Net Neutrality and our forum...

[caseydog]

Last week, the FCC voted unanimously to begin consideration of proposed rules that would protect "net neutrality" on the internet. Over the next several months, an official rulemaking proceeding will take place, along with public workshops and technical advisory discussions, allowing everyone to provide feedback before the Commission adopts a final set of rules.


On the same day, a bill was introduced in the Senate called "Internet Freedom Act" that would prohibit the FCC from regulating net neutrality.


What's at stake for our forum? Maybe nothing, or maybe a lot.

Right now, we pay a fee to an ISP to gain access to the internet. Once on, we can go where we want, and we get the same speed performance no matter what sites we visit.

Without net neutrality, ISPs would be allowed to pick-and-chose where we can go, and adjust bandwidth to make some sites work fast, and others work slow.

Think about CableTV or DirecTV services. You buy a "basic" package, and add channels for an extra fee, or perhaps a bundle of channels called a "sports pack" or "movie pack" to get several channels for one added fee.

Now, imagine buying internet access with the same formula. Basic access for 29 dollars. That gets you high speed access to certain websites owned or tied financially to your ISP. For an extra few bucks, you can have high-speed access to the major news sites. For a few bucks more, you get high-speed access to all the social networking sites. Or, just pony up a hundred bucks a month, and get universal high-speed access (except to sites owned or tied to competitors).

That is a possible scenario if net neutrality fails. We may have to buy the expensive "universal" plan to get high-speed access to the TD&TTT forum.

Or, what if providers go to people like Mike, and tell him he needs to pay them for TD&TTT to be accessible at high speed on their networks. Or, what if TimeWarner (for example) tells Mike that TD&TTT will be blocked to TimeWarner customers unless he pays them a fee? He would have to payoff all the major providers for most of us to have the access we currently enjoy.

Here is a WikiPedia link to get familiar with this issue. It is something to think about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

CD

[eamarquardt]

As telecom engineer for 20 years I can say for certainty that bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth (ie more access) takes more equipment and that costs more money. Right now, as I understand it, someone who uses the net very little pays the same as someone who uses it a lot. So, the person using little bandwidth is subsidizing the person (or more likely a commercial enterprise) who is using a lot of bandwidth (read EQUIPMENT that costs a lot of money).

So, what's wrong with the concept of having those that use most of the resouces pay more of the cost? That, in general, is how the world rotates. I drive more, I pay more for gasoline. I water my lawn more, I pay more for water. I use my a/c more, I pay more for electricity. I doubt that small forums (such as this forum) use that much bandwidth. If we move all of our scheduled tv programming, pay for view on demand, phone service, etc, etc, etc, to the internet who should pay for the new bandwidth (equipment) that will be required to support these new demands on the network?

The real issue is how to measure useage and to bill parties for their "fair share" of the bill.

There should be "no free lunch" except for those that are disabled!

There you have it (again), "the world according to Gus"

Gotta get back to fixing the toilet. Had drill out the bolts to get it apart but things are going smoothly.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[caseydog]

Gus, as it stands now, ISPs CAN charge customers more for faster connections (ie: more bandwidth). The only thing that Net Neutrality does in relation to actual bandwidth is say that if Jon Doe and Bob Smith both pay 50 dollars for access, they should receive the same product -- as in, the same bandwidth.

So, even with Net Neutrality laws, ISPs can still offer "power user" upgrades, or offer slower speeds for budget prices.

However, they can't charge extra for access to competitors web sites, or block sites that don't pay for access to their customers. If I am with TimeWarner and they partner with Yahoo, Time Warner can't slow down my connection to Google, which I prefer to Yahoo for searching the web.

I can just see this happening: If I stay with TimeWarner, I can't get to (or get a fast connection to) some of the sites I like. But, if I switch ISPs, then I can't get to other web sites I like, or have to pay extra to get to them.

There are only a few ways that I can access the internet from my home. I don't have hundreds of ISPs competing for my business. Cable internet in my neighborhood is Time Warner, and DSL is from AT&T. So, I have to buy internet access in an oligopoly situation. Therefore, Net Neutrality is very important to me.

