the "net neutrality" FCC Court decision thread, I have no idea about this stuff

[gunsmith]

On drudge today, big headline about FCC losing court decision on internet controls.
I cant make heads or tails. Educate me?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

[AZRedhawk44]

ISP's have the ability to "throttle" certain types of bandwidth.

Bittorrent (peer to peer) type traffic is semi-viral in nature and ISP's do not design their networks to optimize bandwidth for P2P communication like this.  If left unchecked, you will have congestion getting out of your city.

Obama's FCC wanted to mandate that ISP's must be indiscriminate in their provisioning of bandwidth.  They cannot differentiate between P2P traffic, FTP traffic, VPN traffic or routine HTTP traffic like this site.

The ISP's, backed by the computing industry and MPAA/RIAA, contend that they have a right to do whatever they want with their provided bandwidth as long as the customer signs an agreement specifying so.  Most of the industry hates P2P traffic because it inherently is the nesting grounds of software piracy and music trading along with the bleeding-edge frontier software for communication between people.

I'm split on it, myself.  I like P2P networks and hate Cox/ComCast/etc getting involved in throttling bandwidth.  But, I like my net access to work properly and have gluttonous amounts of bandwidth for me to consume immediately.  If the only way to do that is to throttle P2P... well... so be it.  As long as they don't flat-out disable the stuff, then that's fine.

[gunsmith]

They cannot differentiate between P2P traffic, FTP traffic, VPN traffic or routine HTTP traffic like this site.

uhh, what? I have no idea, really.  shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?
Man, I am so far behind in this stuff and I once used to install modems for a cable company

[mtnbkr]

uhh, what? I have no idea, really.  shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?

Not always.

I agree with the Govt's side on this.  One person's abuse is another person's legitimate use.  P2P, for example, has business uses just like it has illegitimate uses.  Rather than throttle bandwidth based on type of traffic, users should be restricted to the contracted bandwidth and nothing more.  

That said, iirc, part of the issue in this debate is that ISPs are also being held responsible for the user content that flows across their networks.  You can't have both.  Either ISPs are responsible, yet can affect controls of their networks, or they aren't responsible for content they don't originate and can't affect controls of such.  

Chris

[RevDisk]

Not always.

I agree with the Govt's side on this.  One person's abuse is another person's legitimate use.  P2P, for example, has business uses just like it has illegitimate uses.  Rather than throttle bandwidth based on type of traffic, users should be restricted to the contracted bandwidth and nothing more.  

That said, iirc, part of the issue in this debate is that ISPs are also being held responsible for the user content that flows across their networks.  You can't have both.  Either ISPs are responsible, yet can affect controls of their networks, or they aren't responsible for content they don't originate and can't affect controls of such.  

Chris

I'm pissed at the government.  Comcast was not "traffic shaping" in a passive sense.  They were injecting forged packets into data streams.  It happened that these were the technical equivalent of inserting "I'm done talking" (for the geeks, TCP RST packets) into communication traffic. 

That's not traffic management, that's intentionally and maliciously interfering with private communications which should get Comcast's common carrier status yanked.  Potentially felony wiretap, as that is deep packet inspection.  Unfortunately, FCC tried to make it a Net Neutrality issue instead of "illegal wiretapping" like they should have.  Given "other concerns" (STELLAR WIND), I know exactly why they would not do so. 


Back onto Net Neutrality
 
Net Neutrality is an attempt to prevent Balkanization of the internet.  Opponents to net neutral want deep packet inspection in order to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and institute bundling.  All while maintaining the legal safe habor provisions of being a "common carrier."  Common carriers are just that, they carry anything without knowing the contents and are not liable for what they are transporting.  In short, opponents of Net Neutrality don't want to go to jail for transporting child porn but they want to legally institute extortion and racketeering.  If Net Neutrality is not maintained, there would be nothing stopping (PURE HYPOTHETICAL) Comcast, Verizon, etc from shaking down internet vendors.  Comcast could tell Google, Amazon, etc "Pay us X dollars or we throttle all of our traffic to your servers to 1 bit per second." 

There is a very bloody quick way of enforcing net neutrality.  The FCC make it a policy that if you do not abid by net neutrality, you lose your immunity under Common Carrier."  First time a freak is nailed downloading child porn, you arrest the senior executives of his ISP for distribution charges if they are not common carriers.

[RevDisk]

uhh, what? I have no idea, really.  shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?
Man, I am so far behind in this stuff and I once used to install modems for a cable company

Yes and no.  If Comcast does not wish to be a common carrier, they should be allowed to not be a common carrier.  This would mean that they could indeed use their equipment in anyway they wish.  Theoretically including wiretap, if the user consents.  The flip side of this is that they would be responsible for the content crossing their wire.  They would be liable for the child porn, stolen software, pirated music, etc.

