Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

[poweRob]

Wow! Just wow! This tread is not that hard to follow. You are the one who posted links showing what problems NN is suppose to fix.(#130) You seam to be partially agreeing with me. If you feel the current Internet is fine, then you are happy without NN rules being in place. I don't know how many times to say this. The ruling was just yesterday that the new rules can go forward. The NN rules are NOT in effect right now. You are right it is intended to be a preventative measure. In other words, the Internet is not broken currently. These new rules are intended to fight off a bogie man that has never appeared.




Oh brother... No. I am saying the Internet is working just fine right now without the Government's interference. The new NN rules (remember, they are NOT in effect yet) are putting the Government in charge to prevent imagined future problems.



They are not trying to tier the Internet. It is already tiered. There you go with another imagined problem that does not exist. The core ISP's could care less about content, they only care about bandwidth. So edge providers, like Comcast and Verizon offer tiered service to their customers. The faster the customer wants to go, the more they pay. Nothing new to see here. Core providers do the same thing. So when a service provider like Netflix wants fast access directly to the core, they have to pay extra. That is the same situation as with the edge consumers and Comcast. Again, nothing new to see here.

OMG... talking in circles here. Let's try to clear this up.

What rules are going into place that you fear and why? What are they and what do they do to the internet?

 

[natsb]

That's because without the internet being regulated as a title II utility the net neutrality system wouldn't have remained.

The NN system is not in place yet. The ruling was just yesterday. What we are using now is the pre-Government version of the Internet. We will soon get to see how much you like it under Government control.

 

[poweRob]

The NN system is not in place yet. The ruling was just yesterday. What we are using now is the pre-Government version of the Internet. We will soon get to see how much you like it under Government control.

Net neutrality has existed thus far. This ruling doesn't create net neutrality out of thin air. It protects what is from corporate encroachment.

 

[natsb]

The rule is NO CHANGE to internet usage! That is the rule. You are conflating all this into a "all gubamint is evil" and providing nothing else to your argument.

You honestly don't know what is going on do you? The current Internet, the one we are using right now, does NOT have the NN rules applied.

I will assume that by the introduction of a straw man and ending with a childish meme, that you are finished with the adult conversation. If I am wrong, and you drop that nonsense, I would be happy to continue in an adult manner.

 

[Cardinal]

The NN system is not in place yet. The ruling was just yesterday. What we are using now is the pre-Government version of the Internet. We will soon get to see how much you like it under Government control.

What we are using now is the net neutrality version of the internet, and have been using it since its inception.

Why doesn't anyone who debates net neutrality bother to look this stuff up before joining these threads?

 

[poweRob]

You honestly don't know what is going on do you? The current Internet, the one we are using right now, does NOT have the NN rules applied.

Jesus man, if you can't answer the questions just say so. This dodging is getting ridiculous. The internet is operating with net neutrality right now. Without rules. The major ISPs are trying to change that and would be successful without establishing clear signs that say, "Keep your ****ing hands off!" Which is what this case is about.

I will assume that by the introduction of a straw man and ending with a childish meme, that you are finished with the adult conversation. If I am wrong, and you drop that nonsense, I would be happy to continue in an adult manner.

What strawman or childish meme are you talking about? I'm asking you to sound out your position by asking you "What rules are going into place that you don't like?"

The only point I can draw from what you are saying is "Gubamint bad no matter wut!" and then you can't talk about anything regarding the topic hardly at all.

 

[poweRob]

What we are using now is the net neutrality version of the internet, and have been using it since its inception.

Why doesn't anyone who debates net neutrality bother to look this stuff up before joining these threads?

He's acting like Net Neutrality is just now being invented by the evil gubamint. I don't get this arument at all.

 

[TheGoverness]

He's acting like Net Neutrality is just now being invented by the evil gubamint. I don't get this arument at all.

I don't get it either. Net Neutrality is the standard RIGHT NOW. It's just the government is now setting up implications to protect it and keep it that way, which is a great thing.

 

[natsb]

Net neutrality has existed thus far. This ruling doesn't create net neutrality out of thin air. It protects what is from corporate encroachment.

Okay, you are entrenched. I get it. Let me try to get us talking on the same level.