CD

[eamarquardt]

The speed of your connnection to the internet is one parameter of your connection. How much you use it and how much traffic you generate is another. Just like you have (or at least I have) a 125 amp service for my power supply at my home it doesn't mean that I draw 125 amps 24/7 or my electric bill would be off the chart. Also, the power grid would die if everyone drew what they are capable of for even a few minutes (as I understand it). So, just because I can download 14,000 jigabytes per second (I live in "back to the future") it doesn't mean that I do so 24/7. So, I can download a page every millisecond, but I only download 50 pages a day versus someone else with the same speed connection that downloads 84,600,000 pages a day. Same connection speed, but somewhat different traffic load. That's a part of what we call "network engineering" and where I spent 20 years at what is now AT&T. From what little I've read, it's the difference in traffic load that causes the consternation. Someone can sign up with a cheap/inexpensive service provider, place huge demands on someone elses part of the network, perhaps drive it to it's knees, and there is no way to stop it or be fairly compensated for the useage. Again, I think the real issue it to require fair compensation for "services rendered".

That is my understanding of the problem. However, having been cheated out my disability benefits by AT&T (a total of $70K which is chump change to them) I know them to be an unscrupulus bunch of bottom feeding scumbags!!!!!!!!!! My benefits were terminated because I insisted that I be able to record their doctors examinations of me as provided for by California law and federal case law. The first doctor they (via their third party administrator Sedwick CMS) sent me to couldn't get my height, weight, or sex right in his report. In addition he cited my sister's health issues. Only problem is, I have (and have never had) any sisters that I know of!!! In addition they tried to hold me under "virtual house arrest" by requiring me (if I wanted the meager benefits they promised me when I worked for them for 20 years) to ask "permission" to spend the night away from home or travel further than 60 miles from home. I had to prove "demonstrated need" to be granted permission. Currently I've retained an attorney and we're gathering steam towards a class action lawsuit and plan to do a little clock cleaning (or at least adjusting). I can prove every word I've written, mostly on AT&T letterhead in the form of letters they've written me and recordings of our conversations! You can visit a friend's website (www.sedgwickcms.blotspot.com) to read more. I'm also known there as Eric Marquardt aka Gus. I'd like to start my own web site to expose them and could use a bit of coaching if anyone is interested in helping. AT&T has been "messing with the wrong Marine" and I warned them ahead of time!!! The times are changing, the courts are beginning to see the abuses under Federal Law (ERISA) and they will be held accountable!

So, bottom line, I don't trust AT&T as they are an evil company but I also know that all customers aren't "created equal" and it is possible for a few to overload the net that we have all grown to depend upon. Just seems right that you ought to be charged for useage AND connection speed as both influence the amount of equipment THEY have to provide.

There you have it (once again), the world according to Gus. If my understanding is not correct, I'm open to further "enlightenment".

I may be wrong but my logic on how I reach conclusions is irrefutable. Maybe my data is wrong.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus
Son of US Marine Officer
Son of Naval Officer (mother)
US Marine Officer
Father of US Marine just back from Iraq

[TD Beej]

You pay for your bandwidth, net neutrality means that they can't delay or even keep your data from you because the site provider hasn't paid them off or isn't owned by them. Another words some of the less scrupulous companies want to provide an "apparent" performance advantage to their preferred data providers by slowing or excluding other data providers of data.

Beej

[Slayer]

I'm with the FCC on this one. Commcast, AT&T, and others have spent millions to fight net neutrality, and I don't think it's because they have what's good for us in mind.

Rodney...

[eamarquardt]

AT&T does not have anyone's interests at heart except for their top executives. They are EVIL and stoop to the lowest behavior imaginable when they cheat sick and disabled employees.

However, youse guys are missing the point. The internet is not an "unlimited resource" capable of carrying everything we're dumping on it without major investments in equipment (read money).

The real issue, again, is fair compensation for traffic load.

For example: Lets say Country A and Country B both have mail service and the mail from A to B is about the same as from B to A. They agree to deliver the mail from each other and not charge for it but they each keep all the postage for mail originating in their own country. This works out as long as the mail going each way is roughly equal. Now, country A (being smarter business people) creates a lot of business mail that goes from A to B and there is a 1000 fold increase. The mail from country B to A remains the same. So B has to add lots of mail carriers to deliver all this new mail but doesn't get any of the revenue! Country A get's to keep all of the new revenue but doesn't have to do all of the new work. Country B is now pissed and refuses to deliver business mail but continues to deliver personal letters.

