FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order 347
jriding sends word that the FCC has released new rules outlining its recently officialized role as internet regulator. Simply titled "Open Internet FCC-15-24A1," the order runs 400 pages. The actual text of the new rules is only 305 words long. [FCC head Tom] Wheeler said reclassifying broadband as an utility gives the FCC its best shot at withstanding legal challenges. The courts have twice tossed out earlier rules aimed at protecting Internet openness. The FCC chairman has said repeatedly the agency does not intend to set rates or add new taxes to broadband bills. More than 100 pages of the 400-page document released Thursday explain that forbearance. AT&T had hinted it would file a lawsuit once the new rules become public. The company's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, didn't indicate Thursday when or even if AT&T would sue — only that the battle is far from over. "Unfortunately, the order released today begins a period of uncertainty that will damage broadband investment in the United States," Cicconi said. "Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."
We'll know if its a good bill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
....by whether or not AT&T sues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had as much faith as you do that every client does exactly what their lawyer tells them to do...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
Re: (Score:2)
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
What, you mean like Obamacare?
The penalty fee was ruled by SCOTUS to be legal only if it's a tax. The big problem with that is: tax bills all have to originate in the House, but the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate.
The current suit against Obamacare that SCOTUS heard the other day is not the last one. There are others still waiting in the wings. But there's no point in hearing one suit until the other is settled, since all of them are challenging the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, the bill actually *did* originate in the house, at least technically it did. They took a totally unrelated hose bill, stripped everything out and then put the content of the senate bill in.
First, I would reverse this claim. Obamacare ostensibly originated in the House. It actually originated in the Senate.
As you say, the House bill passed to the Senate, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", was completely unrelated to health care in any way.
The Senate then attached its 3000-page amendment to the original bill, and gutted the original bill.
Anybody with two functioning synapses would have to admit that logically, everything about Obamacare originated in the Senate. The
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean that AT&T won't hit all their customers with some bogus "net neutrality compliance fee" or other such nonsense.
Re:We'll know if its a good bill.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unde... [fcc.gov]
The access charge is not mandated by the FCC and the universal service charge is not required to be passed on to you (telcos do it because the FCC can't stop them.)
So... stop lying, basically.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the link, which confirms that:
1) FCC "allows" but does not "mandate" carriers to impose an access charge. Do you know of any telcos that don't charge this, out of the goodness of their hearts?
2) If you don't pay the universal service charge directly, you'll pay it indirectly. The Tooth Fairy won't pay it for you.
Issue will be resolved... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."
AKA, We will get our way once we buy off enough people.
Re:Issue will be resolved... (Score:5, Insightful)
And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regulations are all bad in the long term (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the 1935 law absolutely blocked innovative package delivery services such as UPS and FedEx from even getting start..... Er, wait a minute!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually regulation did hold back FedEx. You're just looking at the wrong law. You need to reference instead the Civil Aeronautics Authority Act of 1938 that created the Civil Aeronautics Board [wikipedia.org].
The board was essentially dissolved after the Airline Deregulation Act [wikipedia.org] of 1978.
After deregulation, express air services spread across the country [mercatus.org].
Re:Regulations are all bad in the long term (Score:5, Insightful)
"Pending Radio Legislation" (Score:3)
"Pending Radio Legislation"
from the magazine Radio Age, July 1924
CONGRESS has adjourned without acting either way on pending radio legislation, according to the news dispatches from Washington.
Unless a special session is called, which does not seem likely at this time, radio will be untouched by legal attachments until next year, at least.
The two most important measures which were shelved by the adjournment of the well-meaning but unusually deliberative governmental bodies ar
Re: (Score:3)
I'd ask where you would have it go, exactly, but I don't expect responses from ACs
As for where it did go, radio goes everywhere. It's a powerfully expressive medium with a low cost to be a listener.
Now, the cost of transmitting . . . that's another matter. I've been an activist in this area since the 90's, and one of the things that such activism has run is the opening up of low-power FM slots across the country. These slots are strictly reserved for community-run, short-range stations.
If anything, radio
Re:Issue will be resolved... (Score:5, Insightful)
And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.
Thank you. I've made this argument several times before. Although I am pretty solidly Libertarian and I don't believe in UNnecessary regulation, Title II regulation for phone companies was necessary and it worked just fine for 60 years or more. And there is very good argument that it should have applied to the Internet from Day 1.
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast, et al complaining about this is like a bank complaining that their workers unionized because they had a reputation for firing workers the day before their pensions became fully vested.
Had Comcast not screwed their customers so hard, this wouldn't be happening. I am no fan of Obama, but he was clever to announce his intention to implement this regulation using a video that regularly paused with a buffering icon.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, through Franchise agreements with local municipalities.
