

nothing00

join:2001-06-10

Centereach, NY 1 edit nothing00 Member Netflix shouldn't be smiling Have to read it but it doesn't sound like anything prevents large ISPs from pulling the same Netflix stunts they have in the past.



edit:

For those who want to read, it appears the most relevant part of the document to this particular topic starts at page 86 named: '2. Internet Traffic Exchange'



There is some hope as section 204 reads:

204. Broadband Internet access service involves the exchange of traffic between a last-mile broadband provider and connecting networks.521 The representation to retail customers that they will be able to reach all or substantially all Internet endpoints necessarily includes the promise to make the interconnection arrangements necessary to allow that access. As a telecommunications service, broadband Internet access service implicitly includes an assertion that the broadband provider will make just and reasonable efforts to transmit and deliver its customers traffic to and from all or substantially all Internet endpoints under sections 201 and 202 of the Act."



Finally a recognition that ISPs who claim to sell Internet service actually have to make efforts to provide that service.



They also say they will interject themselves on a case-by-case basis. Just hope you have a lot of money and a service that doesn't mind 9 months of disruption before the FCC comes to your rescue.

96964493 (banned)

join:2015-01-09

USA 96964493 (banned) Member Re: Netflix shouldn't be smiling That's because it was only a peering issue and nothing more. and actually Netflix is in favor of sponsored data caps. after all they're paying up in AUS and Google pays too in other countries.



nothing00

join:2001-06-10

Centereach, NY 6 recommendations nothing00 Member Re: Netflix shouldn't be smiling said by 96964493: That's because it was only a peering issue and nothing more. No, it's not a 'peering issue' and fortunately the FCC sees that clearly as well.

SimplyDimi

join:2015-01-13

East Elmhurst, NY 9 recommendations SimplyDimi to 96964493

Member to 96964493

said by 96964493: That's because it was only a peering issue and nothing more. and actually Netflix is in favor of sponsored data caps. after all they're paying up in AUS and Google pays too in other countries.



let's not play dumb, the bigger the company the more malicious the practices. it wasn't a peering issue Verizon practically admitted to throttling Netflix/AWS, there is no excuse to why they'd let those nodes over saturate, have you been to or seen a VZ CO? they monitor every little hiccup when it comes to peering/congestion, they purposely neglected peering and throttled services to get premiums in advance.let's not play dumb, the bigger the company the more malicious the practices.



ropeguru

Premium Member

join:2001-01-25

Mechanicsville, VA ropeguru Premium Member Re: Netflix shouldn't be smiling oversaturate != throttling

serge87

join:2009-11-29

New York serge87 Member Re: Netflix shouldn't be smiling Same exact effect...great cover too.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to nothing00

Member to nothing00

As you point out it will be a case-by-case basis.



I personally think what will happen in cases like the Netflix extortion one is that they will determine that they are making a business decision to not upgrade and not a technical one. Thus their inaction is for monetary gain and they are in essence blocking or throttling traffic to coerce a service into paying them directly.



telcodad

MVM

join:2011-09-16

Lincroft, NJ telcodad to nothing00

MVM to nothing00





From:

Net Neutrality Rules Pass on Interconnection

By Carol Wilso, Light Reading - March 12, 2015

»www.lightreading.com/net ··· d/714381 quote: ... The provision against throttling prohibits impairment or degradation of Internet content, applications and services but also includes the reasonable network management clause. The rules specify, however, that throttling of a service that competes with a broadband operator's own services is specifically not allowed, which would seem to protect over-the-top video services.



The provision against paid prioritization says broadband access providers cannot "directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic" by using "traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management" either for money or to benefit an "affiliated entity."



The new rules go on to provide protections for what the FCC calls "edge providers." But the rules specifically don't cover interconnection, which is where OTT video providers such as Netflix Inc. say they are running into big problems.



In deciding not to include interconnection at this time, the FCC cites its lack of experience in an area that is rapidly evolving. But the threat of future rules is clearly implied.

:

The agency does weigh in on defining "reasonable network management" and promises to take into account the additional constraints that wireless broadband carriers face, due to spectrum limitations. For now, reasonable network management is what operators use for "achieving a legitimate network management purpose," in a technical fashion, and not related to business objectives.



The FCC doesn't appear to have tackled what some are calling "reverse network neutrality," i.e., the ability of content owners to block the subscribers of specific broadband services from accessing their content. For example, when Viacom Inc. and Suddenlink Communications failed to reach an agreement on content licensing fees, Viacom prevented Suddenlink's broadband customers from accessing the online version of its content.



We'll have a lot more coverage of the new net neutrality rules in the coming days as all interested parties delve much deeper into the Open Internet Order. A summary of some of the new rules in an article on the Light Reading site:From:By Carol Wilso, Light Reading - March 12, 2015

telcodad 1 recommendation telcodad MVM Re: Netflix shouldn't be smiling



We've read all 400 pages of the FCC's baffling net neutrality rules  here's what YOU need to know

The Google, the bad, and the ugly

By Kieren McCarthy, The Register - March 12, 2015

»www.theregister.co.uk/20 ··· trality/ Here's another article with a summary of what's in there:By Kieren McCarthy, The Register - March 12, 2015



chuch

join:2001-04-11

Tampa, FL chuch Member As expected... While I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, I did skip to the flesh of the rules, and it's pretty much as expected.