If Comcast does wish the legal protection of being a common carrier, they should allow the rules on being a common carrier. 

Comcast wants both worlds.  Legal immunity AND the ability to not be a common carrier.


If you wanted a non-IT example.  Shipping Company International does not open your packages without reason. 

Suppose for a moment, they did want to do so.  Suppose they wanted to charge you $30 for mailing a toy from Toy Company A or $1 from Toy Company B.  (Because Toy Company B is paying Shipping Company a lot of money to do so.)  To enforce this, they'd open every single package, check the product, and bill you accordingly.  Fine, if they want to do that, that is their right.  But if they start transporting illegal goods (illegal porn, pirated goods, etc), they'd be now liable because they're bloody aware of what they're transporting. 

Under the current system, the product inside the box is unknown to them unless you declare the contents.  Because they don't know what is in the box, they cannot be held liable for the contents.  Even if it's a kilo of cocaine.  (Yes, this is oversimplification.) 

In this case, Comcast and other companies want to open your box, check the contents, bill you according to the contents, and still be immune for transporting illegal goods.

[S. Williamson]

If the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?

Nope.  The two companies in the US are ComCast and Cox.

And they're part-owners of each other.

[PTK]

Yep, Bresnan (here in MT) is owned by Comcast. 

[taurusowner]

I use torrents all the time, so I would personally benifit if my ISP could not or would not cap my P2P bandwidth.

BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want.  And I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.

[doczinn]

I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.

This. Precisely this.

[Regolith]

Nope.  The two companies in the US are ComCast and Cox.

And they're part-owners of each other.

There's also Charter and Time Warner cable, along with several regional outfits.  And those are just the cable companies...there are a plethora of different DSL outfits (Verizon, SBC Global, AT&T, etc).

[RevDisk]

I use torrents all the time, so I would personally benifit if my ISP could not or would not cap my P2P bandwidth.

BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want.  And I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.

 

It is not being "statist" to say private companies should not illegally wiretap their customers.  The private company is trying to use the government to take away YOUR rights. 

Is it somehow a violation of libertarian ethics to petition the government NOT to grant government enforced immunity for extortion and wiretapping?

[tyme]

what revdisk said.

[MechAg94]

If they could have addressed it under existing regulations, they should have.  What I don't like is what appears to be a Govt Agency trying to expand their authority without support of a law passed by Congress. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Packet discrimination"

 

Let the market decide, not the government.  If a some providers want to optimize their service by denying problematic types of traffic, and if customers want to use those sorts of networks, then so be it.  If other providers want to offer unlimited and unrestricted access to all types of traffic, and if some customers want to use those sorts of network instead, then so be it.

There's no reason for the government to step in and interfere in either case.

The common carrier thing is a red herring.  Knowing the type of traffic does not mean a carrier knows the content of that traffic.  For instance, Comcast can tell when they're transmitting P2P traffic without knowing whether the content of that P2P is legal content vs kiddie porn vs copyrighted material.

[GigaBuist]

Yeah, RevDisk has pretty much nailed it.  The last-mile providers want their cake and to eat it too.  The guys they buy their bandwidth from aren't trying any of this crap because when they need a bigger network to support what their customers require they build it. The cable and DSL providers would rather come up with creative billing systems than fix the actual problem because it's a select few customer that are gobbling up their bandwidth.

[mtnbkr]

I use torrents all the time, so I would personally benifit if my ISP could not or would not cap my P2P bandwidth.

BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want.  And I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.

There's more to this than any individual's wants regarding Internet access.  If the telcos (including cable companies providing Internet access) are allowed to affect traffic in any way they see fit, this will reach beyond little Timmy downloading pr0n via Bittorrent.  Like I said earlier, some companies use P2P for legitimate purposes.  There is more at stake than merely P2P. 

Of course, if you support Verizon's ability to monitor your calls and disconnect you if you are discussing topics they don't approve of or charge you extra for calling a corporation, then you'll like this.

There's also Charter and Time Warner cable, along with several regional outfits.  And those are just the cable companies...there are a plethora of different DSL outfits (Verizon, SBC Global, AT&T, etc).

Not all areas enjoy such diversity.  Some are doing well to have one realistic choice.

If they could have addressed it under existing regulations, they should have.  What I don't like is what appears to be a Govt Agency trying to expand their authority without support of a law passed by Congress. 

There shouldn't be a need for more legislation.  This should fall under existing telecommunications laws. 

Chris

[Regolith]

Not all areas enjoy such diversity.  Some are doing well to have one realistic choice.

That's true, but the person I quoted stated that Comcast and Cox were the ONLY companies in the United States.  That's false.

However, most areas have at LEAST three options: cable, DSL, or satellite.  Some areas have more: multiple DSL providers (my area has at least two), wireless, etc.  I think my area has five or six different broadband internet companies, and I'm in a town with less than 12,000 or so people, and am at least four hours away from any major city.