I have been in the Internet business for 35 years. And before the Internet, I worked on ARPANET. I was an installer, a designer, an architect, a manager, and now I am focused on network security. I still have fond memories of working with Xerox and DEC in the early days building network repeaters with a bag full of RadioShack parts and a soldering station because there were none available on the market to buy. I even participated in the hearings when the FCC first proposed the Open Internet Order in 2011.(that is the real name of the new rules. Net Neutrality is a term the media made up; and it stuck) I did not participate when the FCC tried again in 2014. Therefore, I know the rules almost to the letter as they directly affect my day to day ability to make a living.

As I am in the firm belief that you have never actually read the rules and are shooting from the hip. I would like to have that belief either established or discarded. So in the interest of setting the level of the playing field, what is your Internet resume?

Once that is established, we should proceed to the actual text of the new rules and establish technical arguments for our positions devoid of any politics. Once we remove the politics and talk engineer to engineer, we are bound to have some more fruitful discussions on this matter. Can we reach a gentlemen's agreement?

 

[eohrnberger]

Speed bumping is artificially slowing down speeds to extort people, prioritization is not. We are paying for it, the ISPs want to extort consumers and companies. Net neutrality is what allows the internet to be a place of innovation and open communication but but the ISPs want to setup walls and prevent people from accessing information. They have had no problems with improving their infrastructure until the net neutrality ruling passed even though net neutrality has been the status quo since the beginning of the internet. You are just too much of an idiot to see that.

If the ISPs are extorting their customers, where are the criminal charges? It makes little sense for an ISP to extort it's customer base, from which it's making it's livelihood. It makes much more sense that the ISP is trying to deliver the best possible experience for each of it's customers.

Claiming that "net neutrality has been the status quo since the beginning of the internet" just goes to prove that you don't have a clue how IP networking works and how it's done to meet with the greatest utility and satisfaction of the user base. No one is going to get upset if an email arrive a few minutes later, not nearly as much as if Netflix video is choppy or drops out. The delivery of both smooth video and quick web pages and timely email is the goal of each ISP. It'd would be ridiculous to assume otherwise.

Fundamentally, you subscribe for a given rate for your connection to the ISP, faster connections cost a bit more. Fair enough. It doesn't favor any one web site over another. That's just BS fear mongering. The up link to the Internet is what is it. In order to be able to deliver the heavier bandwidth media, such as video, it can't over the up link to the Internet effectively, so a dedicated line is put in for that traffic. No problem. The Internet up link is for general web site traffic, the heavy content goes through it's dedicated link. I don't see your problem with this network configuration. It delivers what the ISPs customers want, which is high speed access to both the web and video, just that the two different traffic are going through two different routes, each optimized for the type of data they are carrying and the number of customers they need to serve at any one time. So what's your beef?

Bandying about insults such as "you are a bull**** liar" and you are an idiot does little to strengthen your arguments or your position. It just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about and are substituting knowledge with bluster.

 

[poweRob]

Okay, you are entrenched. I get it. Let me try to get us talking on the same level.

I have been in the Internet business for 35 years. And before the Internet, I worked on ARPANET. I was an installer, a designer, an architect, a manager, and now I am focused on network security. I still have fond memories of working with Xerox and DEC in the early days building network repeaters with a bag full of RadioShack parts and a soldering station because there were none available on the market to buy. I even participated in the hearings when the FCC first proposed the Open Internet Order in 2011.(that is the real name of the new rules. Net Neutrality is a term the media made up; and it stuck) I did not participate when the FCC tried again in 2014. Therefore, I know the rules almost to the letter as they directly affect my day to day ability to make a living.

As I am in the firm belief that you have never actually read the rules and are shooting from the hip. I would like to have that belief either established or discarded. So in the interest of setting the level of the playing field, what is your Internet resume?

Once that is established, we should proceed to the actual text of the new rules and establish technical arguments for our positions devoid of any politics. Once we remove the politics and talk engineer to engineer, we are bound to have some more fruitful discussions on this matter. Can we reach a gentlemen's agreement?

So we have to post internet resumes just to have this discussion? Really? Web editor for many years. Ok. Now next. What specifically in the rules do you not like?

 

[natsb]

I don't get it either. Net Neutrality is the standard RIGHT NOW. It's just the government is now setting up implications to protect it and keep it that way, which is a great thing.

Well, it is clear that you don't get it. Let me try to help.

Read the OP and ask yourself a question. Why would the Court make a ruling that clears the way for the NN rules to be implemented if the rules are already in place?

 

[Carjosse]

If the ISPs are extorting their customers, where are the criminal charges? It makes little sense for an ISP to extort it's customer base, from which it's making it's livelihood. It makes much more sense that the ISP is trying to deliver the best possible experience for each of it's customers.

