Congressman Who Was Against Protecting Net Neutrality Flips Sides After Realizing The Harm Broadband Giants Can Cause
from the nice-to-see dept
Over the last few weeks we've seen a number of politicians come out on one side or another concerning the FCC's net neutrality plans, but most of them were pretty much expected. It actually was nice to see some net neutrality supporters be quite explicit in their support for Title II reclassification (like Senator Chuck Schumer), but beyond that there weren't too many surprises. That's why it was actually great to see Rep. Gary Peters, who is currently running for the Senate in Michigan, come out in favor of net neutrality, warning of the harm that could be caused by the fast lanes and slow lanes as allowed by the current FCC proposal."If large corporations can pay more for faster service for their content, this effectively creates a 'slow lane' for everyone else."This is notable, because four years ago, Peters was actually one of the group of Representatives who actively opposed strong net neutrality rules by the FCC. It appears that four years later he's changed his mind. In his new statement, he makes it clear that he now realizes how many entrepreneurs and innovators rely on an open internet:
"Startups and small businesses are the engines of job creation and economic growth in Michigan, and they rely on open access to the Internet to stay competitive. I have serious concerns that allowing large, established corporations to purchase faster services puts these startups and small businesses at a disadvantage and stifles innovation."That's a far cry from the letter Peters signed four years ago, which was entirely focused on the question of how these rules might upset the big broadband access providers. It's good to see Peters has realized that the future is in innovative startups, not in protecting big cable and telco oligopolies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gary peters, innovation, michigan, net neutrality, reclassification, switching sides, title ii
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's bucking for a 'donation' or two...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics
You look at their history. Not the long term one where everyone smoked pot, didnt or did inhale, but the history that counts.
Their voting record is key, and the shit they supported is 2nd only to that.
Politicians are quite frankly an area where forgiveness cannot be afforded. Every time we reward a poly-tic for changing sides it only tells them that we are even greater suckers and to keep baiting and switching shit up to keep ahead of the game.
Anyone that turns on a former cause must be considerably scrutinized on why they decided to change their mind, especially when the original problem was evident to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politics
Exactly. People say that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" but what they don't realize is that when they use this as a justification for a politician's flip-flopping, what they're doing is destroying the voters' ability to decide. If you can't trust politicians to keep their promises then how do you decide who to vote for? On what basis can you make your decision? Their personality?
While they may flip-flop in your favor today, they can just as easily flip-flop against you on this, or some other, issue tomorrow. It's better to have a politician who is consistently opposed to your interests than to have one who is inconsistent. You at least know where the former stands and can vote against them on that basis. Consistency is important in politicians for this reason. Widespread inconsistency among politicians makes it impossible to know who to vote for (or against).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net neutrality vs. anti-trust law
Anti-trust law is specifically designed to combat the key problem that net neutrality is supposed to prevent: anti-competitive behavior by Internet service providers. To my knowledge, companies generally cannot use their market dominance in one sector to pick the winners and losers in other sectors. As an Internet-specific example, I am almost certain that AT&T would be barred under anti-trust law from throttling Skype on their mobile data network in order to lessen VoIP's threat to their mobile voice business.
At the same time, net neutrality regulation definitely has the potential to kill innovative new business models. A good example is telesurgery, which would require an extremely low latency Internet connection. Generic bans on paid prioritization would prohibit ISPs from selling these connections to telesurgery providers, along with anyone else who requires a higher quality of service than usual for their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is net neutrality really?
Since not everyone peers with everyone else, there is always some inherent advantage of being peered in certain ways and not in others. Would it be considered a negative for companies like Netflix to run a big pipe to the door of the ISP and offer up the peering arrangements? Can you really stop what is the nature of the internet?
Google as an example spents relentlessly on their own backbone to bring service directly to every major peering point in the world. That means that, like it or not, YouTube has an unfair advantage by having peering to every major ISP pretty much right on their network edge, no third parties in the way. So Google may have multiple 10gig peers right into your ISP - is that really fair? In internet terms, it's normal, but is it neutral?
