Tag: FCC

  • Everything you think you know about Net Neutrality is Wrong

    Everything you think you know about Net Neutrality is Wrong

    Everything You Think You know about Net Neutrality is Wrong

    Everything  you think you know about Net Neutrality is WRONG.  I am sure there are smarter people out there than me who may clarify some things that I don’t know but it seems for the most part the general public is misinformed about what Net Neutrality is and what the FCC is or isn’t doing about it.

    First some background.  According to Public Knowledge, the definition of Net Neutrality is:

    Net neutrality is the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet service providers discriminating against specific online services or websites.

    Pretty basic.  In other words, it means that when I have a broadband relationship with an Internet Service Provider (ISP) AKA cable/phone company, I expect that I can access what I want and they won’t discriminate on the speed of my internet traffic from any website.  So my Netflix, in theory, should be just as speedy as content the I get from the ISP’s own owned websites.

    Last week the FCC reclassified wired and wireless Broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, essentially making it a Public Utility with more regulations on ISPs and how they do business.  Net Neutrality proponents and the Obama administration cheered while Republicans and ISPs thought the measure went too far.  As someone who is a proponent of Net Neutrality in principle, I am left scratching my head as to how this move by the FCC really has done anything to protect the consumer.

    MYTH: The FCC’s actions have removed paid prioritization and high speed lanes that would benefit one website over another.
    FACT:  There are still high speed lanes on the internet and will be with this order.

    First some background.  When my mother was young and her family drove from Cleveland to Cincinnati, there were no highways.  Trips took longer and there were more frequent stops along the way.    After the highways were put in the drive time decreases dramatically as did the number of necessary stops.

    The same is true on the internet.  When the internet was first starting out the ISPs built the local roads and if I was sending an email from Cincinnati to Los Angeles, it would hop from server to server.  Then companies called Content Delivery Networks (CDN’s) came in and starting building the internet highways allowing data to flow quicker and without jumps.  Unlike the government, who built and maintained highways, these infrastructures were created by private businesses.  They would pass data off between themselves and to ISPs in a more efficient manner.  For the most part they enter into Peering Relationships which says assuming we are both sending and receiving the same amount of data we won’t charge each other.  But if one of us starts sending more data thanwe have agreed to, there is usually a fee involved.

    Enter Netflix.  If Netflix had to rely on the old local roads to deliver their streaming content, there would be missing data packets and as some of us have experienced dithering or skipping while we watch a movie.  By entering into a relationship with a CDN who has servers all  across the nation, they can duplicate their content into those servers.  So if someone in Cincinnati orders a movie, they are streaming from a local server as would someone in Los Angeles stream the same movie from a duplicate copy of it on a local server.  Netflix has to pay these companies in order to have their content on their servers.  This costs a lot of money, so in order to reduce the costs, Netflix started approaching the cable companies asking them to put their content on the ISPs servers.  Some agreed under a Peering Relationship but given the amount of internet traffic created by Netflix, some expected to be paid.  Netflix created a lot of noise last year about this issue with Comcast.  Netflix thought they would save money by skipping the CDNs and then cried “Net Neutrality” when the ISP’s expected to enter into a similar relationship.

    Under Title II, the FCC said they would keep an eye on the peering relationship and even the paid ones but aren’t cutting them out.  Should the FCC start saying that a relationship between a edge provider like Netflix and an ISP like Comcast cannot have money exchange hands, Comcast would probably say, go back to dealing with CDNs and we won’t have to worry about not getting paid.

    Either way Netflix will continue to pay to make sure their streaming service is fast and doesn’t break up.  So if I started Bearman Video Streaming Service and didn’t have the money that Netflix does to use the “highways”, my streaming service will be slower and probably choppy.  So in essence, high speed lanes are still in effect.

    MYTH: The FCC’s actions will mean more competition and I will pay less for my broadband.
    FACT:  Could happen but probably won’t.

    Let’s imagine that the FCC comes down hard on ISPs and disallows any paid peering relationships.  Without the money coming in from one end of the stream, ISP’s are going to look to make that up on the other end, meaning higher prices for you and I.   Now part of Title II does give the FCC to control pricing but for now they say they aren’t going to enforce that part of the order.

    Hal Singer, in a recent Forbes article explained it this way, “Imagine what would happen to newspaper subscriptions if contributions from advertisers were banned, and the entire cost burden fell on readers!”

    Additionally, cable companies were protected to some degree from paying the high utility pole fees that phone and electric companies do in order to encourage expanding their networks to as many customers as possible.  However, under Title II, that could change.  Higher fees for them, mean higher prices for us.

    Finally, the most impactful reason that the FCC’s actions won’t improve competition and benefit the consumer is because they are choosing not to require what is known as “last mile unbundling”  Requiring last mile unbundling would mean that ISPs would have to lease their lines at a wholesale rate to other customers.   Imagine the amount of competition and driving down of pricing that would involve.  In the cell phone world, I could potentially have T-mobile pricing plans (which are great) on a Verizon Network.

