Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[OT] Google, Facebook and Amazon demand true net neutrality

Expand Messages
  • John Rethorst
    Curious that an American government agency should be empowered to make the decision about the international resource. IAC, if you can, think about writing your
    Message 1 of 9 , May 8, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Curious that an American government agency should be empowered to
      make the decision about the international resource. IAC, if you can,
      think about writing your congressional representatives and senators.
      I have.

      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-facebook-and-
      amazon-sign-letter-criticising-fcc-net-neutrality-plan

      John R.
    • Gilbert, Geoff
      à strange, we thought that, too à. ... Geoff Gilbert Professor of Law Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Refugee Law School of Law and Human Rights
      Message 2 of 9 , May 8, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        … strange, we thought that, too ….
        ------------------
        Geoff Gilbert
        Professor of Law
        Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Refugee Law
        School of Law and Human Rights Centre
        University of Essex
        Wivenhoe Park
        Colchester
        CO4 3SQ
        Tel +44 (0)1206 872557
        Fax +44 (0)1206 873428
        geoff@...


        On 8 May 2014, at 20:53, John Rethorst <johnrethorst@...> wrote:

        > Curious that an American government agency should be empowered to
        > make the decision about the international resource. IAC, if you can,
        > think about writing your congressional representatives and senators.
        > I have.
        >
        > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-facebook-and-
        > amazon-sign-letter-criticising-fcc-net-neutrality-plan
        >
        > John R.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Chad Smith
        What International Resource? The Internet? I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is - and perhaps even what The
        Message 3 of 9 , May 8, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          What International Resource?

          The Internet?

          I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is - and perhaps even what "The Internet" is.

          But - in a nutshell - the Net Neutrality debate is this:  Can Internet Service Providers offer a "Fast lane" for certain websites to their customers.

          ISP's already offer speed levels to their customers to the Internet in general.  (Pay one amount per month get a certain speed - pay more get a faster speed).

          What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side.  A certain content provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the ISP for this "Fast Lane" access.  So no matter what speed the customer (end user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads much faster.

          This would not slow down any current sites - but what it would do, or at least the fear is - it would create a split within the Internet.  The "Fast Lane" sites - and everybody else.  Basically the companies that can afford to pay the Fast Lane Fee would have be seen by more people and get more traffic than those who could not.  People don't like waiting for pages to load.  So if your site is Fast Tracked - more people will be willing to load it.

          Why is this an American issue?  Well, because it involves American companies selling services to American citizens and possibly to other companies (American and International).

          It does not affect any other country.  It could set a precedent for other countries to follow.  But ultimately, the laws set by Congress would only affect American consumers.  If Net Neutrality fails in the USA - end users in other countries would not be affected in any way.  But companies who want their websites fast tracked to American end users would have to pay for that privilege.  (Their sites would still be available to American end users - just as quickly and easily as they are now.  But they would *seem* slower compared to the Fast Tracked sites.)

          So, again, this would not affect anyone outside the US.

          It does not affect free speech.  It does not affect what is or is not allowed on the Internet.  It does not force anyone or any company to buy anything.

          I support Net Neutrality.  I believe it should be a level playing field.  I just wanted to clarify what it actually means.

          - Chad W. Smith


          On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM, John Rethorst <johnrethorst@...> wrote:
           

          Curious that an American government agency should be empowered to
          make the decision about the international resource. IAC, if you can,
          think about writing your congressional representatives and senators.
          I have.

          http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-facebook-and-
          amazon-sign-letter-criticising-fcc-net-neutrality-plan

          John R.


        • James Voelzow
          What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the ISP for this
          Message 4 of 9 , May 9, 2014
          • 0 Attachment


            "What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content
            provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the
            ISP for this "Fast Lane" access. So no matter what speed the customer (end
            user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads
            much faster."

            So if I'm paying for 20Mbps through my ISP, that will be bumped up to, say, 40Mbps when dl'ing information from on of the "fast lane" companies? And this is managed how? Seamlessly through my ISP?

            Jim Voelzow

          • Chad Smith
            Something like that. And it would be managed by your ISP. I m not sure of how the technology / logistics behind it would work. I m not an expert. And
            Message 5 of 9 , May 9, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              Something like that.  And it would be managed by your ISP.  I'm not sure of how the technology / logistics behind it would work.  I'm not an expert.

              And potentially it would different for each ISP.  Facebook may have Fast Lane status on Charter and Comcast, but not AT&T.  And the "Fast Lane" could potentially mean different things at different ISPs.  Charter may double the speed, while Comcast may triple it, but AT&T may only give a 50% speed bump.

              It may also not be a ratio - (doubling / tripling) - it may be that no matter what speed an end user pays for 10 / 20 / 40 Mbps - the fast lane sites might always load for all that ISP's customers at a set speed - say 200 Mbps or something.

              None of that is craved in stone as far as I know - and would, again, probably vary from one ISP to the next.  Although, given their history of oligarchic practices, I wouldn't expect it to be too varied, not much at all.