That's a ludicrously simplistic view of a much larger picture. No, it isn't just through franchise agreements. One other way the oligopoly maintained its grip is through a virtual lock on access to the fiber "backbones" of the Internet.
Regardless of whether municipalities have agreements, they can't ACCESS the internet backbones except through those few providers. And without Title II and other regulation, there is nothing that says sharing access to the communications backbone is required.
The ONLY ne
Re: (Score:3)
If you have no other option for broadband and your requirements are broadband, then you are harmed either by the actions of the ISP or by the lack of an ISP when you decide not to pay them.
Re: (Score:3)
What investors?
Who in their right mind would invest in providing last mile networking service anyway (besides Google, they're big enough they don't count)?
The only way to make money putting in last mile infastructure is to be the first to do it. Once that cost is done, the owner of those lines can charge whatever they like, including dropping prices to make it unprofitable for any competitor.
Who owns the lines? AT&T, Verizo
Re: (Score:3)
A nitpick:
The FCC are more or less semi-communists, A number of "rules and regulations" were bought and paid for by corporate monopolies and have in fact severely hurt if not killed certain freedoms.
Those two statements are contradictory. Americans are still getting over the cold-war anti-communism brainwashing that resulted in millions of people absolutely hating communism without having any idea of what it actually is.
Now, if the FCC was greatly expanded and took direct ownership over the companies that operate under its rules, that would be semi-communist.
Or, for instance, when the government bought General Motors.
Your description is more akin to fascism than communism.
(I'm not defending
...a period of uncertainty.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...a period of uncertainty.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...a period of uncertainty.... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, sure. I always know what I'm going to do. it's those other idiots who are so damn unpredictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, whether those goals align with the public's perception of what those goals SHOULD be are another matter.
AT&T is against the whole Title II thing because it takes away their choice and / or power for the matter at hand. For a long time AT&T has been able to interpret ( and sometimes influence ) the rules and play the game as they wanted. They know that once the regulators start getting involved,
What's this "bipartisan Congress" thingie... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."
What is he smoking and where can I get some?
Re:What's this "bipartisan Congress" thingie... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's PRing for a legal issue. PR people in this position will always say that they will win, if they have envision a battalion of angels flying to their rescue in order to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Reason for delay? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a reason this was not released sooner? It seems like a lot of drama could have been reduced if this was released to the public much earlier.
Re:Reason for delay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Standard FCC rules. They're not allowed to publish new rules while they're still in the making stage.
Whether or not that's a good idea is up for debate, but this is far from the only FCC reg this applies to.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it everyone is making this seem like it's out of the norm?
Re:Reason for delay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's a good way to make political hay out of peoples' ignorance. See also Fox Agitprop.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they should finalize the rules in writing BEFORE voting on them?
Nah nah... Government is teh awesome
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL damage broadband investment (Score:5, Interesting)
ATT hasn't invested in decades and does as little as it can get away with to maintain its existing infrastructure.
As it stands they don't even replace failing equipment, just shift it around so the problems hit different customers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm no fan of AT&T, and they haven't been doing the investments they should have over the years, but your statement isn't entirely true.
AT&T has been laying fiber for their U-Verse rollout. They dug up a whole bunch of land in town here a few years ago, and when they were done, the salesman came by to ask if we wanted to sign up for the newly available U-Verse.
Given that they have U-Verse in a lot of places, I believe they've actually been investing quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the location you are speaking of.
I do know that in KC ATT didn't even plan to lay fiber until Google moved in
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Whats more the only places they are targeting are those that Google is wiring, and they only match the price if you agree to be spied on by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh also, I have watched their techs at work on repairing their "Advanced" products going back to ISDN. Nothing like watching a tech rotate a failing interface card through the rack.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that they have U-Verse in a lot of places, I believe they've actually been investing quite a bit.
They have been investing a lot, because laying fiber is very expensive.
But U-Verse is not in a lot of places.
If you look at where fiber has been brought to market (not just by AT&T), it's almost exclusively in cherry picked areas that can afford high prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and when they originally ran the Uverse, it was awesomely fast and awesomely cheap. A year later it was the same speeds and the same crappy prices as TWC was offering...
Re:LOL damage broadband investment (Score:5, Interesting)
The AT&T sales guy came around a couple of weeks ago to tout the new fiber rollout in my area. Here's how it went:
AT&T guy: "Did you know that AT&T is laying fiber in your area?"
Me: "No, that's great. How fast is the fastest speed you'll be offering when it's in?"