Would true net neutrality require the ISPs to peer only to third party interchanges, and have websites and services only connect that same way? Would that be more fair?
Is the net really neutral, and can it ever be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is net neutrality really?
"Would it be considered a negative for companies like Netflix to run a big pipe to the door of the ISP and offer up the peering arrangements?"
You mean like they essentially do right now?
There's a big difference between Netflix providing infrastructure to run their content, and the ISP itself giving preferential treatment to it over all other traffic. Especially in cases where the ISP is giving preferential treatment to its own services and/or charging customers more for equal access to other content. Do you honestly not understand this?
Perhaps before spouting ignorance yet again, you might actually educate yourself on the issues involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
charging customers more for equal access to other content
despite all the fear mongering, we don't see any ISP's holding the internet for ransom. So far everything seem to be the opposite, based on the idea of premium access model and not crippling existing services. It's not that I agree with them, but this is what they appear to be doing.
My point was only that the internet as it is and AS IT WAS SETUP is a question of peering. Google and some other companies have built their own infrastructure and pushed their direct connections right to the ISP peering points, and as a result may have very direct connections to your ISPs that others do not have, and this ALREADY and as it has been for a long time.
Basic networking says that if Netflix has a pure connection to your ISP (peered direct) and others have to go through a third party (like Level3, Hurricane Electric, or similar) then Netflix would be in a preferential position. They have 10gig or 100 gig right into the network, and everyone else is going through the other shared door. Except for Google and many others who also peer directly and gain an advantage.
Yet, this is pretty much how the internet has always worked. Does true net neutrality make these sorts of non-shared connections illicit and against the concept? Is there a model of TRUE net neutrality out there? How much of the current internet will be undone to accomplish it?
Rather than being insulting and condesending, perhaps you can think about it and answer more clearly for me. I would love to hear your thoughts (and not your insults)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
But we do. Comcast and AT&T have been purposefully letting their peering relationships get saturated as a negotiation tactic with Netflix. The problem is in ISP's not keeping their peering relationships updated enough to support what they have sold to their customers.
If their peering relationships do not support the necessary bandwidth that their customers are using, they need to upgrade. Instead, they are forcing companies to pay to get a direct peering relationship - that is most certainly predatory practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Is that really the case, or have then just been not obtaining more peering as Netflic tries to jam more and more through the pipe, becoming a bandwidth hog application?
The problem is in ISP's not keeping their peering relationships updated enough to support what they have sold to their customers
What is the correct ratio? Until Netflix started widespread streaming, there wasn't that much of an issue. The ISPs will never have 1:1 peak bandwidth for all customers at all time. They sell you a local connection speed, not guaranteed bandwidth to the internet after all.
Example: my personal connection is a gig fiber (yeah, I'm special). But my off network outside of my ISP doesn't get much past 300-400meg a second, so pokey. Should I be mad that the whole internet doesn't arrive at absolute 1 gig a second every second of the day? Should my ISP be required to peer a full gig for each customer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Yes. If they sold the capacity they should have it available even if everybody decides to use it. The 300-400Mbit you can be attributed to external factors. If you start many downloads from many different sources you'll end up getting the full speed. I have 50mbit down and I rarely achieve the total speed with a single connection, specially from outside my country. However with split downloads and torrents I often exceed the max. As an example I usually download stuff from a Dutch server and get at most 1.5 mb/s but if I split the file in 4 to 5 parts I get above 6 mb/s easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
If people request that service and the ISP advertises that it can deliver it then Netflix being a 'bandwidth hog' is providing paying customers with the service customers request. It's not the fault of Netflix that customers demand more bandwidth. What does it matter to the ISP if the bandwidth it is delivering (from outside its network) is coming from Youtube, Netflix, or a combination of Netflix and Youtube. This is what the customers are requesting. It's not a matter of Netflix becoming a 'bandwidth hog', it's a matter of Netflix providing its customers with the service they are requesting. That's a good thing. More bandwidth being delivered through Netflix means customers are getting better served in getting what they want. Economically that's a good thing. If the ISP can't keep up with demand they should advertise a slower speed (and use the money they get from customers to upgrade their infrastructure instead of complaining about bandwidth hogs due to a lack of competition).
