Net Neutrality

[Joel]

The article says nothing about traffic shaping. Or banning traffic shaping. It is talking about controlling traffic based on payments which is what the main point of net neutrality is about.

Because we do not yet have the actual text of the laws, I was going by what was said here:

"Wheeler said the new system includes "only four" hard and fast rules: bans on Internet service providers blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment, and a requirement to be transparent about network practices."

Granted, this is ambiguous.
You are suggesting that "blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" means:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Whereas I had read it as
1) blocking traffic,
2) throttling traffic, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Grammatically, it could mean either. I interpreted it the way I did because from previous statements by Wheeler, he intended to ban the blocking or throttling of any legal traffic (i.e., from any legal site). And not just blocking/throttling for payment. In which case this is a ban on "throttling traffic", without any qualification. Which would ban traffic shaping because that entails throttling traffic.

But perhaps the actual law contains more qualifications.

[Irate Canadian]

Because we do not yet have the actual text of the laws, I was going by what was said here:

"Wheeler said the new system includes "only four" hard and fast rules: bans on Internet service providers blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment, and a requirement to be transparent about network practices."

Granted, this is ambiguous.
You are suggesting that "blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" means:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Whereas I had read it as
1) blocking traffic,
2) throttling traffic, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Grammatically, it could mean either. I interpreted it the way I did because from previous statements by Wheeler, he intended to ban the blocking or throttling of any legal traffic (i.e., from any legal site). And not just blocking/throttling for payment. In which case this is a ban on "throttling traffic", without any qualification. Which would ban traffic shaping because that entails throttling traffic.

But perhaps the actual law contains more qualifications.

Er, this is what net neutrality is:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment.

not the other way around...

[Irate Canadian]

We'll see. Folks were calling Obamacare a "big win" until their rates started going up and they were booted off the plans that Obama promised they could keep.

I guess we'll find out once they make the 300+ page regulatory document available to the public, but my gut tells me there are a few nasty surprises for us hiding in there.

Yes, because we know everything the goverment does is teh EVILZ.....

[Joel]

Granted, this is ambiguous.
You are suggesting that "blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" means:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Whereas I had read it as
1) blocking traffic,
2) throttling traffic, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Grammatically, it could mean either.

Er, this is what net neutrality is:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment.

not the other way around...

I'm sorry, I want to make sure I'm understanding what you just wrote. You are saying here that when an ISP does things 1-3 that you list, that is net neutrality.
So, that would imply that if net neutrality were enforced by law, then ISPs would be legally required to block/throttle/prioritize traffic in exchange for payment. Is that what you are intending to say?

If so, that would imply that the FCCs new laws are the opposite of net neutrality. For example it "bans...prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment". If "prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" is net neutrality, then this law bans net neutrality.

[Irate Canadian]

I'm sorry, I want to make sure I'm understanding what you just wrote. You are saying here that when an ISP does things 1-3 that you list, that is net neutrality.
So, that would imply that if net neutrality were enforced by law, then ISPs would be legally required to block/throttle/prioritize traffic in exchange for payment. Is that what you are intending to say?

If so, that would imply that the FCCs new laws are the opposite of net neutrality. For example it "bans...prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment". If "prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" is net neutrality, then this law bans net neutrality.

Yeah, you are right. Net neutrality doesn't do those things..Had a brain-fart... Thanks for catching it!

What I meant to say was net neutrality stops thoses things.. Neglected that key word in my post.

[Joel]

What I meant to say was net neutrality stops thoses things.. Neglected that key word in my post.

Fair enough. So then I'm still not sure I'm understanding you. The options I had pointed out were:

Granted, this is ambiguous.
You are suggesting that "blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment" means:
1) blocking traffic in exchange for payment,
2) throttling traffic in exchange for payment, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Whereas I had read it as
1) blocking traffic,
2) throttling traffic, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

Grammatically, it could mean either.

Are you saying that net neutrality law would ban the "blocking traffic in exchange for payment" but does not ban "blocking traffic" when not for payment (e.g. to block a competitor's site)?

[Irate Canadian]

J

Fair enough. So then I'm still not sure I'm understanding you. The options I had pointed out were:



Are you saying that net neutrality law would ban the "blocking traffic in exchange for payment" but does not ban "blocking traffic" when not for payment (e.g. to block a competitor's site)?