AT&T: "Let me look...[rifles through papers]...says here it will be 18 Mbps."
Me: "That's already available here now over your copper lines."
AT&T: "Really? What do you have now?"
Me: "I've got a 12 Mbps U-verse business account with five static IPs. The 18 Mbps service is already too expensive for such a small bump, and it doesn't sound like the fiber offering is otherwise going to make any difference at all for me. The *only* reason I'm with AT&T is that Comcast has a ridiculous installation fee for business accounts."
The guy hemmed and hawed a little bit more, and eventually left looking rather dejected. Seriously, only 18 Mbps over fiber?
Re: (Score:3)
There is quite a bit of new gear rolling out to compete with Google, but infrastructure isn't really a standalone expense. I can drop epic pipe sized Sonet multiplexers all over the place, but you also have to house them, power them, protect them and feed them fiber. Then you get to upgrade the other parts of the network to handle the tidal wave of data that will be flowing across those systems. This all costs equally epic amounts of $$$$ to do so. Nor does it happen overnight on a tel
Re: (Score:3)
Last mile problem can be fixed with a BOND measure and building out Municipal Fiber, back hauled to a COLO were providers can fight for customers. IF we quit trying to fix the wrong problem it is much easier to fix.
The actual text of the new rules is only 305 words (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for the ZOMG 300-ODD PAGES fucktards. Bet they don't come back and admit they were wrong either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, but you can get most of the meaning from just reading it and optionally paying attention to the news. It's not like SCOTUS has a secret interpretation that's 180 degrees opposed from a plain reading.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can read the commerce clause and infer the evil it has been put to, you are a psychic.
The Rules (Score:5, Informative)
In case the 500 pages scare off anyone, he's the TDLR version:
1) No Blocking - An ISP can't block legal content for any reason. So Comcast can't decide that you can't get to Disney's website anymore because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN.
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access." (Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.)
All in all, pretty common sense stuff. It's a shame that it had to come down to a government agency saying this, but the ISPs only have themselves (and their greed) to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this:
3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access." (Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.)
Affect Netflix and that whole deal, if at all
Re: (Score:2)
0. Netflix will charge the end ISP (Comcast, for instance) with throttling or pay-to-play.Lawsuit.
1. ISP (Comcast for instance) will claim this is the fault of the lousy Netflix connection (through Cogent, for instance), and maybe even sue the connection provider.
2. Netflix's provider (Congent, for instance) will disclaim any responsibility, maybe even sue Comcast (for instance), you know, slander.
3. After a few years, customers will buy the higher tiers of service from Comcast (for instance).
4. Before that
Re: (Score:2)
The only that works like the status quo is if Comcast throttles the user's Netflix traffic, which violates the "no throttling" rule.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Rules (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this is the first thing to come out of Government in a while that actually makes senses ... and I generally lean pretty libertarian.
Net access has a lot of parallels with other utilities (large infrastructure costs means little competition). In the case of phone companies, it's almost a one-for-one swap anyway: land lines are going the way of the dodo, but many of us now mostly use network packets for phone calls anyway (both actual voip phones and skype-like services).
One can argue whether utility regulation itself is a good or bad thing: but network service quacks and waddles an awful lot like a utility-shaped duck, any way you slice it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, this is the first thing to come out of Government in a while that actually makes senses ... and I generally lean pretty libertarian.
I'm registered Libertarian and I agree. Generally the free market is pretty terrible at provisioning public goods. This decision makes sense for the same reason we don't have 20 different competing water companies. Of course some Libertarians like to argue that there is no such thing as public goods or that if the free market doesn't provide them then we're better off as a society without them but frankly I think they've been drinking a bit too much of the kool-aid.
It's a bit frustrating that they fel
Re: (Score:3)
enough with the conspiracy, unless you can list some concrete examples with citation on the evils perpetrated by the FCC in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
1) No Blocking - An ISP can't block legal content for any reason.
What is the definition of "Legal". For example, are online casinos not based in the US legal?
Re: (Score:2)
I took it to mean that ISPs can't be held accountable for blocking "Warez And Viruses R Us Dot Com" but can be held accountable if they block "Legal Video Streaming Service Dot Com."
Re: (Score:2)
Or an iSP can block all torrent traffic they think is illegal, and now that is sanctioned by the FCC unlike before where an ISP could not block traffic to you for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I took it to mean that ISPs can't be held accountable for blocking "Warez And Viruses R Us Dot Com"
But "Warez And Viruses R Us Dot Com" is legally registered and permitted to do business in outer Elbonia
Re: (Score:2)
Legal means "A court has not declared it illegal".