              - Chad W. Smith


              On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, James Voelzow jvoelzow@... [wordperfectmac] <wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
               



              "What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content
              provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the
              ISP for this "Fast Lane" access. So no matter what speed the customer (end
              user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads
              much faster."

              So if I'm paying for 20Mbps through my ISP, that will be bumped up to, say, 40Mbps when dl'ing information from on of the "fast lane" companies? And this is managed how? Seamlessly through my ISP?

              Jim Voelzow


            • Harry Holt
              The problem with this is not that some content providers can pay tribute to ISPs for priority bandwidth - it s that the suppliers (ISPs and content
              Message 6 of 9 , May 10, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                The problem with this is not that some content providers can pay "tribute" to ISPs for priority bandwidth - it's that the suppliers (ISPs and content providers) decide what consumers have ready access to, and what services are degraded.

                That turns the free market on its head, because the only thing that makes free markets successful is when consumers are in charge, and drive producers to supply what they want.

                Let's say Comcast has a 10GB pipe for serving content from the backbone to a set of customers in Region A.  They have payments from Netflix, Facebook, and Amazon (for example). Those packets are prioritized through the network. with top-level QOS tags from the backbone all the way to every customer's home router.

                Now let's say I'm in Region A and I want to watch a subversive video from Joe's Community Sharing website. Maybe I can see it, or maybe Netflix, Facebook, and Amazon are together trying to serve  12GB of data to other customers in Region A.  Well there's not enough bandwidth for all of them, much less the low-priority QOS packets from Joe's.  Customers on Netflix and Facebook and Amazon may not even notice an issue, but Joe's video will be unwatchable, and everyone else will be spending extra time waiting for their "slow lane" websites to respond.  Fred will spend extra time getting his work done on his employer's VPN, because he doesn't work for Amazon or Facebook or Netflix.

                Will the ISPs notice, respond to customer complaints, and increase their bandwidth?  Not likely - this entire idea is so they can get paid tribute from content providers and improve their profits, not improve service to customers that are still paying the same flat-rate monthly fees.

                So more and more customers avoid Joe's and other slower sites (because they're just so slow), those sites lose all their users, and go dark.

                And then the goal gets closer: turning the Internet into a 21st-century broadcast TV, with all the content controlled by deep-pocketed multinational corporations.

                Just sayin'.

                ... HH

                > Something like that. And it would be managed by your ISP. I'm not sure
                > of
                >
                > how the technology / logistics behind it would work. I'm not an expert.
                >
                >
                > And potentially it would different for each ISP. Facebook may have Fast
                > Lane status on Charter and Comcast, but not AT&T. And the "Fast Lane"
                > could potentially mean different things at different ISPs. Charter may
                > double the speed, while Comcast may triple it, but AT&T may only give a
                > 50%
                > speed bump.
                >
                >
                > It may also not be a ratio - (doubling / tripling) - it may be that no
                >
                > matter what speed an end user pays for 10 / 20 / 40 Mbps - the fast lane
                > sites might always load for all that ISP's customers at a set speed - say
                > 200 Mbps or something.
                >
                >
                > None of that is craved in stone as far as I know - and would, again,
                > probably vary from one ISP to the next. Although, given their history of
                > oligarchic practices, I wouldn't expect it to be too varied, not much at
                > all.
                >

                >
                > *- Chad W. Smith*
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, James Voelzow
                />> jvoelzow@...[wordperfectmac]
                > <wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                >
                >
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> "What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content
                >> provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay
                >> the
                >> ISP for this "Fast Lane" access. So no matter what speed the customer
                >> (end
                >> user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it
                >> loads
                >> much faster."
                >>
                >> So if I'm paying for 20Mbps through my ISP, that will be bumped up to,
                >> say, 40Mbps when dl'ing information from on of the "fast lane"
                >> companies?
                >> And this is managed how? Seamlessly through my ISP?
                >>
                >> Jim Voelzow
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
              • stratomaster152
                Call me a cynic, but isn t it more likely that the broadband providers will simply slow down the data from websites that aren t paying for a fast lane ? - Abe
                Message 7 of 9 , May 10, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Call me a cynic, but isn't it more likely that the broadband providers will simply slow down the data from websites that aren't paying for a "fast lane"?  

                  - Abe


                  ---In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, <chad78@...> wrote :

                  Something like that.  And it would be managed by your ISP.  I'm not sure of how the technology / logistics behind it would work.  I'm not an expert.

                  And potentially it would different for each ISP.  Facebook may have Fast Lane status on Charter and Comcast, but not AT&T.  And the "Fast Lane" could potentially mean different things at different ISPs.  Charter may double the speed, while Comcast may triple it, but AT&T may only give a 50% speed bump.

                  It may also not be a ratio - (doubling / tripling) - it may be that no matter what speed an end user pays for 10 / 20 / 40 Mbps - the fast lane sites might always load for all that ISP's customers at a set speed - say 200 Mbps or something.

