Net Neutrality

Quick update that because we don't have an "Off Topic" section of the forums, we'll keep this post in General Discussion for now.

Also, while it's technically treading into political territory, we'll keep it open as long as we don't stray further into political conversation about party lines, presidential references, etc... stick to the core issue of Net Neutrality please .

 

This is EXACTLY what your Internet service providers want to do. You know what isn't on this rate card? Everyone else.

 

Very interesting Telco is an example of what happens when the Government is too closely tied to the Internet.

"
Telco engineer working in the space for the past 10 years.

We used to have dialup running over twisted-pair phone...was alright I guess.

Government owned national telco (Telecom Networks) was sold off privately a few years before ADSL1 came out (renamed themselves Telstra).

Telstra, the incumbent, private monopoly which owned every single phone line in the country, installed ADSL. But...they artificially capped the highest possible speeds at 1.5mbps.

Other ISP's wanted to join the game, but could not get onto the phone lines, and couldn't afford to run their own ones....so they politely asked the govt. competition regulator (the ACCC) to generate a new service definition which allowed other ISP's to use the Telstra phone lines (as a rental service to the 3rd parties), so we could all get a different ISP.

When that happened, a company came online called Internode...they installed their own ADSL1 equipment in the telephone exchanges, but they ran theirs at full speed (8mbps).

Huzzah!! Competition!!

Did not last long. Telstra started to price people out of the market by selling services below cost, AND they tried to up the rental price on other ISP's in order to maintain their monopoly.

The ACCC slapped them on the wrist and said they were bad for doing that, and they shouldn't do it again.

At the same time this network was running, Telstra was also running a cable TV network (HFC technology), and around the late 90's Telstra installed some Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification equipment (DOCSIS), so that those who were receiving a TV service from Telstra, could also receive an internet plan as well!

Another large ISP in the country wanted to run their own DOCSIS HFC network (a company called Optus), and they started running cables down streets, and stringing fibre, installing equipment in high density areas.

Well Telstra wanted no part in allowing that to continue, and so they chased Optus down every street, installing their own HFC network, overbuilding the entire lot of Optus's stuff....and...you guessed it....sold their ISP plans at below the operating cost of Optus plans.

The ACCC slapped Telstra on the wrist again for anti-competitive behavior. But not before Optus could not sustain this business model, and they bowed out entirely.

There was a period of around 10-15 years where Telstra was single handedly working against the best interests of the nation, wherever competition sprang up to disrupt Telstra's business model, that would increase service value and competition...Telstra would stomp on it, and the regulator in charge with keeping Telstra under control, was incredibly powerless for much of this time, as the government of the day put a leash on them (for political reasons....they sold Telstra to several hundred thousand mum/dad investors, and they needed to win elections, so Telstra's private success translated in-part into their political success).

Fast forward to 2007, Kevin Rudd and his Labor Party were elected on promises of breaking up the Telstra monopoly, and separating the entity into two distinct companies.

1 for wholesale, one for retail. With entirely separate budgets, and privacy laws preventing the sharing of customer demographic information, in theory, their monopoly position and ability to attack its competitors, could have been seriously weakened.

Second part of this plan, was that the government promised to have Telstra shut down the data side of the wholesale aspect of their network (all of the physical infrastructure), and create a new government entity, titled the National Broadband Network (NBN Co.) with plans to install a brand new one to the ENTIRE NATION to 95% Fibre to the home, ubiquitous gigabit capable everywhere, with fixed wireless and satellite filling in everywhere else.

This plan was fully costed out to around 48 billion dollars (this did not include the purchase of any of the old infrastructure).

As you might have guessed, those in the (now) opposition party, and the head honchos at Telstra, were none to thrilled about this plan, and started to make a whole lot of noise about how it would cost OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS, and take 15 YEARS LONGER THAN PLANNED to complete.