And again that comes down to "Whose court?". The internet is not solely the domain of the US, and why should an ISP be able to deprive me of something that is legal elsewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, #2 means they'll do away with unlimited and move to tiered access. #3 means that Netflix will flood and congest the rest of the network, meaning longer buffering times for all. And of course, #1 was never a realistic worry.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but the ISPs who are most opposed to this regulation do not offer unlimited access. They have secret caps that will screw you over if you bump into them a couple of times.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISPs are already doing away with unlimited access. Unfortunately, many have been tight-lipped about how much access you get - cutting some people off at X GB while others download much more. This means they can institute caps but must say what the caps are. I haven't read the rules too closely, but there might be grounds to protest with the FCC if the caps are too low. (e.g. If Time Warner Cable decided everyone gets only 5GB a month.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't deliver what you promised when you sold your service to your customers, don't sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the contract you signed to get access to the ISP? Mine said "up to x megabytes per minute", which could only be violated if they delivered too fast a service. (Since I knew I'd never want to complain about that, I didn't bother to remember the details.)
OTOH, I'm on a DSL line delivered by someone who isn't my ISP, so I probably wouldn't have standing to complain anyway. I would have moved over a decade ago, but my wife doesn't want to change her email address.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's not Netflix flooding the network, it's the ISP's customers who are requesting data from Netflix. And if the ISP doesn't have enough bandwidth to deliver the services they're selling, then they should either upgrade their infrastructure or stop selling something they don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
What if Netflix paid for some rack space and put a server at the ISP? Like we _want_ them to do?
Re: (Score:2)
https://openconnect.itp.netfli... [netflix.com]
Re: (Score:3)
See, that's what they *did* and that's what pushed this change. Netflix didn't want to pay to put rack space in because it costs more, that raises their prices and their customers don't care about latency at all. A half second is huge in internet response times but customers couldn't care less if it their movie took an extra half second to start. Rather than give Netflix the bigger connection it needed to make it's customers happy, even when Netflix offered to pay for it, Comcast refused. That way they coul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access."
Wait until they find out about peering agreements.
Re:Yes, blocking (Score:4, Informative)
If it's not stated, it certainly doesn't sound required. If I tell you, "you must not murder any children", does that mean you're required to murder all (or indeed, any) adults? No, it just means don't murder any children. Telling them they're required to not block any legal content, doesn't mean they're required to block content if it isn't "legal", it just means they're allowed if they decide they would like to.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see "Don't block legal content for any reason" as requiring blocking illegal content. If anything, it might make ISPs wary of blocking something in a grey area. If the "grey area" service proves they are legal in court, the ISP could get in a lot of trouble for blocking them.
In other words ... (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, the order released today begins a period of uncertainty that will damage broadband investment in the United States, ...
Re: (Score:2)
...and the villagers rejoice.
The rules are 8 pages (Score:2)
Well technically 7.5 pages. It is the appendix A. The rest of the document is just explanation for why the rules were needed, why implemented, precedence and other things.
Here is a direct PDF link to the rules (Score:5, Informative)
As posted by the Washington Post to Scribd. [scribd.com] Since my submission was rejected.
The rules start on page 283.
Uncertainty? (Score:2)
There is no uncertainty if everyone accepts the rules. You bring on the uncertainty when you sue. You can not blame the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
This may not work out in our favor over the long term. How soon before they start overtly regulating content?
This Net Neutrality "gift" may turn out to be a trojan horse. There must have be some other way to ensure the net stays neutral without classifying it as a utility subject to government meddling.
One way that this can be reversed and not negatively affect consumers is if there is a ton more competition in internet access. Most places that I have lived have one or if I was lucky two internet carriers. I don't want satellite and I want a better connection than a DSL connection so my only option is to go with a cable company that provides internet services.
So until there is real competition around the country this needs to be classified as a utility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean how dirty phone calls are illegal? Or porn on cable TV? Or fearmongering on the Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
How soon before they start overtly regulating content?
As soon as they have global jurisdiction. In other words, never. Can you pass that pipe, though? That must be some good shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having the government enforce neutrality is actually a very good thing. You read slashdot, so you must be at least a little bit technically inclined, so let me explain what prompted this. Net neutrality has been the default state of the internet since its beginning. How it works :
- Someone runs a service on a computer and needs it accessible to the internet. This range from big (search engine, email) to tiny and personal (minecraft server, voice chat like teamspeak). They pay an ISP to connect their servers to the internet.
- End users want access to the internet. They pay an ISP to connect their home to the internet.
ISPs would charge each according to their needs (link speed, usage, etc) Obviously, there's more than one ISP, so they connect to each others through high-capacity links. This is called peering.