That is exactly the issue with net neutrality. The reason carriers are choking some traffic is because they don't have the capacity, are not getting compensated for the equipment they have to add to carry it, and it interferes with the traffic of a lot of their customers.

The internet is an evolving technology. There are new applications being loaded onto it every day and they consume resources (equipment read money) and someone has to pay for it. Telephone companies have been "choking" the network for years. Remember when you tried to call your mother across the country on Mother's day and couldn't get through because everyone was trying to do the same thing at the same time and there just wasn't enough equipment to carry the load? Same concept with the internet. Ever try to make a phone call after an earthquake or flood and you couldn't. Once again the same thing, not enough equipment to carry the load.

Downloading a page off the internet is "chump change" compared to a HD movie stream. Lots of new equipment will be required to provide the bandwidth for movies. Who should pay for this equipment. The people that download a couple of pages a day or those that are using the service. Again, the issue is how much traffic you really generate not how fast your connection is. Just like the electric meter on your house, you can get 125 amps (or so) at any one time, but you don't do so 24/7 and that is what the content providers are doing and not paying for!

Now, if someone with more than 20 years in telecommunications transport engineering experience would like to point out the flaws in my logic, I'm listening.

Cheers,

Gus
20 years with what is now AT&T as
Central Office Equipment Engineer
Senior Project Manager, Switching
Senior Project Manager, Transport Engineering

[caseydog]

Downloading a page off the internet is "chump change" compared to a HD movie stream. Lots of new equipment will be required to provide the bandwidth for movies. Who should pay for this equipment. The people that download a couple of pages a day or those that are using the service.

But, that is not the issue at hand. The ISPs can, and will still be able to charge their customers more for higher bandwidth. I pay a higher price to my ISP for faster upload speeds, so I can send large photo and design files to my customers and venders. Net Neutrality does not change that.

To continue the phone analogy, imagine you have ATT phone service, and when you call another ATT customer, your call goes right through. But, when you try to call a Sprint customer, you have to try several times, because ATT is choking calls to its competitors. If I pay for phone service, I want to be able to call anyone I want, regardless of who their phone service provider is.

That is more analogous to the scenarios that could come true is we do not have Net Neutrality.

I don't mind paying more for extra bandwidth (speed). I just don't want the ISPs deciding how I use the bandwidth once I pay for it. If I am paying for X amount of bandwidth for X amount of dollars, I don't want my bandwidth intentionally choked down by my ISP depending on where I want to go on the web.

CD

[teardrop_focus]

caseydawg

... imagine you have ATT phone service, and when you call another ATT customer, your call goes right through. But, when you try to call a Sprint customer, you have to try several times, because ATT is choking calls to its competitors.

I don't mind paying more for extra bandwidth (speed). I just don't want the ISPs deciding how I use the bandwidth once I pay for it.

Edzachary.

Good thread topic, sir, and thanks for bringing this issue to our attention! Quite pertinent to our future...

[eamarquardt]

I'm still not making myself clear All the instances that are being cited by others than me are "chump change" in terms of what "we" telephone people (and now ISP transport people) call "traffic" which is what rides the "information superhighway" I agree that ISP providers should not control the flow of traffic, however, when the network is not capable of carrying all of the traffic you MUST limit, choke, delay, or whatever you want to call it or the NETWORK will go belly up!!!!! What happens when you put too many cars on the highway, traffic comes to a standstill and no one goes anywhere!!!!!!! Again, the real issue (IMHO and the opinion of other experienced telephone engineers that I've discussed this with) is that no one wants to transport or deliver MASSIVE amounts of traffic and not be compensated for it. As I understand it, internet traffic is growing expotentially but the hardware required is not. Like it or not we're gonna "hit the wall" unless rules that fairly distribute the costs of the hardware to those that are pumping traffic onto the net.