"Until Netflix started widespread streaming, there wasn't that much of an issue."
The issue is not Netflix it's the ISP's either false advertising what they can provide or them refusing to upgrade their infrastructure to meet increased demand. Netflix is a good thing because it provides customers with services they request. If the ISP can't deliver they need to advertise differently and use the money they make from customers to upgrade their infrastructure so that they can better meet the increases in demand instead of abusing the lack of competition they lobbied for (that they are not entitled to) to avoid having to invest.
"The ISPs will never have 1:1 peak bandwidth for all customers at all time."
But this isn't what Net Neutrality is requiring. Net neutrality isn't requiring them to provide peak bandwidth at all times. It simply requires them not to double dip by charging customers for access and then charging services for more bandwidth. To meet the increased demands of the Internet (including Netflix, Youtube, etc...) the ISP needs to upgrade their infrastructure. The issue isn't that Netflix is being a bandwidth hog it's that the ISP's customers are demanding more Internet bandwidth. Netflix is simply providing what its customers are demanding. and customers (over)paid the ISPs good money to provide that bandwidth. Just because ISPs have lobbied for less competition shouldn't mean the government should just allow them to charge more for less service and to double dip. The lack competition should be met with consumer protection laws like Net Neutrality to prevent ISP abuse.
"They sell you a local connection speed, not guaranteed bandwidth to the internet after all."
Which doesn't negate net neutrality principles. The ISP should not double dip and charge both services and customers to provide bandwidth. What they should do is use the money they make from customers to upgrade their infrastructure instead of complaining due to the fact that they can since they lobbied hard and paid good money to stifle competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
You almost got it, but it slipped through your fingers. If the ISPs suddenly need to upgrade because a new service is taxing their networks to the point of failure, where does that money come from, exactly?
You have to remember that ISPs built their networks based on the idea of web browsing, which is high volume for short periods of time (loading a web page) and then nothing for a period of time as you read the page. So your 10meg connection may pull something near that for 1 or 2 seconds every minute or so. The rest of the time, it's dead air. That is a situation where the ISP can have 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 bandwidth without issues (5 times the subscribers compared to upstream connection speed). Aggregated of a larger network, that number is quite significant when it comes to how much peering you need to feed the end users.
Netflix and other streaming services? They require high peak transfer for an extended period of time. Your 10 meg connection downloading a 1 gig movie will be busy for quite a while. Your neighbor is also watching a movie, and the neighbor on the other side is watching IPtv. Now the game has changed, the ISP is needing to provide near peak bandwidth for an extended period of time. That means huge network upgrades.
The net neutrality issue is how much peering they need. Normally they would have 5 to 1 or whatever, now they not only need closer to 1 to 1, but they actually need even more than that because so many people end up overloading certain peers, then end up on poorer routes through other peers to avoid congestion - that congestion would either hurt netflix delivery or hurt other services from gaining reasonable access - or both. If the ISP favors netflix peering over others, then they are no longer neutral.
True net neutrality does not come with "friendly" peering arrangements such as Google has done. Two examples: My home connection is 4ms from google, connected directly on my ISP network. Two servers I work on are in similar situations. Yahoo? 70-80ms from the servers, over 100 from home. Are the networks really neutral when it comes to websearch, or are they favoring Google by allowing them a more direct connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
From the money they get from their customers. It's not the customer fault they oversold their capacity. You see, it would be all fine and dandy if they specified in the contract that "during peak hours we will only deliver 50% of your speed" or something. It still does not justify treating packets differently. It is the ISP obligation to upgrade their network. Or advertise and sell lower speeds.
You have to remember that ISPs built their networks based on the idea of web browsing
No, they built their networks to support a determined amount of traffic. If they sell appropriate speeds then there should be no problem. And let's not forget that you use your browser to watch Netflix and Youtube.
So your 10meg connection may pull something near that for 1 or 2 seconds every minute or so.