IIRC Comcast was doing this until the net neutrality law passed, so no, it blocks that sort of usage.

[Joel]

J
IIRC Comcast was doing this until the net neutrality law passed, so no, it blocks that sort of usage.

So, then you were just agreeing with me?: that the most likely reading is:

1) blocking traffic,
2) throttling traffic, and
3) prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment

?

At any rate, I just searched and found that the FCC has released their 400-page document containing the new rules.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...CC-15-24A1.pdf

Looking at the rules on page 284, it seems that my reading was correct. No blocking. No throttling. And no paid prioritization.

Regarding my earlier concern that "No throttling" implies no traffic shaping, the actual text is:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

I suppose one would argue that the exception "subject to reasonable network management" allows for beneficial things like traffic shaping. If so, it still will have the negative consequence of making ISPs worry about whether 5 FCC commissioners will (on a case-by-case basis) decide whether their traffic shaping is "reasonable" or not. Insofar as ISPs act based on that worry, instead of doing what they think is best for the customers, that's not a good thing. It's also not clear whether this rule bans things like QoS algorithms. It probably does. But we don't know, because this isn't rule of law, it's rule by the will of 5 commissioners (case-by-case). Also ISPs will now have an increased incentive to lobby to get their guys on the FCC to declare their practices reasonable and their competitors' practices unreasonable. Those efforts too will take away from efforts to provide better service.


The "No paid prioritization rule" does ban them from offering QoS services:



boo.
Arguably, this text bans the offering of different bandwidth packages to customers. (as well as QoS/latency/etc packages)

I'll try to read more of these 400 pages if/when I have time.

[Irate Canadian]

Arguably, this text bans the offering of different bandwidth packages to customers. (as well as QoS/latency/etc packages)

I'll try to read more of these 400 pages if/when I have time.

Nope, it's banning the usage of different tiers when it comes to the internet.

[Irate Canadian]

I guess we'll find out once they make the 300+ page regulatory document available to the public, but my gut tells me there are a few nasty surprises for us hiding in there.

Like what? Obama declaring himself king of the net?

[Joel]

Arguably, this text bans the offering of different bandwidth packages to customers. (as well as QoS/latency/etc packages)

Nope, it's banning the usage of different tiers when it comes to the internet.

Tiers of what, if not bandwidth, QoS, latency, etc?
Banning tiers of anything sounds like a really bad thing to me.

[Irate Canadian]

Tiers of what, if not bandwidth, QoS, latency, etc?
Banning tiers of anything sounds like a really bad thing to me.

From a client side, they're banning unequal server-side measures against throttling.
From a content creators side, they're banning extortion based on paid peering.

[Irate Canadian]

Tiers of what, if not bandwidth, QoS, latency, etc?
Banning tiers of anything sounds like a really bad thing to me.

You'd rather have a system where you pay more for each site you visit? Essentially making websites into a cable TV like system?

[Joel]

You'd rather have a system where you pay more for each site you visit? Essentially making websites into a cable TV like system?

First, did any notable ISP do this? Is this just a hypothetical, nonexistent problem?

Second, interestingly, the way internet access currently works is what people hate about cable TV: the fact that you have to buy a basic cable package with a large number of channels, most of which you would rather not pay for. I've heard lots of people say they would prefer to be able to pick and choose, and pay for only those channels they want to pay for.

I'm not even saying what system is best or what I'd prefer. I'm just suggesting that making it illegal to offer new/different packages seems bad. (In which case, what I prefer is irrelevant: Why should I force by law my preference on everyone else?)

Suppose, relative to your concern, an ISP currently offers only one option:

Only option: access to all sites: $50/month.

And you seem to think it obviously bad if the ISP were to try offering additional options, e.g.:

Option 1: access to all sites: $50/month.
Option 2: access to subset A of sites: $30/month
Option 3: access to subset B of sites: $10/month
Option 4: access to subset C of sites: $5/month

Why do you think that would be obviously bad? If you hate the new options offered, then take option 1, right? If everyone hates the new options, nobody would buy them and they would go away. But if some people do buy one of the new options, then clearly they prefer it to the old option. So why would you ban their having additional options.

And thirdly, even if there were a doomsday scenario, it seems it would be best avoided by competition--removing barriers to entry, and hopefully competition among ISPs will continue to increase as it has been.