Doesn't look like 'Obamacare for the Internet' as the tin foil crowd kept shouting about. In fact, it was more comprehensive of the limitations of wireless internet, as well as the need for network balancing. In a way, I expected the FCC to half-ass address the current conditions, but I commend them for being current.



I like the fact that the providers have to publish their traffic management rules so that developers can design their applications based on those rules.



abc743

@sbcglobal.net abc743 Anon Data caps .... Providers cannot throttle the bandwidth but they can put data caps anyway they want. What kind of consumer protection is it?



chuch

join:2001-04-11

Tampa, FL chuch Member Re: Data caps .... Data caps aren't going anywhere, for now. This is a good framework to start on some of the major issues faced by consumers.



On the upside, the requirement for providers to be transparent about their network management will force providers to publically publish their caps and how they are applied, which gives consumers more ammo to try and add the provision at a later date.

quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA ·webpass.net

·Charter

quisp65 to abc743

Member to abc743

Though it would not be argued quite as caps, I think internet tiers are eventually going to be based on usage and not speed. Something like, everyone will have the same fast speed, but the pricing plans will be divided up between 3-10 plans or so that you get charged each month based on usage.





Flyonthewall

@teksavvy.com Flyonthewall Anon Re: Data caps .... Already do that in Canada, selling speed with usage attached.



HereToHelp

@charter.com HereToHelp to abc743

Anon to abc743

said by abc743 : Providers cannot throttle the bandwidth but they can put data caps anyway they want. What kind of consumer protection is it? Just a question if an ISP truly did have a congestion issue and they can't have caps and they can't throttle how exactly do they solve that issue quickly? Saying "build out the network" is longer term solution. Does not help immediately.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Data caps .... If a isp is that bad off then it is time for them to leave the market. They should have been keeping up with demands and not putting the throttle bad aid on their network. Same for capping if they really need caps to keep their network up and running then again they decided a decade+ ago to do nothing about the problems on their network. And again it is time for them to leave the market aka go bankrupt. Ask your self this why is it that the small isps that some have access to often do not cap or throttle? And yet they still have competitive speeds and prices?



Back in the days of dialup there were literally 100s of small isps many offering no things like not being kicked off after x minutes of inactivity or every 2 hours etc. While the big boys like aol did exactly that they would kick you off after x minutes of inactivity etc. The big wigs in the industry always do things like cap throttle and kick. The small guys give you every thing they can and don't cap throttle or kick. Reason is simple the big guys typically have a strangle hold on a large area they may not be any where near the fastest or best connection but well you have no choice so they do all the above. Instead of increasing their network capacity they just lower the caps and increase how often and much they throttle and still raise rates.



I have a feeling some of the isps are gona get a big wake up call.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: Data caps .... I remember the kicking, When our dialup ISP got bought out we had the every 60 minutes bullshit.



Oddly enough SNET had no limit and they were the phone company. However SNET was a pretty good and forward thinking phone company until they sold out to SBC. They were one of the first telcos to try and run a cable company and SNET has credit for the first commercial exchange in the US.

bigboy

join:2000-12-04

Palo Alto, CA bigboy to Nanaki

Member to Nanaki

Actually no. Government intervention usually cements the market structure. These rules ironically make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 Member Re: Data caps .... Please explain how it makes it harder.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Data caps .... He missed the fact i was not talking about new isps but currently existing ones. Even if no new isps were ever allowed we have probably 300 small ones in the us. They would gobble up parts of a bankrupt isps market area and use existing infrastructure.

Nanaki Nanaki (banned) to bigboy

Member to bigboy

I never said any thing about new entrants entering the market. Incase you don't know there are likely hundreds of small guys out there in cities around the country. We don't hear much about them because of their size. But if say hell i dont know twc is unable to sell to another company and simply goes bank rupt. All the sudden their resources are up for open auction giving some upstart a chance to gain a foot hold in a area where twc was previously.



Example in the tech sector is ati now owned by amd. Pre 3dfx sell off to nvidia ati was basically a nobody in gaming circles they had soem great cards for the 3d developers but little else. Mostly their stuff was in business (aka cheap) class computers. You know the ones the little junker dells and gateways so common in offices.Once 3dfx went under ati came out of basically no where and just exploded on to the scene and nvidia bought up 3dfx assets.