Yeah but if you want to max it for 5 hours then the ISP must cope with it. Or sell slower speeds. Treating a determined traffic differently does not relate here. If Joe maxes its bw with Netflix I should be equally able to max with Netflox even if Netflox is a smaller streaming service. If there's network congestion then BOTH will suffer and the ISP be damned and fix it. Customers are paying for the full pipe.
They require high peak transfer for an extended period of time. Your 10 meg connection downloading a 1 gig movie will be busy for quite a while. Your neighbor is also watching a movie, and the neighbor on the other side is watching IPtv. Now the game has changed, the ISP is needing to provide near peak bandwidth for an extended period of time. That means huge network upgrades.
Change it to the electricity, water, gas company. If everybody requests their maximum capacity they have to supply it. Or limit the size of the pipe/power allowed in. That's what the electric company did here. You can only pull up to x W from the wires and they don't allow installing protection equipment that handles more than that. Because the electric grid is congested and there isn't much they can do in the short term.
The net neutrality issue is how much peering they need.
You are confused. It's not. Net neutrality is about treating Netflix, Netflox and Youtube and whatever as if they were the same thing. If I use all 3 at the same time my connection will give them equal parts of the pipe (unless one of them is too far or something, which fall into natural topographic restrictions that have nothing to do with net neutrality).
True net neutrality does not come with "friendly" peering arrangements such as Google has done.
Again, repeating for the n th time: Google placing a data center near the bigger loads does not hurt net neutrality, they are addressing a topographic, physical issue and are not paying for priority for the ISP. The ISP is receiving absolutely nothing and is treating google packets just like the others.
Are the networks really neutral when it comes to websearch, or are they favoring Google by allowing them a more direct connection?
They are not favoring Google, it's a topographical issue. If Yahoo installs a datacenter closer to you you'll get better ping from them too. A proper example would be: Google and Yahoo both have servers right beside me. Google gives me 4ms and Yahoo 100ms because Google paid my ISP to give priority to their packets and Yahoo didn't. So the ISP receives both packets at the same time but delays Yahoo on purpose to give Google priority. (Granted it's a very simplified view but that's about it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
charging customers more for equal access to other content"
Hilarious, given that you were too ignorant to pick up the actual point I made. Yet again. Try reading the actual points, before you disappear up your own arse with a smug screed that doesn't address a damn thing. Well, at least some of the facts you're basing things on aren't complete fiction like some of the idiocy you spew here.
Thanks for addressing a point I wasn't making with the rest of your rant though.
The point is: it's not the ISP making these decisions. The end consumer gets their traffic treated the same. Netflix having a better connection than competitors due to its own infrastructure decisions is no less fair than Google having faster transaction processing due to having its own massive server farms or Amazon having distributed databases rather than its competitors' centralised processing.
But, Comcast is not treating the packets of consumers or competitors differently because it wants to favour one competitor over another. The ISP isn't charging more for access, but Netflix's customer might be asked to pay more (assuming its business model was designed without taking infrastructure expansion into account) - and nobody has a problem with that. THAT is the point you deliberately ignore - presumably because it would mean agreeing with someone here for once instead of being a contrarian ass in every thread.
Now, are you going to address the actual point, or are you going to act smug about answering the wrong question and ignoring the actual points like you usually do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Yup, let's address the actual point, that you are wrong.
it's not about building data centers, it's literally about rolling a fiber to the door of the ISP, and asking for a special private peering connection. This is something that Google and others have done in order to maximize their connections. Is this net neutrality to you?
Is Google, running it's own fiber network, giving preference to it's own internal connections compared to others?
it's not the ISP making these decisions. The end consumer gets their traffic treated the same.
See, you need to learn more about peering. No matter what, not all traffic is the same even from the get go. If your ISP peers with Level3, and a popular site is also on level3, they will potentially be more easily reached, quicker, less lag, more speed... whatever... when compared to another who is on a peer that is not directly peering with your isp. They might have to route through an interchange to get onto the level 3 network, and then to your ISP.
To bypass all of this, some companies have built out their own fiber to the major peering points in the US, and offer peering direct to the ISPs. Essentially, the netflix deal is pretty normal for the internet, they are paying for unbalanced traffic flow...
