Net neutrality order could get last-minute change on peering disputes

FCC Democrat reportedly questions Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan.

Read the whole story

 

[Sydde]

Time to get working on wireless IPv6 mesh networking established across the country/world so we can dump the ISP concept once and for all.

 

[TheEvilGenius]

Oh go figure. Even when they're doing the right thing they somehow have to fuck it up.

 

[DarkSkyForever]

TheEvilGenius[/url]":v2kcaai3]Oh go figure. Even when they're doing the right thing they somehow have to fuck it up.

Not really a fuck up, more of a couple of groups identifying a possible loop hole, and having it addressed before the rules go into effect.

 

[Baron von Robber]

xaqattax[/url]":39fjvewz]Is that Google in their pocket or are they just happy to see me?

You need a new prescription. That's a Googolplex of consumers wanting Net neutrality.

 

[ktmglen]

This is another reason the FCC doesn’t publish drafts before they’re voted on. Right up until the vote is complete, the drafts can be subject to changes.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

Good. Keep Comcast etc from pulling any more shenanigans. And this isn't an area where anyone can claim there is no problem to solve. Thanks, Comcast!

 

[Drum]

Not really sure why people are accusing her of being in Google's pocket? It seems like this change should be good. If the FCC really can regulate interconnection disputes via the problems they cause consumers, this should be good, shouldn't it? They're closing what could both be a loophole and a weak point for the legal argument.

 

[TimmyD]

Better late than never, I guess.

I'd rather the FCC patch up the loophole before the rules go in effect than have then deal with the complaints later, because Comcast et al. will exploit any and all loopholes to gain another dollar to its shareholders.

 

[coslie]

spamthejabroni[/url]":1q4br325]Looks like she should change the spelling of her first name to "Minion".

That hardly seems fair given that the objections to this particular clause are coming from all sides of the debate.

 

[iPirateEverything]

TimmyD[/url]":38id88wk]... because Comcast et al. will exploit any and all loopholes to gain another dollar to its shareholders.

Yep, any small loophole will first be kept open with toothpicks, then a construction crew will arrive and start by replacing the toothpicks with screwdrivers to keep the loophole open as well as try to widen it.

By the time the construction crews leave you could drive a bulldozer through the loophole without touching its sides.

A few years later the loophole will be closed. Comcast et al. will cry "not fair" and act like the victims.

New drafts will be made. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[masterbinky]

I'm not getting how the contents of the data can be used to leverage the price being charged for data. Isn't that exactly what we are trying to prevent with net neutrality by creating a content agnostic data transmission service?

 

[TomXP411]

Ugh. This is getting too complicated.

Is there a "... For Dummies" version so I can explain this to the people I know?

 

[ziegler]

So wait...
Does this make Mignon change parties? ...
Or does that mean that Google is now a mouthpiece of the R's? ....

I mean, just a couple articles ago, it was only the R's dastardly evilness that could want to see the full set of regulations for review. There couldn't be any reasonable reason to want to see the full supporting documents.

Seriously...I expect to see some prolific rhetoric about bringing this to light.

It's not like Obama himself didn't call for the full release from the FCC when he was a senator

Is there anything else tucked away in those 332 pages? ...I certainly don't know ..and neither do you.

 

[undervillain]

TomXP411[/url]":2s61v6yp]Ugh. This is getting too complicated.

Is there a "... For Dummies" version so I can explain this to the people I know?

I've tried. My efforts to explain this issue to non-technical friends either turns into a half-hour monologue, or gets summarized as "Fuck Comcast! It's good for the country!".

 

[mattholimeau]

TomXP411[/url]":2bazn7xr]Ugh. This is getting too complicated.

Is there a "... For Dummies" version so I can explain this to the people I know?

Nobody will like it, but I'll give it a shot.

The term "net neutrality" became known as a "good thing".
Wheeler tried to "net neutrality", but the court said "you can't without title 2".
So, wheeler is trying to redefine title 2 to mean "net neutrality".
Hopefully, the courts will slap him again, saying "that's *not* title 2, dumbass."

Title 2 doesn't do a damn thing if it's completely gutted when applied to ISPs.

Net neutrality is nice, and I like it, but none of this does a damn to fix the complete lack of ISP competition. We need local loop unbundling, or to somehow otherwise force actual competition. I was really excited to see the whole title 2 push... and now I'm pissed that they're gutting it, because they're *only* trying to do this "net neutrality" thing. (I don't mean to mock net neutrality as a concept, I mean to indicate the public's lack of understanding of these issues and thus mock the political spin that is in play here.)

[Edited for clarity.]

 

[Some Idiot]

TomXP411[/url]":hhemma59]Ugh. This is getting too complicated.

Is there a "... For Dummies" version so I can explain this to the people I know?