                  None of that is craved in stone as far as I know - and would, again, probably vary from one ISP to the next.  Although, given their history of oligarchic practices, I wouldn't expect it to be too varied, not much at all.

                  - Chad W. Smith


                  On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, James Voelzow jvoelzow@... [wordperfectmac] <wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                   



                  "What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content
                  provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the
                  ISP for this "Fast Lane" access. So no matter what speed the customer (end
                  user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads
                  much faster."

                  So if I'm paying for 20Mbps through my ISP, that will be bumped up to, say, 40Mbps when dl'ing information from on of the "fast lane" companies? And this is managed how? Seamlessly through my ISP?

                  Jim Voelzow


                • stratomaster152
                  Never mind my first question, I see you already covered not slowing anything down in a previous post. Anyway, I think the whole thing is a terrible idea. The
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 10, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Never mind my first question,  I see you already covered not slowing anything down in a previous post.

                    Anyway, I think the whole thing is a terrible idea. The extra costs to websites and content providers would eventually be passed along to consumers, and with a mishmash of variable speeds sold by various ISP's, to various websites, the end result would be that non-paying websites would definitely have their "perceived speeds" lowered, thereby lowering the perceived value of their content. We already "hate" going to websites that load slower than others. The end result of this will be that more and more web traffic will go to the sites run by the big corporations and our kids won't have any chance to grow a startup web business unless they can borrow enough money to buy their way up to the playing field.

                    - Abe


                    ---In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, <stratomaster152@...> wrote :

                    Call me a cynic, but isn't it more likely that the broadband providers will simply slow down the data from websites that aren't paying for a "fast lane"?  

                    - Abe


                    ---In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, <chad78@...> wrote :

                    Something like that.  And it would be managed by your ISP.  I'm not sure of how the technology / logistics behind it would work.  I'm not an expert.

                    And potentially it would different for each ISP.  Facebook may have Fast Lane status on Charter and Comcast, but not AT&T.  And the "Fast Lane" could potentially mean different things at different ISPs.  Charter may double the speed, while Comcast may triple it, but AT&T may only give a 50% speed bump.

                    It may also not be a ratio - (doubling / tripling) - it may be that no matter what speed an end user pays for 10 / 20 / 40 Mbps - the fast lane sites might always load for all that ISP's customers at a set speed - say 200 Mbps or something.

                    None of that is craved in stone as far as I know - and would, again, probably vary from one ISP to the next.  Although, given their history of oligarchic practices, I wouldn't expect it to be too varied, not much at all.

                    - Chad W. Smith


                    On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, James Voelzow jvoelzow@... [wordperfectmac] <wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                     



                    "What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side. A certain content
                    provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the
                    ISP for this "Fast Lane" access. So no matter what speed the customer (end
                    user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads
                    much faster."

                    So if I'm paying for 20Mbps through my ISP, that will be bumped up to, say, 40Mbps when dl'ing information from on of the "fast lane" companies? And this is managed how? Seamlessly through my ISP?

                    Jim Voelzow


                  • James Voelzow
                    Well, I m just as much (or more) of a cynic as as anyone, but I don t see the paying public just caving for degraded service. Might take awhile (legal
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 11, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Well, I'm just as much (or more) of a cynic as as anyone, but I don't see the paying public just caving for degraded service. Might take awhile (legal challenges?), but it seems to me the free market aspect of your argument *could* work the other way around too, and an ISP that doesn't degrade, but instead "upgrades" the pay-to-play companies, would end up with the customers. (Not that I am not in favor of any change to the historical neutrality.)

                      This is an interesting discussion, but I guess it's actually off topic, so I'll just lurk from now on.

                      Jim Voelzow



                      Sat May 10, 2014 10:54 am (PDT) . Posted by:

                      "Harry Holt" d1r3vv0lf

                      The problem with this is not that some content providers can pay
                      "tribute" to ISPs for priority bandwidth - it's that the
                      suppliers (ISPs and content providers) decide what consumers have ready
                      access to, and what services are degraded.

                      ...

                      Now
                      let's say I'm in Region A and I want to watch a subversive video from
                      Joe's Community Sharing website. Maybe I can see it, or maybe Netflix,
                      Facebook, and Amazon are together trying to serve  12GB of data to
                      other customers in Region A.  Well there's not enough bandwidth for
                      all of them, much less the low-priority QOS packets from Joe's. 
                      Customers on Netflix and Facebook and Amazon may not even notice an issue,
                      but Joe's video will be unwatchable, and everyone else will be spending
                      extra time waiting for their "slow lane" websites to
                      respond.  Fred will spend extra time getting his work done on his
                      employer's VPN, because he doesn't work for Amazon or Facebook or
                      Netflix.

                      Will the ISPs notice, respond to customer complaints,
                      and increase their bandwidth?  Not likely - this entire idea is so
                      they can get paid tribute from content providers and improve their
                      profits, not improve service to customers that are still paying the same
                      flat-rate monthly fees.

                      ...

                      Just sayin'.

                      ... HH


                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.