Claiming that "net neutrality has been the status quo since the beginning of the internet" just goes to prove that you don't have a clue how IP networking works and how it's done to meet with the greatest utility and satisfaction of the user base. No one is going to get upset if an email arrive a few minutes later, not nearly as much as if Netflix video is choppy or drops out. The delivery of both smooth video and quick web pages and timely email is the goal of each ISP. It'd would be ridiculous to assume otherwise.

Fundamentally, you subscribe for a given rate for your connection to the ISP, faster connections cost a bit more. Fair enough. It doesn't favor any one web site over another. That's just BS fear mongering. The up link to the Internet is what is it. In order to be able to deliver the heavier bandwidth media, such as video, it can't over the up link to the Internet effectively, so a dedicated line is put in for that traffic. No problem. The Internet up link is for general web site traffic, the heavy content goes through it's dedicated link. I don't see your problem with this network configuration. It delivers what the ISPs customers want, which is high speed access to both the web and video, just that the two different traffic are going through two different routes, each optimized for the type of data they are carrying and the number of customers they need to serve at any one time. So what's your beef?

Bandying about insults such as "you are a bull**** liar" and you are an idiot does little to strengthen your arguments or your position. It just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about and are substituting knowledge with bluster.

Net neutrality was very foundation that the internet is built on, I am calling you a liar because you claim to be in the industry yet do not know what it is. What you described is exactly what net neutrality is trying to protect, you for your service and you get that service whether you use it for Netlfix or whatever. But what the ISPs want to do is start treating traffic differently, force you to pay more for what you should be getting, extortion. They can also force companies like Netflix to pay extortion if they want their content delivered at reasonable speeds, which Comcast did a couple of years ago.

Fundamentally, you subscribe for a given rate for your connection to the ISP, faster connections cost a bit more. Fair enough. It doesn't favor any one web site over another.

That is exactly what net neutrality is and it needs to be protected but ISPs want to be rid of it so they can charge you outrageous fees for access and "fast lanes." Here is a useful comic.

 

[Carjosse]

Well, it is clear that you don't get it. Let me try to help.

Read the OP and ask yourself a question. Why would the Court make a ruling that clears the way for the NN rules to be implemented if the rules are already in place?

Net neutrality has been the pricnipal the internet has operated on since its creation not by any legal requirement but by a principal shared between everyone involved but now ISPs are trying to violate that principal and legal protection is now necessary.

 

[natsb]

What we are using now is the net neutrality version of the internet, and have been using it since its inception.

The current net neutrality rules were proposed June 1,2014. They were passed February 26, 2015. The case to stop them started December 4, 2015. The final ruling was last Tuesday, June 14, 2016. Are you actually claiming the inception of the Internet was in in 2016, only one week ago?

Why doesn't anyone who debates net neutrality bother to look this stuff up before joining these threads?

I don't know. Why didn't you bother to look stuff up before making that embarrassing claim?

 

[natsb]

Net neutrality has been the pricnipal the internet has operated on since its creation not by any legal requirement but by a principal shared between everyone involved but now ISPs are trying to violate that principal and legal protection is now necessary.

Nope. Absolutely wrong on the first part. You're just bifurcating in an attempt to spin yourself out of the hole you dug. Now as for the second part; I'll bite. Which ISPs are trying to violate the principle? Why is legal protection needed now, if the FCC rules are already in place?

 

[Deuce]

That's a bizarre answer that has nothing to do with my post. I think you are off on an entirely different subject. So, don't be sorry, it doesn't apply.

Of course it applies, because this is the only scenario in which your "irony" idea makes any sense.

 

[Carjosse]

Nope. Absolutely wrong on the first part. You're just bifurcating in an attempt to spin yourself out of the hole you dug. Now as for the second part; I'll bite. Which ISPs are trying to violate the principle? Why is legal protection needed now, if the FCC rules are already in place?

Actually it even predates the internet:

While the term is new, the ideas underlying net neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications practice and regulation. The concept of network neutrality originated in the age of the telegram in 1860 or even earlier, where standard (pre-overnight telegram) telegrams were routed 'equally' without discerning their contents and adjusting for one application or another. Such networks are "end-to-end neutral".

That is form the first lines of the Wikipedia page, it would really help if you would do some research before talking about something.