    Net Neutrality in principle is a great thing, however I am not convinced that the action from the FCC has done anything to actually be pro-consumer.

    What do you think?

  • A Different View of Net Neutrality

    A Different View of Net Neutrality

    5-21-14-Bearman-Cartoon-Obama-Net-Neutrality

    I have a different view of Net Neutrality than most based on what I have read.  That being said I am always open to additional info to sway me back to the masses belief that what the FCC has been proposing of late and the deal between Netflix and Comcast is completely bad for the internet as a whole.  But first of course I find that with all the discussion around the topic, the person you don’t hear from is President Obama who in 2008 stated:

    “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to net neutrality.”

    That prompted today’s editorial cartoon as it seems everyone is driving the conversation around Net Neutrality with the exception of the President.

    I could write a huge diatribe about my feelings about the Netflix/Comcast deal but I found an article by Maggie Reardon of CNET that helped explain some things better for me so it may help others as well.  Check out her article here.  This portion was particularly helpful:

    “The other thing to realize about the Internet is that the network itself is a shared medium. Information is chopped into packets that traverse the Internet separately and are reassembled at their destinations. Packets from your email or a video you selected from Netflix travel alongside packets for everyone else’s data. Just like a highway where all cars are subject to the same speed limit, but still travel at different speeds due to the congested road, some packets arrive at their destination sooner than others.

    For some forms of communication it doesn’t matter much if the packets arrive in order or if some arrive a little later than others. This is true of most text-based communications, such as text-based websites or email. But for other forms of communication, such as audio or video, it’s crucial that all packets arrive in order and in close succession. If some packets are delayed or dropped, the experience of the video or audio once the packets are reassembled is not pleasant. There’s often buffering, pixelation, and/or jitter.”

    How I explain it:

    Here is how I explained it to my wife and figure it worked for her that others might find it beneficial.  Think of the internet like Amazon.  You order from many manufacturers but the processing and delivery are all handled by an Amazon warehouse (let’s ignore the vendors that drop ship directly for this example).   Let’s say Amazon has 100 bays to process items into the warehouse and 100 more to process items out of it.  Everything flows well until too many manufacturers are trying to unload their items at the same time.  It causes slow downs much like on the net.

    With a company like Google (YouTube) or Netflix they are sending an abundance of trucks to the warehouse at any given time.   This causes delays in them getting their items into the warehouse and therefore delays it getting out.  This is what causes dithering or delays in video at times.  So Amazon either has to build more bays or enlarge the ones they have to accommodate Netflix traffic.  The question becomes who should pay for that?  Should all Amazon customers pay for it or just the ones getting items from Netflix?  Well one way to do that is to have Netflix pay for the upgrades and then Netflix can choose to eat the cost or pass it on only to their own customers.

    But if everyone pays for faster access, won’t it hurt those without means to pay?:

    One of the arguments I consistently read about the issue are from those that take the information highway analogy and liken it to ISPs creating a toll road.   Right now they have the incentive to continue to expand and speed up all the roads.  But what happens if they create a toll road for companies to gain faster access.  Then ISP’s like Comcast will begin spending money only on infrastructure to make the toll roads faster and therefore leaving the “free roads” to maintain same speeds and service levels as today, never to increase again.

    This is where I think the FCC and the President should be taking a stand.  I don’t think it should be an open access to allow payments for every large company to take advantage of to the detriment of smaller companies.  Rather I look at there being a download percentage limit.  Right now YouTube and Netflix each account for over 10% of the total internet traffic.  So let’s say the FCC rules state that any company with over 10% of the download traffic on the web can at their discretion enter into a mutually benefiting agreement with ISP’s to deliver the same uninterrupted service that others who don’t carry as large of data can enjoy.  Notice I didn’t say faster.

    To me the biggest hassle in traveling is dealing with the WIDE LOAD trucks that slow traffic for miles and impede my own travel.  If the government created wide load lanes that the trucking companies had to pay to use but I didn’t get access to, I would be happy with the arrangement.  They get a special lane and I my speed is not degraded to get to my destination at all.

    So what do you think?  Am I missing anything?

    _________________________________________________

    Charity Challenge Update

    Week 2 let me know if I missed anyone.

    Including Bearman in a Cartoon ($10):

    Blogging about the Challenge ($5):

    Adding me to Circles on Google Plus ($1):

    • 483 People added me in this week.

    Dollar for Dollar Match for Contributions to Crayons 2 Computers:

    For a week two total of $1033 and meaning I went over the $2000 goal.  HOWEVER:

    I have made a decision that if we hit the limit of $1500 that I will still pay cartoonists for adding Bearman to their webcomic through the end of the month as well as match to the $500 limit.  So I am adding the three toons from this week and I am going to keep matching even though I hit the 500 limit.   So with the 1500 hit plus the $30 in webcomics from this week and the total of $620 in matching donations

    I have committed to donating $2120 so far.

    So no more payouts for blogging or adding me on G+ but if you are interested in getting involved with your webcomic or matching donation?  See this post.  And

    Best way I can ask you to support those who support me is to visit their websites and check out the amazing work they are doing.