Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Net Neutrality --- For Once, Everyone Wins
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 73 (825393)
12-14-2017 1:27 PM


FCC Dissenters on Net Neutrality Repeal Post Letters
This article from the Verge includes the text of letters from the two dissenting FCC commissioners, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, objecting to net neutrality repeal:
Long, but worth reading. What we see described is the same duplicity seen in the Trump administration taking over the FCC.
The vote is today. Net neutrality is expected to go down by a 3-2 vote along party lines. The issue then moves to congress and the courts.
Oh, vote's over, net neutrality is dead.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 12-14-2017 4:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2017 8:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 73 (825580)
12-16-2017 9:10 AM


The New York Times has run an article describing how it thinks the repeal of net neutrality will affect the average Internet user: What’s Next After the Repeal of Net Neutrality
But though I posted it I don't think the article is worth reading because I think it is wrong. I can summarize it's basic message: basically, nothing will change in the near term, maybe in a year.
Naturally the article is more detailed than that, but that's the basic message, and that is where they're right. Where they're wrong is that they sound no alarm about how drastic the changes will be later on.
Because of promises ISP's have made and because of legal challenges, it will be roughly a year before the ISPs, citing things like costs and competitive pressures and a changing competitive environment and so forth, begin providing tiered services where the quality of your access to sites will depend upon how much you're willing to pay, plus there will be shenanigans and arguments. Remember how Dish refused to carry CBS for about a week last month? You can expect rubbish like that to begin on the Internet within about a year.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2017 9:23 AM Percy has replied
 Message 60 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2017 2:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 73 (825587)
12-16-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
12-16-2017 9:23 AM


What happens when you hit the Do Nothing Button, and what browser are you using?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2017 9:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2017 11:16 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 73 (825861)
12-18-2017 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
12-16-2017 11:16 AM


RAZD writes:
What happens when you hit the Do Nothing Button, ...
Nothing on screen, but then Trump does something outrageous again. (you do realize I was making joke?)
Refresh your page, then try the Do Nothing Button again. Should work on Mozilla now. It was only supposed to be a joke originally, so I never checked it on anything but Chrome, but I kind of like it now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2017 11:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 61 of 73 (825874)
12-18-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by caffeine
12-18-2017 2:26 PM


caffeine writes:
I thought the issue was about restricting access based on what the owners of sites are willing to pay, rather than the end consumer.
Some of the details of how the Internet works are not discussed in any of the articles on net neutrality. The most important detail is how major content providers like Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, Amazon, etc., connect to the Internet. I don't know how they connect, but I'm pretty sure they don't call up their local ISP (e.g., Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon, etc.). Websites like this one connect to the Internet via a web hosting company, Superb Internet in our case. Content providers like Netflix likely provide all their own hardware and support for their connection to the Internet. They don't have any business relationships with either ISPs or web hosting companies. Comcast can't send Netflix a bill just because one of Comcast's Internet customers watched a movie.
But most articles you read about net neutrality stress that ISPs will now be able to charge companies like Netflix more for streaming movies. I don't see how that's possible, because ISPs aren't currently charging Netflix anything for streaming movies. Netflix isn't a customer of any ISP, and there are dozens of ISPs out there (a few very large ones and lots of very small ones).
But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship by cutting back on the bandwidth they provide Netflix movie streaming URLs. Netflix will have to enter into a business relationship with the ISPs (all of them, presumably) in order to distribute their product.
But for every ISP to enter into a business relationship with every content provider would be an incredible amount of effort. Why would ISPs and content providers want to do this? (By the way, if they did do this, content providers would have to raise their prices.)
So what I think will happen (and I'll mention again that this isn't what I've read in any article - no one agrees with me that I know of) is that ISPs will instead raise prices to their current Internet customers (that would be you and me - well, me at least, since you're in the Czech Republic) according to data usage and/or data bandwidth.
The way it works now in the US is that ISPs charge customers based upon a maximum data rate that you can choose. If there are other variables in the type/speed of service, I'm not aware of them. The way data usage and/or data bandwidth charges would differ from how we're being charged now would be like this. Data usage would be the same as what everyone is already familiar with with their mobile phones. Data bandwidth would be where you're charged more during periods when you use higher data rates, such as when you watch a movie. I think this is about one year away.
But this will only be the first incarnation. It *will* eventually get to the point where ISPs and content providers make deals, even though that will become a huge rats nest of deals because there are so many ISPs and so many content providers, because content providers will begin seeking a competitive advantage ("WATCH 4 NETFLIX MOVIES SIMULTANEOUSLY IN YOUR HOME"), and then the dam will break. I think this is about two years away.
The ISPs are on the verge of becoming incredibly wealthy, which means there will be further consolidation (the way Charter just bought Time Warner), and they'll be buying content providers.
All the above, with the exception of the sprinkling of facts, is just my opinion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2017 2:26 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 12:58 AM Percy has replied
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 8:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 73 (825904)
12-19-2017 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 12:58 AM