Is any of this net neutrality? Can we have net neutrality when Google has the money to connect straight to your ISP, or is in fact their own ISP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
The "giving preference to its own internal connections" does violate net neutrality. The fact that it has its own ISP or a better peering arrangement with backbone providers does not. As long as traffic going to the consumer through Google's network is treated the same regardless of whether it's Google or Bing, YouTube or Netflix, Android or iOS, net neutrality is preserved.
"See, you need to learn more about peering."
Stop acting like a smug moron. I know what peering is and how it works. I also know that the argument is about what happens at the consumer end, not what happens in the process behind the scenes.
The fact that one ISP near my office has a different backend peering agreement and different, more efficient underwater cabling to their main competitor does not violate net neutrality. If they were to decide that Google need to get better speeds than Bing because they've paid more, that violates it. The fact that Netflix currently has servers installed in datacentres to improve their speeds and reduce bandwidth bills does not violate net neutrality. Comcast giving preferential treatment to their own VoD traffic over Netflix's does. The fact that Google Fibre can offer higher overall speeds than Comcast does not violate neutrality. If Google charged you more to access Hulu than it charges to access Netflix or YouTube, it's violated.
Are you understanding the actual argument yet, or are you going to continue railing against the alternative argument nobody's making?
"Can we have net neutrality when Google has the money to connect straight to your ISP, or is in fact their own ISP?"
If the ISP is not violating net neutrality while doing so, yes. If this response confuses you, try actually reading and understanding the real argument you're responding to before you respond to it. If you try doing this every time, you might even get somewhere with your arguments, since they'll address what you're replying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
you almost got the point, but just missed it. The fact is what happens behind the scenes decides which services are fast for you, and which are slow. Those choices clearly mean that even at best, the net is never truly neutral.
The fact that Netflix currently has servers installed in datacentres to improve their speeds and reduce bandwidth bills does not violate net neutrality.
Really? you don't think? Netflix with an "in network" connection isn't getting an advantage over companies not in the same position? Who decides who is in the ISP data centers and who isn't? Is that neutral?
If they were to decide that Google need to get better speeds than Bing because they've paid more, that violates it.
What happens if it's not monetary to the ISP, but google GIVING the improved connection because they make more money doing it that way. Google with a direct 100 gig connection to your ISP's backbone is going t automatically be a better service than say Bing coming through regular peering. Has Google "bought" a better position?
"try actually reading and understanding the real argument you're responding to before you respond to it. "
your version of net neutrality seems to be that if the packets get there sooner or later, it's neutral. But in selecting who has a higher speed or dedicated connection (or accepting them for free) and deciding who to refuse or send through their regular peering, have they not violated the concept of net neutrality, which is all traffic should be the same, not given any preference or specifically better routing / service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Not an unfair advantage if they aren't being given preferential treatment by the ISPs that service their customers, no. By that standard, a person is getting preferential treatment if they happen to live near one of Google's datacentres but Bing's are the other side of the country/world.
"What happens if it's not monetary to the ISP, but google GIVING the improved connection because they make more money doing it that way."
It still violates net neutrality if preferential treatment is being given to one service over another, all else being equal, just as it would be violated if Google decided their ISP customers would only get full speeds on YouTube streams. Preferential treatment is preferential treatment, no matter the reason. That's why they should be regulated as common carriers.
"your version of net neutrality seems to be that if the packets get there sooner or later, it's neutral. "
You seem to be making what other people say up in your head again.
Go on, re-read. I can't be bothered to repeat myself for such a deliberately dishonest person such as yourself. My actual points are quite clear.
However, congratulations on at least pretending to address my points instead of whining and/or disappearing from the thread as you normally do. Perhaps soon, we can get you addressing the actual points in front of you rather than the convenient positions you try to attack with a glib contrarian post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Net neutrality is fine with natural topological discrimination across a network. It's not fine with an ISP double dipping by charging the customers to provide service and then charging a service provider to improve their service. See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Is "pay" the only measure of net neutrality? That Google doesn't pay for this directly to the ISP make it somehow all okay?