1) Rules were going to be put in place (and not even good rules - they were awfully weak);
2) Verizon threw a shitfit;
3) Judges sided with Verizon on a technicality;
4) Wheeler exploited this technicality to intend to ram a combination of Title II reclassification (as per the Judge's order in Verizon vs. FCC) and Net Neutrality enfrocement;
5) Desperate major telcos have been trying to throw a spanner in the works (through the Republican FCC Commissioners, Ajit Pai (aka Idiot Paid) and Michael O'Reilly (aka Mickey O RLY) and this latest change request is being used as an example of the Godsawful 'Both sides!' rhetoric, even though it's closing a door that would undoubtedly have been shamelessly exploited by the major telcos.

 

[SixDegrees]

Sydde[/url]":3dlzbud8]Time to get working on wireless IPv6 mesh networking established across the country/world so we can dump the ISP concept once and for all.

OK. But presently that will only work realistically over WiFi, so it's limited to densely populated areas. Technologies like Super WiFi could presumably help, but now we're right back to large, expensive installations beyond the reach of most individuals that will wind up being deployed by profit-motivated corporations, which all sounds depressingly familiar. And still leave wide swaths of rural landscape completely uncovered, although that's a problem shared by traditional ISPs at the moment, as well.

Bill Gate's crazy idea of a constellation of hundreds of LEO satellites is looking more and more desirable, though not without its own problems.

 

[Fatesrider]

TheEvilGenius[/url]"evvl8ev]Oh go figure. Even when they're doing the right thing they somehow have to fuck it up.

The full text of the rule change hasn't been released. They've only summarized it. No one knows (except the FCC) if any of these "potential issues" actually exist. They're just bringing them up in case there IS an issue, so that it can be clarified before the final draft rules are voted on.

 

[DNick]

How did two right wingers get on the FCC in the first place? When do their terms expire, and can't they be replaced? The FCC is supposed to protect consumers, not corporations, a mission that would seem to preclude most Republicans from participation. Comcast and Time Warner have their own lobbying groups, and they've bought most of the Republicans in Congress. They don't need Republican representation on the other team as well.

 

[Romberry]

But some net neutrality advocates and opponents alike say there isn't a "service" offered to edge providers, that the only service ISPs offer is to Internet users.

To this I say "Exactly so!" It's the same as with the old telephone system. I am the customer. I pay for the service. The telco provider provides that service to me. They don't get to bill extra to my ex-wife. my girlfriend, my bank or anyone else who calls me regardless of the volume of those calls.

If I am paying for the pipe to my home, I am the customer. End of story.

 

[spurious]

Will it be a $10 government fee/tax per household or per connection. Access to the internet ain't gonna get cheaper.

 

[andrewb610]

TheEvilGenius[/url]":2bgm33dz]Oh go figure. Even when they're doing the right thing they somehow have to fuck it up.

That's what anyone resistance to change says when the government gets involved in anything (often times they're right but not always).

 

[andrewb610]

DNick[/url]":2slgloeo]How did two right wingers get on the FCC in the first place? When do their terms expire, and can't they be replaced? The FCC is supposed to protect consumers, not corporations, a mission that would seem to preclude most Republicans from participation. Comcast and Time Warner have their own lobbying groups, and they've bought most of the Republicans in Congress. They don't need Republican representation on the other team as well.

So in your opinion, anyone who's views differ than yours don't deserve to be represented? Sounds reasonable.

 

[skizzerz]

DNick[/url]":zobm29xz]How did two right wingers get on the FCC in the first place? When do their terms expire, and can't they be replaced? The FCC is supposed to protect consumers, not corporations, a mission that would seem to preclude most Republicans from participation. Comcast and Time Warner have their own lobbying groups, and they've bought most of the Republicans in Congress. They don't need Republican representation on the other team as well.

Because that's how the FCC was formed/chartered/whateveryoucallit. At most 3 people from the same party can be commissioners on the FCC, so typically you see 3 commissioners from the current leading party at the White House, and 2 from the other major party (assuming, of course, that the current trend of only ever electing Democrats or Republicans as president continues; I have no idea what the make-up would look like if a different party made the presidency).

 

[andrewb610]

skizzerz[/url]":2jy411vg]

DNick[/url]":2jy411vg]How did two right wingers get on the FCC in the first place? When do their terms expire, and can't they be replaced? The FCC is supposed to protect consumers, not corporations, a mission that would seem to preclude most Republicans from participation. Comcast and Time Warner have their own lobbying groups, and they've bought most of the Republicans in Congress. They don't need Republican representation on the other team as well.

Because that's how the FCC was formed/chartered/whateveryoucallit. At most 3 people from the same party can be commissioners on the FCC, so typically you see 3 commissioners from the current leading party at the White House, and 2 from the other major party (assuming, of course, that the current trend of only ever electing Democrats or Republicans as president continues; I have no idea what the make-up would look like if a different party made the presidency).

