Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter - CNET

[Robert Seastrom]

On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:22 PM, kf4hcw <kf4hcw at lifeatwarp9.com> wrote:

> On 2015-02-11 18:38, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> Agreed 100%.  Please show how any of the proposed regulations
>> accomplish either.
>> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/
> 
>> But the order does reclassify ISPs as common carriers, regulating them under Title II of the Communications Act, the same statute that governs telephone companies. ISPs will not be allowed to block or throttle Internet content, nor will they be allowed to prioritize content in exchange for payments. 
> 
>> Internet providers will be common carriers in their relationships with home Internet and mobile broadband customers; they will also be common carriers in their relationships with companies that deliver content to subscribers over the networks operated by ISPs. That includes online content providers such as Amazon or Netflix.
> 
> more specifically
> 
>> The ban on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization is the biggest takeaway.  “Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices… may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices... [and] may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration—in other words, no ‘fast lanes.’ This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates,” the FCC said. The core provisions of Title II banning “unjust and unreasonable practices” will be used to enforce these rules.
> 
> Which I take to mean, no more charging Netflix for network traversal after I (or other customers) have already paid for Internet access; and no more preferential traversal for players with deeper pockets. Traffic is traffic as long as it's lawful.

Ah yes, the "only one side pays" canard.  OK, I'll be happy to debunk that.  When people talk about "fast lanes" it's a clear sign that they are unclear on what's going on.

Netflix has content which they want to serve to the Internet at large.  Last year they paid Cogent and Level(3) huge amounts of money for bandwidth to serve it out to "the Internet".

Only one small problem:  Cogent and (3) sold more than they had capacity to various eyeball networks and resulted in poor Netflix performance to those eyeball networks.  There was no preferential queueing going on (for a while) but the ports were grossly oversubscribed.  So, perfect "net neutrality", no "fast lanes" as it were.  Only problem is that Cogent's other customers were suffering due to the oversubscribed circuits.  Everyone mocked the late Ted Stevens for his "series of tubes" comment, but he's absolutely correct in this case.

Eventually Cogent put preferential queueing on their interconnections so that their *other* customers' data wasn't adversely affected by Netflix.  Note that Netflix is not a consumer ISP, they're a transit provider.  Existing breach of contract and fraud laws cover what happened between Netflix and them.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-netflixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html

Eventually, the arrangement that was arrived at was that Netflix would connect directly to various and sundry cable companies.  This created a direct contractual arrangement with an enforceable SLA.  No premium paid for fast access; indeed, rumor at conferences is that Netflix got a pretty serious volume discount due to the huge amount of traffic they move.

Cogent cried foul - of course they did; they were getting cut out of their very profitable middle man position.

Netflix cried foul - they wanted the price to be free.

And of course the allegations about preferential treatment for packets for players with deeper pockets flew, but the organization being accused was wrong.  And the credulous tech press (and the media in general) ate it up.  Everyone loves to hate their local cable company.  As a sector, Cable has a lousy rep, and people rank the customer service right down there with Microsoft's. 

But should Netflix's access be free?  I have a blog at http://technotes.seastrom.com.  People read it, meaning they requested the traffic.  By the "no more charging Netflix for network traversal after I (or other customers) have already paid for internet access" rule that you espouse above, any and all eyeball ISPs that I approach for free access to their network ought to be compelled to give it to me for free (they pay for the port, the cross-connect to me in the datacenter, etc).  After all, it is their customers who are requesting the data, right?  Your colo, hosting, and bandwidth for lifeatwarp9.net should be free too, I suppose, since the customers of Comcast, Verizon, and the like have already paid for Internet access - charging you for making the content available is surely double-dipping, yes?

But I digress.  If you read the original material rather than an Ars Technica article, you'll discover that there are no proposed regulations that stifle paid direct interconnect.  And there better not be - when Netflix traffic is over 40% of traffic on an eyeball network at peak hour, direct interconnections are pretty much the only way to accomplish it.


> Also
> 
>> There’s no ban on data caps, but the proposal would let the FCC intervene when caps are used to harm consumers or competitors. Cellular providers have been experimenting with “zero-rating,” letting consumers access certain services without using up their data allotments. AT&T is charging companies for the right to deliver data without counting against customers’ caps; T-Mobile exempts certain music services from caps, but without charging anyone.

Actually, data caps (or at least pay-as-you-go) are something you want.  It's a matter of people like my parents not subsidizing the kid down the street who's a bittorrent maven or the family next door who uses Netflix instead of a babysitter.  Without data caps there's no pushback against tragedy of the commons and run into edge congestion without a directly correlated revenue stream to pay for upgrades.

If I go away for a month and turn off everything in the house, I get a bill from Dominion Virginia Power for $8.  That's the basic service fee to have a 200 amp service in my house connected to the power network.  I want something similar for my Internet.  1 gigabit symmetric is sort of the Internet equivalent of a 200 amp service.  

I want to pay for every byte I move on that network, just like I pay for every kilowatt-hour that I suck down from the power grid.  Unless I'm in the 15% or so of people who account for 90% of the traffic on the network, with a revenue-neutral pricing model I'll pay less every month for such an arrangement.  Those folks, well, their bill will go up.  In some cases by a lot.  It's the equitable and just thing to have happen.

> However, watch out for:
> 
>> Possible loophole? “Reasonable network management”
>> 
>> Net neutrality advocates have worried that exceptions to anti-discrimination rules would render them meaningless. Wheeler is allowing for “reasonable network management,” which “recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.”

"Reasonable network management" also involves setting your cablemodem to allow 20.25 Mbps of download speed if you've paid for 20 Mbps instead of running it wide open.  Contractual enforcement, command and control, etc are all under that rubric.

But to the point of it being a big loophole, if you buy that, then you also must agree that at the end of the day, the proposed neutrality regulations accomplish nothing.


> ... and for the possibility of competition ...
> 
>> Google gets what it wanted: Pole access
>> 
>> Google asked the FCC to enforce Title II rules guaranteeing access to poles, rights-of-way, and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, making it easier for Google Fiber to enter new markets. The FCC said it would enforce the part of Title II that “ensures fair access to poles and conduits” to help new broadband providers.
>> 
> 
> I'm sure that all of this will get twisted in a zillion bad ways, but it does seem headed in the right direction.

Google has had no problem getting pole access and buried cable easements in the communities it has deigned to grace with its presence.  In fact, those communities have subsidized Google enormously, in many cases not only giving away pole access at below market value (or free) but providing technical space, power, and cooling gratis as well.  Nice deal if you can get it eh?

Note that they have been getting this since 2011 without any kind of Title II threat from the FCC.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Note that I don't think that Google Fiber is going to be particularly widespread anytime soon.  Google has a ton of money behind it and can afford to put a ton more behind it.  Capital funding isn't the issue in this case.  The deeper problem is that in any successful business model, the product has to stand on its own two feet and not depend on cross-subsidies.  There's a *reason* that competition hasn't emerged naturally, and that's that overbuilds are incredibly expensive and the take rate is sufficiently low that they can only work out economically (even on paper) when the population density is extremely high.  You find Comcast + RCN or Comcast + FiOS in the city.  You *occasionally* find Comcast + FiOS in the small towns and suburbs but it's rare.  Get out further into the suburbs and countryside and you're lucky to have one terrestrial broadband provider, let alone an overbuild.

The economics are all about homes passed and take rate.  As my friend Vijay says, "Excel will tell you what to do".

I'll be happy to expound further on this if folks are interested.  It's political and economic not technical, but I could make it the focus of a Thursday night talk if asked.

-r