 

[Deuce]

The current net neutrality rules were proposed June 1,2014. They were passed February 26, 2015. The case to stop them started December 4, 2015. The final ruling was last Tuesday, June 14, 2016. Are you actually claiming the inception of the Internet was in in 2016, only one week ago?



I don't know. Why didn't you bother to look stuff up before making that embarrassing claim?

Net neutrality was the de facto standard of the internet from its inception. It's the way your internet has always worked. And then some dip****s started ****ing with it.

 

[eohrnberger]

Net neutrality was very foundation that the internet is built on,

Traffic prioritization of various data types is in the DNA of the Internet from the very beginning that this is what you seem to have the most issue with.

I am calling you a liar because you claim to be in the industry yet do not know what it is.

As I've explained, I was in the role of managing a global data network years ago, but the technical fundamentals haven't changed, and this was way before Net Neutrality came in.

What you described is exactly what net neutrality is trying to protect, you for your service and you get that service whether you use it for Netlfix or whatever.

Right, but Net Neutrality also bars that high speed link between the ISP's distribution point and the content provider, seemingly forcing it over the same Internet connection as all the web traffic, and that's not going to work, well, work well anyway (typical government solution, swap what works with something that works less well, and call it progress).

But what the ISPs want to do is start treating traffic differently, force you to pay more for what you should be getting, extortion.

No, it's been in the Internet from day one, and it's called network management, making the most of the network resources that are available.

Traffic shaping (also known as packet shaping) is a computer network traffic management technique which delays some or all datagrams to bring them into compliance with a desired traffic profile.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Traffic shaping is used to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth for some kinds of packets by delaying other kinds. It is often confused with traffic policing, the distinct but related practice of packet dropping and packet marking.[SUP][3][/SUP]
The most common type of traffic shaping is application-based traffic shaping.[SUP][4][/SUP] In application-based traffic shaping, fingerprinting tools are first used to identify applications of interest, which are then subject to shaping policies. Some controversial cases of application-based traffic shaping include P2P Bandwidth Throttling. Many application protocols use encryption to circumvent application-based traffic shaping. Another type of traffic shaping is route-based traffic shaping. Route-based traffic shaping is conducted based on previous-hop or next-hop information.[SUP][5][/SUP]
...
Traffic shaping is of interest especially to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Their high-cost, high-traffic networks are their major assets, and as such, are the focus of all their attentions. They sometimes use traffic shaping to optimize the use of their network, sometimes by intelligently shaping traffic according to importance, other times by discouraging uses of applications by harsh means.[SUP][12][/SUP] There are those who believe it is not the ISP's place to decide what is "important"; in such cases per-client traffic shaping is more effective without creating potential controversies about what traffic is being controlled.
. . . .
See also

• Teletraffic engineering in broadband networks
• Network congestion avoidance
• Quality of service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping

It's exactly what I said it was. Shaping traffic in order to "optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth".

Whether or not your ISP is shaping its traffic (probably), it's dam well a certainty that the Internet backbone traffic is being shaped. So your traffic is being shaped / managed, just a question at which level of the network. Perhaps you have a problem with the 'traffic shaping policy' that some ISPs implement?

Regardless, the completely unmanaged and unshaped solution that you believe should be the standard is technically unsound and unwise.

They can also force companies like Netflix to pay extortion if they want their content delivered at reasonable speeds, which Comcast did a couple of years ago.

Extortion is against the law. What criminal charges were filed against ComCast?

That technically required dedicated link between the content provide and the ISP distribution point costs money, and someone's gonna have to pay for it. It isn't given for free.

That is exactly what net neutrality is and it needs to be protected but ISPs want to be rid of it so they can charge you outrageous fees for access and "fast lanes."

Given your rate of wrong, I highly doubt it.

 

[Cardinal]

The current net neutrality rules were proposed June 1,2014. They were passed February 26, 2015. The case to stop them started December 4, 2015. The final ruling was last Tuesday, June 14, 2016. Are you actually claiming the inception of the Internet was in in 2016, only one week ago?



I don't know. Why didn't you bother to look stuff up before making that embarrassing claim?

It would appear that you only started using the internet in 2014, or first became aware of the concept of net neutrality in 2014. Regardless of your limited experience with the internet, the rest of us have had net neutrality since the beginning of the internet.

 

[natsb]

Net neutrality was very foundation that the internet is built on, I am calling you a liar because you claim to be in the industry yet do not know what it is. What you described is exactly what net neutrality is trying to protect, you for your service and you get that service whether you use it for Netlfix or whatever. But what the ISPs want to do is start treating traffic differently, force you to pay more for what you should be getting, extortion. They can also force companies like Netflix to pay extortion if they want their content delivered at reasonable speeds, which Comcast did a couple of years ago.