Similar would happen if twc or any other current major player in isps went under. Another company or companies would buy up their assets in fact many would. This would give these smaller isps the influence to get even more. They would enter a period of explosive growth. Some would grow to fast and come crashing down to be bought up by other previously very small isps .

mmay149q

Premium Member

join:2009-03-05

Dallas, TX mmay149q Premium Member Re: Data caps .... "Pre 3dfx sell off to nvidia ati was basically a nobody in gaming circles"



What are you talking about? I may have only been 12 - 15 when this was relevant, but I built my first computer by myself at 12 years old and back then 3dfx and ATI were always battling each other for the gaming market, in fact those were the 2 biggest names when it came to building a gaming computer, I mean Nvidia was always there as well, but ATI also had their "DDR" series video cards, so I don't get where the notion is that "ATI didn't matter" ATI also created the GPU chip for the Nintendo Gamecube, which was........ 1999 - 2000?



Either way, I love what AMD has done with ATI, and I love the direction their going now, I can easily see AMD putting Nvidia/Intel in the back seat here in the next 10 - 15 years if they keep doing what they're doing with hardware, personally I was always a 3dfx fan myself and still have a Voodoo 5.5 hanging on my wall, but ATI was relevant...

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to HereToHelp

Member to HereToHelp

Well they have 3 options:

1.) Leave it be and let people leave thus making more bandwidth available to stay.

2.) Raise their prices which will either give them more money to upgrade and/or cause people to leave thus making more bandwidth available to those that stay.

3.) Upgrade their network as they can.

mmay149q

Premium Member

join:2009-03-05

Dallas, TX mmay149q to abc743

Premium Member to abc743

Isn't having a data cap technically having a throttle on how how much you can view or etc?



Bell Boy

@verizon.net Bell Boy to abc743

Anon to abc743

said by abc743 : Providers cannot throttle the bandwidth but they can put data caps anyway they want. What kind of consumer protection is it? You pay for what you use as it should be. I don't watch gigabits of tripe and I don't want to pay so others can.



tschmidt

MVM

join:2000-11-12

Milford, NH 1 recommendation tschmidt MVM CliffsNotes version I'm not ready to read 400 pages. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?



/tom



nothing00

join:2001-06-10

Centereach, NY nothing00 Member Re: CliffsNotes version said by tschmidt: I'm not ready to read 400 pages. Is there a Cliffs Notes version? There's a much shorter executive summary near the top. Still fairly meaty though.



Delayyyy

@comcast.net 1 recommendation Delayyyy to tschmidt

Anon to tschmidt



»www.fcc.gov/document/fcc ··· et-order Go here and read the Executive Summary(about 7 pgs) and read the statements from each of the Commissioners. That should give you the meat without reading several hundred pages.

quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA 1 recommendation quisp65 to tschmidt

Member to tschmidt

From what I skimmed through... No blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization of lawful content. All other matters, forbearance can be determined at a later date.



The end...



beans

@verizon.net beans Anon Re: CliffsNotes version Thats where the problem will become an issue



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX 1 recommendation fg8578 to tschmidt

Member to tschmidt

said by tschmidt: I'm not ready to read 400 pages. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?



»www.personal.psu.edu/rmf ··· der.docx There is a nine-page summary written by a law school professor:

SimplyDimi

join:2015-01-13

East Elmhurst, NY SimplyDimi Member we probably won't even see these rules kick in till 2016 with all the "big dogs" against this, get ready for a bunch of lawsuits, chances are these rules will get over run regardless

quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA 1 edit quisp65 Member Are back end prices open for public viewing? From the reading I've done so far... It looks like back end negotiations will still be private and prices will remain hidden. It just states the FCC can step in if needed.



Bodybagger

Premium Member

join:2010-03-30

Saint Matthews, SC Bodybagger Premium Member Verizon Pretty funny that all you see is "take that Verizon". Lol.. It's almost every other sentence. Verizon courts said this, because of Verizon VS FCC, for instance "this" noted from Verizon. Now if we can rid the carriers of these money grabbing "data caps" we would be good to go. And of course bulldoze Windstream and rebuild. =p

Slyster

join:2015-01-08

Sugar Grove, VA Slyster Member Is there anything.. In there that is about competition / line sharing / last mile sharing? If not then this isnt going to help pricing or availability. And just allowing towns to wire themselves isnt going to help most places.. Business as usual I guess.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 Member Cry Babies Well there ya go you bunch of cry babies. The rules have been released, you can now read them and you can now post below to show your "sky is falling!" screams were nothing more than blatant false talking points.



Who will be the first man to stand up and admit they were wrong?

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland pandora Premium Member Karl ... it looks long, but maybe reasonable Karl,

It seems very long, but overall not too bad. I'd still prefer Congress codify this into a law to preclude taxation or other enhanced regulation.



I'm uncertain if this affects cell phone tethering. Tethering is mentioned twice, is tethering permitted at not cost, or can a cell phone company impose a fee?



beans

@verizon.net beans Anon future abuse So if they cant throttle on lawfull content then who decides what lawfull content is? I can see that being ripe for abuse to infringe on 1st admendment rights later down the road.



tmh

@comcastbusiness.net tmh Anon What's it going to cost me? So, how much of a "regulatory fee" is this going to end up costing the end user?



Taxtime

@t-mobile.com Taxtime Anon Whom Deems Content Legal/Illegal The great firewall of China will be in OUR future