Net neutrality is fine with natural topological discrimination across a network. It's not fine with an ISP double dipping by charging the customers to provide service and then charging a service provider to improve their service. See the difference?
Two issues. Google (and netflix) are changing that topography to favor themselves and disadvantage others by direct peering with ISPs on what amounts to a private line.
Moreover, much of the peering in the world is "pay for connection" type stuff, not done just out of the kindness of their hearts. Even in "free" scenerios there are often interconnect fees between different parts of a NOC, so every connection you add costs. That an ISP peers direct with Google but not direct with Yahoo, and they peer direct with Netflix but not with pandora creates an uneven system.
The thing you are missing is the ISPs didn't suddenly get 50% more revenue when netflix came along and started clogging up the system, if anything they got more grief from consumers who wanted even more bandwidth - all at the same time too. It's incredibly expensive to keep adding bandwidth with no additional income, especially when it may also mean improvements all through the network to make more bandwidth available to end users. Who pays for it all? Is it truly fair for the ISP to be required to build to absolute peak bandwidth to satisfy a third party company who's business model is predicated on using a lot of resources?
Yes, I understand, most ISPs are underbuilt. That is the nature of how the internet has worked. There is no 1-1 buy in of connectivity, no 1 to 1 network build out. There have been assumptions made over the years of ratios, how much bandwidth you need for each consumer on average. Some ISPs are better, some are worse. But Netflix and other streaming services shift that entirely and have done so in a manner that nobody could respond quickly enough to. In a business where technology is on a 5 to 10 year cycle, asking them to entirely re-do their networks from end to end in less than 2 years is off the charts. There isn't enough money to pull it off.
What do you suggest? Should the ISPs all just give up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
And this peering on transit has NOTHING to do with adding a fast lane in the ISP. The ISP does not and must not treat the packets differently. Since Google uses huge amounts of data they try to distribute and configure the network to SAVE money AND resources both for them and for, say, Level 3. This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, it's NOT in the ISP level.
But Netflix and other streaming services shift that entirely and have done so in a manner that nobody could respond quickly enough to.
This does not mean the ISPs should start treating a select few differently. This means they need to upgrade their networks or sell lower speeds.
What do you suggest? Should the ISPs all just give up?
No, they should keep investing even if it's going to take time. They should NOT treat packets differently based on who pays more.
This is getting annoying, you simply refuse to read what people are saying. Even if all your perceived problems exist (they don't) the issue at hand is that no service should receive any priority. This is net neutrality. It's valid if you have a congested network or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
That's it, I give up. Apparently he's just mentally handicap or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
Starve it and it will go away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is net neutrality really?
This isn't the first pseudonym Whatever's appeared under. He's had horse with no name, My Name Here and Just Sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is net neutrality really?
Google doesn't pay the ISPs for priority. It takes the data to a location that is physically closer to their customers because this makes things cheaper and improves performance. If you ask for data that is elsewhere in the world you'll still get it and it will have the same priority. Any perceived delay in this case can be credited to distance. And the minimum extra time that will be needed to load the data coming from elsewhere can be calculated via basic physics and by knowing what route the data took since it will use the less congested route naturally instead of the shortest path. None of this involves Google paying for the end ISP for priority.
That means that, like it or not, YouTube has an unfair advantage by having peering to every major ISP pretty much right on their network edge, no third parties in the way.
Again this is very different from paying for priority on the ISP network. They are faster because they invested in being closer and distributing data wisely throughout the world. However they'll face the same priority all other services have within the ISP network (considering the ISP treats all packets as equals).
Would true net neutrality require the ISPs to peer only to third party interchanges, and have websites and services only connect that same way?
ISPs have to do absolutely nothing. They just need to return the data the customer asked without bothering to see where it came from. The best they can do to cut their own costs is to cache heavily accessed content in their network. Most ISPs do it already and are not paid for it because it saves money in the first place.
Is the net really neutral, and can it ever be?
It's not because the ISPs throttle traffic they don't like. It can be if they are either forced (Title II etc etc) or there's enough competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
Demonopolize local areas to allow more competition. Hold your local government accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]