Just as people have suggested in this thread, there have been instances in the past where phone companies could not agree on the "division of revenue" and ceased carrying traffic between them. The customers suffered. Eventually these disagreements were resolved and we have "net neutrality" on the circuit switched (traditional telephone service) side of the telecommunications world. We just need to arrive at a similar set of agreements on the internet side of the world, otherwise companies are going to choke, block, redirect, etc. traffic because they don't have enough money to buy all the equipment to transport all of the traffic all these the new services being offered will generate.

Buy the way, residential telephone service has been heavily subsidized by the business users and long distance for years. Don't think for a minute that you have been paying for all of the telephone service you've been getting and that your patronage of the local telephone company positively contributed to their bottom line. The same may be true of the internet in that you may not even be paying for what you get today and your service is being subsidized by bigger users. So, be careful what you wish for. Net neutrality, as it's being discussed now, could backfire in terms of what you must contribute to the overall cost. There is more behind the issue than any of us fully understand and AT&T and the other "big boys" aren't telling it all as they have their obsene profits and the salaries of the top executives to protect.

I'm not a proponet of the govenrment getting involved in any business (they couldn't even run a bar and brothel sucessfully in Nevada and there are government procurement scandals in the newspaper daily), however, if the big players that build and provide service on the internet don't start agreeing on a fair set of rules for the conduct of internet business (including the fair distribution of costs and profits) we little guys are going to suffer.

There you have it, again, the world according to Gus (and other telephone engineers).

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[starleen2]

Gus – I do tend to agree that you can only put so much into a line – but remember that it is the same companies that refuse to invest in the infrastructure to allow such traffic. Instead of investing profits into infrastructure, they look for more way to extract $$$ for the consumer. Same thing happened to the oil companies – No new refineries have been built in the US since the 70’s. Since they can manipulate the supply side to maximize profits, then why build new refineries? As one ATT technician told me the reason why DSL is not available in some regions is that if the company put in the resources to install the equipment, then they would have to let the competition use the lines at a reduced rate and that was simply not going to happen! I just see it as a way of making money out of existing installations and refusing to innovate. my 2 cents of chump change

[eamarquardt]

When I described AT&T as an EVIL company that goes to great lenghts to cheat sick and disabled employees I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm on their side!!!!!!!! All I'm trying to get across is that the "whole truth" about net neutrality is not being told by anyone at this time and to share some of what I know about telecommuncations infrastructure with those that don't share my background and experience.

I never thought that I'd support a labor union, but after being deliberately, systematically, and egregiously cheated by AT&T the biggest and most profitable telecommunications company in the world, I have not one bit of respect or love for AT&T and now support the Unions in their fight to get their members a fair shake.e Visit www.sedgwickcms.blogspot.com to learn just how evil AT&T, Sedgwick CMS, and others are.

Disabled but not dead as AT&T would prefer!

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus (AB6KS)

[fireaunt]

My concern is what has happened in China. The government controls the media. If I remember correctly, while the Tenamen Sq. uprising was happening people were able to get outside information on the web even though the government was not allowing reports about the events. Since then the government has now put content controls in place. To market to China, Microsoft had to include the software filters for the government to shut down info they don't like. I don't want the government to control any of it. I think people are resourceful enough to deal with connections and they should pay or some smart person will figure out how to do it better. Maybe Netflix needs to stay with CDs and postage or "charge and pay" for the net delivery they are using at a relatively free rate.

just my 2 cents

Fireaunt

[eamarquardt]

Gus – As one ATT technician told me the reason why DSL is not available in some regions is that if the company put in the resources to install the equipment, then they would have to let the competition use the lines at a reduced rate and that was simply not going to happen! I just see it as a way of making money out of existing installations and refusing to innovate. my 2 cents of chump change

There you have it. AT&T installs equipment they now own and then they are forced to rent it to someone else for less than it costs them to install it and maintain it. No one in their right mind would go down that path and the path only exists because the "government" mandated that it be so.

As Will Rogers so astutely put it: Be thankful you we don't get all the government we pay for.

New and fair rules need to be agreed upon or we're all gonna lose.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus (AB6KS)

[PaulC]

Interesting debate, started by CD, BUT at the end of the day what sort of push do you think you will have? Absolutely none, because the Govt and AT&T will negotiate a deal that looks after them. That's all they've ever done and it's all they'll do in the future. History proves it. No amount of discussion here will change what they have, probably, already agreed upon.

Cheers
Paul