NoNukes writes:
Comcast can't send Netflix a bill just because one of Comcast's Internet customers watched a movie.
When you say, "can't" do you mean that such things are technically difficult, or that they are impractical, or that they are illegal.
I'm not speaking literally. Certainly Comcast has the manpower and means to send a bill to Netflix. But so what.
My own presumption is that lacking a business contract between the two companies that Netflix would throw the Comcast bill in the trash. Actually, Netflix's legal department would probably write Comcast a nice letter.
Netflix getting billed by Comcast would sort of be like someone walking through a mall and then getting billed by the mall for strolling through the space that they make publicly available so that they can make money by renting store space. And putting pay turnstiles at the mall entrance is what the Internet is about to become within a couple years or so. Not a perfect analogy (I won't bore you with the details of where the analogy breaks down), but you get the idea.
I don't believe there are any obstacles to Comcast doing exactly that. The packets running through a network contain information about both the source and the destination.
Yes, of course, there are no technical restrictions to figuring out who exactly to send the bill to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 12:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 8:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 67 of 73 (825959)
12-19-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 8:37 PM


NoNukes writes:
You are ignoring the incentives Netflix would have to make an arrangement with the Comcast
No I’m not. I mentioned it in the first reply to Caffeine in Message 61, the paragraph that begins, But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship
Exactly. There is no "can't" here. There are no real technical issues, and no significant relationship barriers either.
I think what I said earlier in Message 64 still stands. Nothing was mentioned or implied about technical issues, it’s just that no current business relationship exists between content providers and ISPs, at least not regarding bandwidth:
Percy in Message 64 writes:
I'm not speaking literally. Certainly Comcast has the manpower and means to send a bill to Netflix. But so what. My own presumption is that lacking a business contract between the two companies that Netflix would throw the Comcast bill in the trash. Actually, Netflix's legal department would probably write Comcast a nice letter.
Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 8:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2017 9:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 73 (825965)
12-20-2017 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
12-19-2017 8:26 PM


Rrhain writes:
quote:
But most articles you read about net neutrality stress that ISPs will now be able to charge companies like Netflix more for streaming movies. I don't see how that's possible, because ISPs aren't currently charging Netflix anything for streaming movies. Netflix isn't a customer of any ISP, and there are dozens of ISPs out there (a few very large ones and lots of very small ones).
That's because we have some concept of net neutrality such that Comcast cannot stop traffic from Netflix going to a Comcast customer.
You left out the last sentence of my paragraph which helped provide context, so I included it in the quote above.
Repeating what I was trying to say more clearly, now that net neutrality has been repealed ISPs can charge content providers for access to bandwidth, but this can't happen immediately because there are not yet any business relationships in place between content providers and ISPs concerning bandwidth.
So what Comcast can do is tell Netflix, "Pay us or you won't have these customers."
Yes, I said much the same thing in the message you're replied to, Message 61, see the paragraph that begins, "But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship...", and the other paragraph that begins, "But this will only be the first incarnation."
And then, while they're at it, they'll turn to the customer and say, "If you want to see Netflix, you'll have to pay us for faster access."
I cover this also in the paragraph that begins, "The way it works now in the US..."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 8:26 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 73 (826027)
12-20-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
12-20-2017 9:32 AM


NoNukes writes:
Again, that is simply not a significant obstacle. I expect that Netflix and Comcast will reach an accommodation quickly. Netflix has no other choice.
Back in Message 61 I said that there does seem to me to be a significant obstacle. There are many content providers and many ISPs. All content providers would require business agreements with all ISPs:
Percy in Message 61 writes:
But for every ISP to enter into a business relationship with every content provider would be an incredible amount of effort. Why would ISPs and content providers want to do this? (By the way, if they did do this, content providers would have to raise their prices.)
Maybe it's not as bad as I think. All websites provide content, but the volume content providers are Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. The rest are all just Best Buy, Walmart, Home Depot, etc., and maybe agreements with these sites are unnecessary. Like I said, maybe not as bad as I think. But still, there *are* dozens of ISPs, and volume content providers would need agreements with each one - not a small task.
AbE: I just went to the Home Depot website and right on the front page found a video, basically just a commercial. So on second thought, the number of agreements between content providers and ISPs is probably going to be horrendous.
But another factor to consider is that ISPs have committed not to make such changes. All such promises have an expiration date, and my guess is about two years, and mainly because they'll spend the first year preparing to put their Internet customers (that would be people like you and me) into data usage and data bandwidth tiers, also discussed in Message 61:
Percy in Message 61 writes:
The way it works now in the US is that ISPs charge customers based upon a maximum data rate that you can choose. If there are other variables in the type/speed of service, I'm not aware of them. The way data usage and/or data bandwidth charges would differ from how we're being charged now would be like this. Data usage would be the same as what everyone is already familiar with with their mobile phones. Data bandwidth would be where you're charged more during periods when you use higher data rates, such as when you watch a movie. I think this is about one year away.
Another factor to consider is disagreements between content providers and ISPs. Remember when CBS went off the air on Dish for about three days a few weeks ago? When the ISPs start running the show for content providers, expect blackouts like this.
Back to your message:
And you are right. You did not mention any technical issues. You did not give reasons, which is why I asked for your thoughts on the matter.
Sorry, I thought I was speaking plainly. I just meant that short a business agreement that Comcast couldn't send Netflix a bill that they'd be obligated to pay. You mentioned technical issues when you said, "I don't believe there are any obstacles to Comcast doing exactly that. The packets running through a network contain information about both the source and the destination," but it seemed so obvious a thing to tell the person who supports our server that I thought you were joking. I didn't realize you actually thought I might have technical reasons for thinking Comcast couldn't bill Netflix.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2017 9:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NoNukes, posted 12-26-2017 5:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024