Screw you, FCC

[Tim]

Merry Christmas, IPU. I hope you and your family have a wonderful 2011.

[Katy Lied]

Gotta go with Tim on this one. Net neutrality seems more like the free market than the reverse.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

I'm with Tim, reading a couple of quick articles I don't see what is so wrong with this. Comcast can't slow down Netflix anymore, that's a good thing.

Yes they can. They can also charge customers more for using it. This watered down rule is a win for Comcast which is what I thought the OP was ticked about. Boy was I wrong.

Edit: The new rules prohibit "unreasonably discriminatory" behavior. Whatever that means.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry IPU, Tim is right. This is a good thing. A very good thing.

[Uncle Ted]

Sorry IPU, Tim is right. This is a good thing. A very good thing.

It could be a very good thing but it could lead to things like ISPs moving from unlimited transfer pricing as content providers (like netflix) quickly add demand. (Case in point: AT&T's move from unlimited transfer when iPhones usage quickly increased the demand.) It seems if the government was smart it would be pushing for more competition in the market instead of trying to regulate it (e.g. giving more companies permits to rip up people's yards and the roads to install "last mile" fiber to their homes). Or better yet, use the stimulus money to install conduit in the streets that would be leased to ISPs to run the fiber.

[beefytee]

Interesting article from the Woz on the subject:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

Also Cringley:

http://www.cringely.com/2010/12/the-trojan-app/

[YOhio]

I don't think the FCC posts here, so you'll have to email them directly to tell them "Screw you!".

[SeattleUte]

Wow. IPU got annihilated. The poor guy.

[TripletDaddy]

Wow. IPU got annihilated. The poor guy.

You got the ball rolling when you compared him to Ralph from Wait till your father gets home. I laughed at that one. Great cartoon, an animated Archie Bunker of sorts, with a great theme song.

Ironically, EPUs love of capitalism and his dogged refusal to change any of his points of view makes him more like George Jefferson.

[il Padrino Ute]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[il Padrino Ute]

Wow. IPU got annihilated. The poor guy.

I did? Interesting, as I don't feel as if I got annihilated.

[Tex]

I'm violating my vow of silence here, but I logged in to respond to a board mail, saw this thread, and couldn't resist. Here's my quick, late-night thoughts.

I've been an software developer in Internet-related businesses for almost as long as it's existed, and I am very much opposed to this. We don't need the Feds meddling anymore in this market than what already exists.

This isn't just an issue of "fairness." Proponents cast it in those terms because who would argue with that? Rather, it's an issue of authority and just who gets to decide what's fair. IMO the market should be the ultimate arbiter of fairness in service, not some hamfisted bureaucrats in DC. On top of that, the FCC has no authority to do this anyway. They tried this a few years ago and got slapped down by the courts. Now they've resorted to some obscure 1930s laws to justify their power grab. This exceeds their mandate in the executive, and you better believe Congress will take it back.

I'm amazed how quick and willing people are to surrender their economic freedom to the govt, trusting that they are the end-all be-all of arbitration on what's fair. We've become a nation of panty-waists.

And now I'm done. See ya!

[Tim]

I did? Interesting, as I don't feel as if I got annihilated.

Neither did the French.

[Katy Lied]

Can anybody provide a simple explanation on the mechanics of targeted throttling by Comcast? How does it work? Does Comcast identify streams of data on the upload side or the download side? Do they simply bar that web site unless their customers pay a premium?

I'm just wondering how easy it would be to get around the throttling, by using disguised mirror sites. Because once the data packets hit the pipeline, you cant distinguish them, right?

As far as charging more for heavier use of the internet, look to the phone companies. Most phone service now includes unlimited nationwide calling plans, because the infrastructure needed to monitor and charge for long distance was more costly than the fees received from providing the service. When ATT was the monopolist, they could charge high enough fees for providing long distance service to justify the billing infrastructure. When competition came in from cell phones and VOIP, they had to drop this business model. I would think the ultimate outcome in a competitive market is that Comcast (and like companies) would not be able to move away from net neutrality.

[Uncle Ted]

Can anybody provide a simple explanation on the mechanics of targeted throttling by Comcast? How does it work? Does Comcast identify streams of data on the upload side or the download side? Do they simply bar that web site unless their customers pay a premium?

I'm just wondering how easy it would be to get around the throttling, by using disguised mirror sites. Because once the data packets hit the pipeline, you cant distinguish them, right?

To throttle or even block traffic comcast needs to be able to identify the offending traffic. This can be done by "port number", for example. Every type of (open) protocol (or service) is given an unique port number by the IANA (Inernet Assigned Numbers Authority). So if comcast wanted to throttle netflix it could use the fact that they use a "well known port" to identify that traffic.

Of course, there are ways to defeat this. For example, netflix could use encryption and establish VPNs between its servers and its customers. In that case, comcast could not identify the type of traffic. They could, however, throttle based on the IP addresses used by netflix servers. This could be defeated by 3rd party proxy servers or (reverse) caches. For example, netflix could contract with a company like Akamai Technologies that has lots of edge caches deployed. Throttling/blocking Akamai's IP addresses would affect other content services. For example, whitehouse.gov uses Akamai for videos of President Obama's web addresses.

As far as charging more for heavier use of the internet, look to the phone companies. Most phone service now includes unlimited nationwide calling plans, because the infrastructure needed to monitor and charge for long distance was more costly than the fees received from providing the service. When ATT was the monopolist, they could charge high enough fees for providing long distance service to justify the billing infrastructure. When competition came in from cell phones and VOIP, they had to drop this business model. I would think the ultimate outcome in a competitive market is that Comcast (and like companies) would not be able to move away from net neutrality.

ATT (wireless) must be the monopolist again given the cap they put on their data network shortly after the iPad was rolled out. Of course, ATT is currently enjoying a monopoly on the iPhone/iPad, being the only domestic data network provider. It will be interesting to see if their bandwidth cap will last when they no longer have that monopoly and more competition is introduced.