So, there IS some competition. 

[mtnbkr]

For instance, Comcast can tell when they're transmitting P2P traffic without knowing whether the content of that P2P is legal content vs kiddie porn vs copyrighted material.

They also don't know the purpose, which makes throttling on basis of traffic type so wrong.  Not everyone using P2P is a kid downloading the latest new releases. 

I ran into similar problems several years ago when I was running a managed VPN service for my company (a well known telco).  Comcast customers couldn't use the service for telecommuting because Comcast would block IPSEC packets based on the assumption the person was trying to run a business out of their home.  They would block the traffic and sometimes silently upgrade them to a business class service for several times the cost of the consumer level service.  At the time, many didn't have multiple ISP choices when it came to broadband service. 

Chris

[GigaBuist]

There's no reason for the government to step in and interfere in either case.

Are we forgetting that the cable and phone companies have monopolies on usage of their lines that are placed on public space?  You aren't exactly free to chop down that utility pole in your front yard, are you?

The common carrier thing is a red herring.  Knowing the type of traffic does not mean a carrier knows the content of that traffic.

Incorrect. IP packets are simply an envelope on the outer layer describing where the information is coming from, where it's going to, and some various control bits for data recovery in the case of TCP.  They have to open the envelope up to find out if it's P2P distributed network communications.

[mtnbkr]

However, most areas have at LEAST three options: cable, DSL, or satellite.  Some areas have more: multiple DSL providers (my area has at least two), wireless, etc.  I think my area has five or six different broadband internet companies, and I'm in a town with less than 12,000 or so people, and am at least four hours away from any major city.
So, there IS some competition.  

I bet many of those DSL companies all buy their bandwidth from the same company and are subject to its limits.  It's remarkably easy to set up a DSLAM at your local exchange.  If you can foot the bill for the DSLAM and bandwidth, you too can become a DSL provider.  I've known people to do just that in order to bring DSL to their neighborhood, then sell the excess to neighbors to recoup the cost.  Kind of how folks used to share a T1 back in the day...

Edit to add: Wireless and Satellite aren't options depending on what you are trying to do.  The built-in lag associated with satellite ensures some apps won't work or work poorly.

Chris

[GigaBuist]

Oh, and this isn't just about P2P stuff either.  They want the right to charge companies like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc. for letting their customers communicate with them.  I don't see how that's defensible.

[mtnbkr]

Oh, and this isn't just about P2P stuff either.  They want the right to charge companies like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc. for letting their customers communicate with them.  I don't see how that's defensible.

Yup.  There are many ways this can play out, from blocking/restricting other companies (google, amazon, competing companies),  to redirects, to content filtering ala China.

Trivially easy and all activities we'd protest if it were Ma Bell doing it to your telephone.

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They also don't know the purpose, which makes throttling on basis of traffic type so wrong.  Not everyone using P2P is a kid downloading the latest new releases.  

The purpose of the traffic is irrelevant.  What matters is the affects the traffic has on the network.  Providers should be free to tune their networks as they see fit, and customers should be free to choose networks based on the performance they offer.  

The existing laws do not adequately differentiate protocols from content.  This is a problem.

Are we forgetting that the cable and phone companies have monopolies on usage of their lines that are placed on public space?  You aren't exactly free to chop down that utility pole in your front yard, are you?

Bad analogy.  You don't fully own the land the utility poles live in.  You'd have no more right to chop one of those down than you'd have right to bulldoze your neighbor's house.

Incorrect. IP packets are simply an envelope on the outer layer describing where the information is coming from, where it's going to, and some various control bits for data recovery in the case of TCP.  They have to open the envelope up to find out if it's P2P distributed network communications.

Bad analogy.  IP packets are not an envelope, they do nothing to conceal the content of the communication.  A packet is nothing more than user data in clear-text, accompanied by control info.  

Now, if the user data is encrypted and the provider seeks to break the encryption, then that'd be a problem.  Or if the provider attempted to reconstruct multiple packets worth of data into the full, original content, then view/read/analyze that content, that'd be a problem.  

[mtnbkr]

The purpose of the traffic is irrelevant.  What matters is the affects the traffic has on the network.  Providers should be free to tune their networks as they see fit, and customers should be free to choose networks based on the performance they offer.

This is why most (all maybe?) providers have a tiered structure.  They don't get to choose how their customers use the bandwidth they are paying for.  I pay Verizon $40ish a month for 20mb/5mb (down/up).  That's all the control they have over my content.  If they can't afford to let me use the full pipe I'm paying for, then they should either not sell me that size pipe or raise the price beyond my willingness to pay.  Claiming some types of traffic or some destinations are worse than others is nonsense.

Chris