Honestly the least interesting ramification of electing a 3rd party president would probably be the FCC commissioners

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

It's actually a good point to bring up, and one that should be rectified before it goes to vote. This is how I see it with Title II and what the opponents of this particular aspect bring up based on what we know right now, and this is way oversimplifying, if I pay an ISP for internet service of a certain speed and I connect to my hearts desire and monitor my connections noting that I get a certain speed (defined within the parameter of the specific source/server I connect to since we know not every network source/server operates equally - only as fast as the slowest connection type of thing) and allowing for that based on the results of said monitoring then I could have an issue and make a complaint with the FCC to investigate if there appears to be an anomaly.

For example, server A connects as an edge-provider to the ISPs network at 5Mbps, server B connects at 10Mbps, and server C connects at 50 Mbps. Such that now I know that server A uploads at 5Mbps then it follows that I will never download faster then 5Mbps from that particular server no matter how fast my connection is to my ISP (and allowing for all the other network related overhead as well).

So, if I connect to server C and my connection is 50 Mbps to my ISP, then theoretically I should fill my connection connecting to that server (like I said way oversimplifying here). But if I consistently connect to servers D, E, F, G... at that same rate, and find suddenly I can only connect to server C at 5Mbps then there's an issue at the ISP that needs to be addressed in some fashion.

As a consumer this is the complaint that I would make. Also, it might make an interesting selling point for the edge provider as well, "Were Company M and we connect to ISPs at 10Gbps so that multiple connections will have a stable connection when accessing our servers."

Again, oversimplifying there. I realize it's a bit more complicated than that but I think the average consumer would see it this way. I think this is where the objections are heading regarding this particular issue.

 

[0bliv!on]

TomXP411[/url]":1s4u87j2]Ugh. This is getting too complicated.

Is there a "... For Dummies" version so I can explain this to the people I know?

FCC wants to say that ISPs provide a service to "edge providers" (Skype, Netflix, etc) somehow distinct from the service they provide to "customers". Clyburn, and companies like Google, are saying that making this distinction opens the way for ISPs to then CHARGE for this different 'service' they provide, other than treating Netflix/Skype/etc as just another customer.

*That's at least my very simplistic understanding of the issue and is possibly dumbing it down too much.

 

[0bliv!on]

coslie[/url]":gmi6oetq]

spamthejabroni[/url]":gmi6oetq]Looks like she should change the spelling of her first name to "Minion".

That hardly seems fair given that the objections to this particular clause are coming from all sides of the debate.

Well, that'd make her a minion of everyone, or the people... which is a classification I'd expect more public servants and politicians fall into.


[COMPLETELY off topic - I've just realised that the Aes Sedai in the Wheel of Time series, which is supposed to mean "Servant of All", are therefore literally the politicians/bureaucrats of Randland...]

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

spurious[/url]":1jl1svmv]Will it be a $10 government fee/tax per household or per connection. Access to the internet ain't gonna get cheaper.

The only fees or price increases that will result from this reclassification will be those levied by ISPs, just because. I haven't expected to live through this round of much needed regulatory reform without Big Ol' Telco Inc. perpetrating yet another indefensible cash grab of some sort. The only question in my mind is how they will try to frame their spiteful, fully naked greed.

Because the only thing the ISPs will ever "claim" responsibility for delivering are sugar plum fairies, rainbows speckled with gold dust & playfully prancing unicorns; all of which bear as much relationship to reality as the excuses & justifications the ISPs spin to explain their conduct.

 

[TimmyD]

spurious[/url]":2iaeurkk]Will it be a $10 government fee/tax per household or per connection. Access to the internet ain't gonna get cheaper.

Tom Wheeler already discussed this: THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENT TAX, FEE, OR TARIFF ON THE INTERNET.

If there is one, then the ISP is levying a fee to line their own pockets because, well, where else are you gonna go for internet, dial-up?

 

[pixelpusher220]

The problem is the very place this reared it's ugly head is the 'peering' connections. Comcast and Verizon deliberately degrading (or not upgrading) their side of the connection. ISPs need to be common carrier, but we do need to deal with the ISPs playing games with the connections to their networks as well.

 

[Fatesrider]

andrewb610[/url]":225593vw]

DNick[/url]":225593vw]How did two right wingers get on the FCC in the first place? When do their terms expire, and can't they be replaced? The FCC is supposed to protect consumers, not corporations, a mission that would seem to preclude most Republicans from participation. Comcast and Time Warner have their own lobbying groups, and they've bought most of the Republicans in Congress. They don't need Republican representation on the other team as well.

So in your opinion, anyone who's views differ than yours don't deserve to be represented? Sounds reasonable.