This scared the living daylights out of the electorate...and just as NBN started their ramp-up in the FTTH rollout....the government of the day lost the following election (it was helped along by in-fighting and our prime-minister being ousted by their own party 2 times within one sitting term..).

The old govt. got back in, the ones who were mates with Telstra, and drastically changed the NBNCo direction, to one from ubiquitous FTTH, to just a mere upgrade of the ADSL and HFC networks.

A shambles, a massive corruption to be sure, and a loss of 10 years of everyone's life

TLDR; Telstra is shitty Australian Comcast (only if they were working closely with the government to direct policy direction to their benefit, at the expense of everyone else ever) - as per /u/NeverEdger (the parenthetical I added)

Imagine if the USPS when they were first created way back when....adopted as part of their services, the telegraph, as well as telegram and package delivery. Then imagine them building out a phone network, and operating phones through the entire nation. Then imagine them building out data networks with dialup capability, and eventually DSL and Cable internet.

Now imagine if USPS was sold to private market.

This is how Telstra came to be. Now all the USPS executives are ex-gov people who are in-the-know, in the boys clubs and whatnot, so they still hold political clout.

Imagine what policy direction can be had.

Australia."

This issue of Net Neutrality is extremely complicated. There is not entirely a clear right and wrong, rather shades of success. No one is completely certain and a lot of propaganda is being pushed. Watching a 10 minute YouTube video on the subject or a bias comedian and forming your opinion is irresponsible.

I personally have Internet speeds of 950+ Mbps. If similar service was available across the USA we would experience a paradigm shift with the Internet. I trust Corporate GREED far more than CORRUPT politicians to deliver Gig Internet to the US much faster than the US Government. Turning the Internet into my Water or Electric company is BAD.

Seriously Australia, ASDL! Welcome to 1985.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlik...why_is_australian_internet_so_bad_and_why_is/

 

For the record, that telco ad may be a fake. I went to the site and I could not find anything like that. All the plans look pretty typical.

 

That's not a real rate card. It's an example of how ISPs will sell their access if we lost Net Neutrality.

 

You have no proof. Fake news.

Prior to the Title II changes in 2015 I know of no US ISP that charged different prices on broadband based upon the network traffic IP address. What I do know is after 2015 Title II revisions the expansion of broadband by Google, Verizon, and other ISPs slowed or stopped.

A company won't expand if no profits to be made.

 

I've been holding off on this post because I know WAY too much about this issue and worked on it for my old boss in the Senate. Here are some basic facts that people need to know and can easily verify. Hope it helps for a more constructive conversation.

WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY

Common definition: Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t manipulate, slow or block data across their networks as long as the content isn’t illegal.

*No blocking – ISPs should not be permitted to block access to websites or services whose content is legal
*No throttling – ISPs should not be permitted to intentionally slow down content based on the type of service or the ISPs’ preferences
*Increased transparency – FCC should make full use of “transparency authorities” and if necessary apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between an ISP and the rest of the Internet
*No paid prioritization – An explicit ban; no service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee
*Clear monitored exceptions for network management and specialized services
*All accomplished by reclassifying consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and forbearing from “rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services”

FCC ACTION CLASSIFICATION HISTORY

2002: FCC classifies cable modem service as an “information service” under the Telecommunications Act, not subject to common carrier regulation
*Telephone company Internet access services accorded same status in 2005

2005: FCC issues Internet Policy Statement
*Consumers are entitled to access the lawful content of their choice, run applications and services of their choice, connect their legal devices that do not harm the network, and have competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

2008: FCC requires Comcast Corp. to stop selectively blocking peer-to-peer connections as a way to manage its traffic

2010: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacates the 2008 FCC ruling, saying that the agency didn’t have the appropriate authority to act

2010: FCC adopts the Open Internet Order
*Establishes three rules concerning transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination to maintain net neutrality

