]
pessimizer|11 years ago
Of course, there's still speaking fees.
rayiner|11 years ago
innoying|11 years ago
I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
_red|11 years ago
So I'm a packet, leaving my computer...what happens now and what laws govern me?
So for the NN supporters have been very high on rhetoric and appalling low on details, which is always a prescription for legislative disaster.
thomasfromcdnjs|11 years ago
I'd recommend applying for http://taskforce.is and sending Sina an email(his contact details are available on the application form). Ask for access to our mailing list and shoot off a group message, we have a wide ranged of politically devout developers.
vfclists|11 years ago
Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.
The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.
Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?
rayiner|11 years ago
I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.
majormajor|11 years ago
If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter?
This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.
wavefunction|11 years ago
Greed or ignorance are generally my first guesses when trying to analyze what appears to be propaganda.
cLeEOGPw|11 years ago