I think it's less "anyone" than "Any corporation". I understand conservatives believe in business (I do as well), but letting them buy politicians and having those elected officials skew things in favor of corporations to the nearly complete detriment of the voters is a bit much in MY book.

Your opinion, of course, may vary.

 

[ken08534]

Sydde[/url]":2frxjnjc]Time to get working on wireless IPv6 mesh networking established across the country/world so we can dump the ISP concept once and for all.

And since you will be entering into a regulated space, you will need to clear your business offerings and rates, along with service agreements, etc. With the FCC.

 

[ken08534]

Fatesrider[/url]":2t767nbv]

andrewb610[/url]":2t767nbv]

So in your opinion, anyone who's views differ than yours don't deserve to be represented? Sounds reasonable.

...
Your opinion, of course, may vary.

But not be represented...

 

[ken08534]

TimmyD[/url]":1ojxtjqy]

spurious[/url]":1ojxtjqy]Will it be a $10 government fee/tax per household or per connection. Access to the internet ain't gonna get cheaper.

Tom Wheeler already discussed this: THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENT TAX, FEE, OR TARIFF ON THE INTERNET.

If there is one, then the ISP is levying a fee to line their own pockets because, well, where else are you gonna go for internet, dial-up?

A little perspective - when government officials say things, they aren't forever.

When the income tax was first implemented in the U. S. It was promised that only the very richest of the rich would ever pay taxes, the average worker would never, ever be subject to income taxes...

Facings a mountain of debt the federal government implemented a tax to pay for the Spanish American war... That tax was collected for over 80 years as I recall, the the government was publicly shamed into admitting the Spanish American conflict had been paid for by the tax on phone lines.

The reclassification of Internet services to so-called 'Common Carrier' status (instead of as an 'Information Service') opens the door to a whole slew of activities the FCC Chaiman is CHOOSING to not implement. There would be NOTHING preventing any future FCC Chairman from reversing Chairman Wheeler's decision.

It is amazing to me that so many Net Neutrality advocates think that the only way to ensure the future success of the Internet is to regulate it, despite over two decades of wild success without any real intervention from the federal government. Their arguments are based on 'possible' actions by ISPs, there are no problems customers are currently experiencing that will be corrected by the passage of Chairman Wheeler's 332 page secret plan.

 

[ken08534]

TheGreenMonkey[/url]":n2wn5j3b]For example, server A connects as an edge-provider to the ISPs network at 5Mbps, server B connects at 10Mbps, and server C connects at 50 Mbps. Such that now I know that server A uploads at 5Mbps then it follows that I will never download faster then 5Mbps from that particular server no matter how fast my connection is to my ISP (and allowing for all the other network related overhead as well).

So, if I connect to server C and my connection is 50 Mbps to my ISP, then theoretically I should fill my connection connecting to that server (like I said way oversimplifying here). But if I consistently connect to servers D, E, F, G... at that same rate, and find suddenly I can only connect to server C at 5Mbps then there's an issue at the ISP that needs to be addressed in some fashion.

As a consumer this is the complaint that I would make. Also, it might make an interesting selling point for the edge provider as well, "Were Company M and we connect to ISPs at 10Gbps so that multiple connections will have a stable connection when accessing our servers."

Again, oversimplifying there.

Your oversimplification is noted, but going at your download speed from 'Server C' issue, that is exactly what would happen when a second customer of server C accesses their servers at the same time you do and the owners of server C fail to double their network bandwidth now that they have two simultaneous users.

You will never, ever see 100 Mb/sec downloads on a 100 Mb/sec connection. Your home connection speed is like a speed limit on your driveway - it has no control of how fast you can drive on your street, the county road outside your neighborhood, the state highway, etc. It only controls how fast you can drive on that 'last mile' between the street and your house.

 

[ken08534]

Romberry[/url]":381fqhax]

But some net neutrality advocates and opponents alike say there isn't a "service" offered to edge providers, that the only service ISPs offer is to Internet users.

To this I say "Exactly so!" It's the same as with the old telephone system. I am the customer. I pay for the service. The telco provider provides that service to me. They don't get to bill extra to my ex-wife. my girlfriend, my bank or anyone else who calls me regardless of the volume of those calls.

If I am paying for the pipe to my home, I am the customer. End of story.

Hum, you never saw a bill in the 'old telephone system' did you?

You paid for service.

You paid to rent your phone.

You paid for message units - which translated into so many minutes/month.

You paid extra when your call volume exceeded your number of message units.

You paid long distance rates for calls that crossed state lines.

You paid higher rates for 'interLATA' calls, calls that crossed invisible boundaries unrelated to political/municipal boundaries.

In short, you paid for everything, on an itemized bill.

Under the 'old telephone system' your ex-wife paid for service, she paid to rent her phone, she paid for the phone call when she used that service, and you paid for the service so you could receive your ex-wife's call on the phone you rented from the phone company.