POSSIBLE FCC PROPOSALS

Reclassify broadband providers as common carriers under Title II
*FCC would forbear from applying some rules deemed not necessary

Maintain classification of broadband providers as information services under Section 706
*Ability to police discriminatory behavior would presumably involve the FCC’s adopting enforcement language more closely in line with 2014 court decision

Adopt a “hybrid” approach using both Title II and Section 706
*These proposals come in many flavors
*One option would split broadband service into two components: retail service that consumers buy from ISPs (regulated under Section 706), and the wholesale back end, where broadband providers pick up content for distribution (regulated as a Title II telecommunications service)
*Another would classify broadband providers as telecom common carriers under Title II, then require the FCC to forbear from all specific Title II regulation and instead impose requirements under Section 706

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

How will wireless broadband be addressed?
*Regulated under a less stringent standard in previous FCC orders
*Net neutrality rules should be “fully applicable” to mobile broadband, while recognizing the “special challenges” of network management
*Wireless providers generally oppose being treated the same as wired broadband; Verizon has said it would agree to “platform parity” if network management requirements were accommodated

What qualifies as legitimate “network management?”
*Broadband providers have been undertaking traffic management for a long time
*Different types of Internet traffic can be treated differently to optimize system
*More extensive traffic management techniques probably would be allowed for wireless

Internet interconnection agreements/paid peering
*Netflix Inc. has been advocating that Internet interconnection arrangements be subjected to net neutrality requirements
*FCC has begun an inquiry separate from the net neutrality proceedings

*EDIT*

Also this: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/

OpenSecrets does an incredible job of breaking down the issue; as well as the money behind the politics.

 

If it means the loss of freedom of information and telco's gatekeeping said information based on profits, it's time to make the Internet TRULY at utility that cannot be for-profit. Why are you so willing to let your rights fly out the door for money?

Edit to add: Ah, you are in Australia. I don't know much about AU politics in this arena. All I am talking about is the US.

 

I have worked for Federal Government, US Military, For-Profit private industry, Non-Profit private industry over the course of my career. Both in and out of the tech field. I trust private industry to innovate. The Government for oversight. Non-profit with organization.

In a perfect world each type of organizational structure would have a part in the future of the Internet. Give any one too much power and they are sure to FRACK things up.

Industry such as Google and Verizon to spend the money and take the chance at innovation. Spending money and taking a chance means Industry should reap profits, PERIOD. Government to provide oversight if Industry becomes non-competitive or cheating they should be punished. Non-profit such as ICANN, IEEE, to provide fair standards and organizational structures.

Political hack "comedians" such as John Oliver are puppets and the political elite pull their strings. Don't follow a puppet, follow the strings to see who is pulling.

 

Great post @Cordelayne

 

I will need to disagree with you on almost every point, unfortunately.

Edit to add: I've been following the demise of Net Neutrality for over a decade. John Oliver had nothing to do with it. I'm not even sure why he's being brought up.

 

So we still agree on something, it's a start.

 

Ok, well, time to necro.

Here goes, folks! time to see if all that good will and trust is warranted:

https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-prepares-to-unveil-plan-to-gut-net-neutrality/

 

This is actually really bad for us end users.

 

Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want to end net neutrality so they can control what we see & do online. First, they want to gut FCC rules. Then, they plan to pass bad legislation that allows extra fees, throttling & censorship. But Congress can put a stop to all of this. Write & call now!

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

 

I wish these forums had net neutrality...

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/11/hypocrisy-at-the-fcc-and-the-illusion-of-transparency

"Despite what he has said in the past, Ajit Pai's version of transparency is willfully ignorant at best and maliciously hypocritical at worst."

 

How about we stop the FUD and wait to see? The Internet did exceptionally well before the government decided to regulate the service similar to a utility. We all know how efficiently our electric, water, and gas companies run under government regulation.

If the evil corporations ruin our Internet I'm 100% certain some wonderful politician will be more than willing to swoop in and save the day.