That is exactly what net neutrality is and it needs to be protected but ISPs want to be rid of it so they can charge you outrageous fees for access and "fast lanes." Here is a useful comic.

Now that takes a sizable set of testosterone producing organs. You post a response proving that you know nothing of the inside workings of the Internet, then use that misinformation to call someone a liar. Call me impressed.

The Internet has always been tiered. Even since its inception; I was there. It has always been a pay for use service, and it has always offered pay for prioritization.

Netflix pays extra because they need high levels of bandwidth offered by being connected directly to the core Internet with multiple access points. That cannot be accomplished through an edge provider like Comcast. Certainly, you don't expect someone that is using petabytes of data at multiple access points to the core to pay the same fee as someone using only megabytes at a single access point on the edge?

 

[Carjosse]

Traffic prioritization of various data types is in the DNA of the Internet from the very beginning that this is what you seem to have the most issue with.



As I've explained, I was in the role of managing a global data network years ago, but the technical fundamentals haven't changed, and this was way before Net Neutrality came in.



Right, but Net Neutrality also bars that high speed link between the ISP's distribution point and the content provider, seemingly forcing it over the same Internet connection as all the web traffic, and that's not going to work, well, work well anyway (typical government solution, swap what works with something that works less well, and call it progress).



No, it's been in the Internet from day one, and it's called network management, making the most of the network resources that are available.

​

It's exactly what I said it was. Shaping traffic in order to "optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth".

Whether or not your ISP is shaping its traffic (probably), it's dam well a certainty that the Internet backbone traffic is being shaped. So your traffic is being shaped / managed, just a question at which level of the network. Perhaps you have a problem with the 'traffic shaping policy' that some ISPs implement?

Regardless, the completely unmanaged and unshaped solution that you believe should be the standard is technically unsound and unwise.



Extortion is against the law. What criminal charges were filed against ComCast?

That technically required dedicated link between the content provide and the ISP distribution point costs money, and someone's gonna have to pay for it. It isn't given for free.



Given your rate of wrong, I highly doubt it.

There is a difference between prioritization in a network and speed bumping it, like I have explained. Prioritization traffic does not purposefully slow down Netflix to 300MB/s on your 500MB/s connection and then force you pay an extra $5/month if you want to stream Netflix at 500MB/s. That is what net neutrality is about. In the case of Netflix what Comcast was purposefully throttle Netflix speeds until they paid millions to Comcast, at which point their content was delivered at normal speeds once again. That was not illegal then but it is now that net neutrality is being enforced.

 

[Anthony60]

You seem to not understand, there is a difference between prioritization and speed bumping data like the ISPs want to do. What the ISPs want is to say that even if all that is going to you is Netflix and you have no other incoming data you will still not get the full bandwidth and must pay a higher cost because the data originates from Netflix or YouTube. Or even flat out deny you access to video content until you pay a fee for aces to video streaming. If I pay for 500MB/s and 500GB of usage I should be able to stream 500GB of Netflix or whatever I want at 500MB/s not have it artificially slowed down until Netflix or I pay an extortion fee. That is what net neutrality prevents. Increasing bandwidth and installing better infrastructure is the responsibility of the ISP, if more and more people need more bandwidth because of the increasing popularity of video streaming it is the ISPs job to install higher bandwidth lines not just speed bump existing service. It is the cost of doing business.

The ISP is not responsible to build anything, why would you say that? If they decide that it's the best course of action to not build, then that's that. If Netflix needs more bandwidth, why is it the ISP's problem and cost to build it for them? And if they do build it, what is wrong with charging for using that bandwidth?

 

[Deuce]

Now that takes a sizable set of testosterone producing organs. You post a response proving that you know nothing of the inside workings of the Internet, then use that misinformation to call someone a liar. Call me impressed.

The Internet has always been tiered. Even since its inception; I was there. It has always been a pay for use service, and it has always offered pay for prioritization.

Netflix pays extra because they need high levels of bandwidth offered by being connected directly to the core Internet with multiple access points. That cannot be accomplished through an edge provider like Comcast. Certainly, you don't expect someone that is using petabytes of data at multiple access points to the core to pay the same fee as someone using only megabytes at a single access point on the edge?

Um, net neutrality does not require equal payment structures. What the hell are you talking about?