At first, anybody could be an ISP because it used a phone line. You'd dial a number, connect to your ISP and then gain access to the internet. Competition during those days was fierce and customers were fought over. Then, higher speed were needed. Sending data through an encoded voice channel was not sufficient anymore, so cable and telephone companies started using the copper lines directly. This practically killed competition because, unlike with phone lines, ISPs didn't have to give access to their infrastructure to competitors. Obviously, you can't allow 30 different companies to dig under the streets and wire different cables to every house, so what you do is you allow only one or two, but you regulate it. This is called a natural monopoly.
Now, these companies are huge and they essentially have a captive customer base. Some customers may have a choice between two providers (mostly phone or cable), but that means that two companies will control any local market. What this means is that they can both raise prices, and as long as they charge mostly equivalent prices, they make much more profit than if they competed to bring price down. This is called an oligarchy.
These companies finally realized that they had even more power than they first thought. They said "Hey, we've got 30% of the whole country as customers on our own network, why not exploit this as a money source by cutting off access to them unless we get paid?". So now, service companies like Google, in addition to paying for their own internet access, have to pay the individual ISPs for access to their customers. These customers don't have any choice in the matter, because of our natural monopoly. Genius! That's what Comcast and Verizon tried to do companies like Netflix and Google (youtube).
This isn't how the internet is supposed to work and it's obvious that the telcos aren't adding any value by doing this. They are only abusing their monopolies as middle-men to extort money for services already paid for. This what what prompted this whole legislation.
It baffles me how little people seem to be aware of the issue. Every single person who knows how the internet works thinks this law was needed and the only dissenting views are simply preying on ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the issues with Youtube but I do know that the Netflix issue wasn't so cut and dry. The various ISP's connect to each other at specific nodes, where traffic moves from being on one companies network to another. Netflix is hosted on a lower rung network than most comsumers, they deliberately went with that network because it was cheaper for them. The bigger ISP's don't like having to absorb a large amount of through traffic from Netflix, even though their own customers are the ones creatin
Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score:5, Informative)
The actual issue is that Verizon was peering with the Neflix ISP (Cogent) with a 2Gbps link for ALL of their customers. The NOC where that link was located had plenty of capacity on the cogent side, but Verizon was refusing to upgrade it. Netflix even offered to buy them the router (we're talking only like $25K here) so that they could upgrade to a 10Gbps link, but Verizon flatly refused unless they were paid money. There was no internal congestion at all on Verizon's network that justified this. I'd say the issue was pretty clearly on Verizon's side there.
Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to reply to my own comment for the sake of not being disingenuous by omission.
The whole Verizon / Cogent peering issue was a little more complicated that. Initially, peering agreements were made between ISPs and they were fairly simple to manage. If one side was generating an unbalanced amount of traffic, they had to pay the other side.
The problem is that only worked when ISPs had the same profile : some servers, some end-users. Cogent doesn't provide service to end users, only to big businesses. As a consequence, almost all of their traffic is push, with very little flowing the other way. ISPs like Verizon took that as an excuse to claim that the peering was unbalanced, even if all the requests for that bandwidth was coming from their own users. The truth is that Verizon is already charging their users for that bandwidth, so requiring the other side to pay for access to their network is basically extortion.
The only reason they were able to do that at all is because of the natural monopoly that they have regarding the "last mile" cabling into people's home. Regulation is the only way to keep competition healthy when you have these natural monopolies in place. Verizon wanted to have their cake and eat it too. This is why this law was badly needed.
Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. Have you read the document? It boils down to only 3 things, which are exactly about net neutrality :
- No throttling of lawful data, no matter the source or destination.
- No blocking lawful data, no matter the source or destination.
- No paid prioritization, no matter the source or destination.
That's all there's in this law. Nothing else. How exactly is this a bad law?
Re: (Score:3)
The Wikipedia article calls it "internet transit" and distinguishes it from "peering" as follows: "Transit is distinct from peering, in which only traffic between the two ISPs and their downstream customers is exchanged and neither ISP can see upstream routes over the peering connection." That more or less matches my original understanding. Mind you, there are no citations.
The rule disallowing paid prioritization is very broad, and does *not* have an exception for normal network management. (They actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, not quite. Most areas at best have 2 options for high speed internet. Usually, both are bad. Its almost impossible for other companies to enter the market to provide a real competitive atmosphere by doing it better than the existing providers. So you have no real competition. This is mainly why broadband services are a natural multiopoly, the huge capital investments needed pretty much lock it up for 1 to 2 companies, any more than that and it becomes unprofitable due to the huge cost of running l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You referring to when they made ICANN officially an agent of the US govt.?