gconnery 5/2/2014 | 2:37:59 PM
He's clearly assuming we're dumb sheep Okay, so he's a good liar.  The actual proposal on the table makes it clear that he wants nothing to do with an open internet or network neutrality.  The fact that he says a bunch of words that contradict that is irrelevant.  It just means he doesn't like being painted as a stooge.

If there were real competition in the United States, then this wouldn't matter.  Different ISPs could take different approaches and the people would vote with their feet. 

Certainly the "encourage municipal internet" part of this is interesting, though obviously decades away from being material.  And of course it isn't clear the FCC actually has the authority to do this, and will certainly be challenged in court IF AND WHEN they ever actually try anything here.  Which they HAVEN'T yet, despite his words.

I don't trust him.  I don't believe him.  I am very very very unhappy with Obama for breaking his promises on this matter (see http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-what-happened-to-obamas-promised-net-neutrality/ for some nice film clips of Obama the candidate).

Its time for the internet to rise up again.
briandnewby 5/2/2014 | 12:51:21 PM
Re: I guess I don't get it In the end, I think it's simply an approach that people will pay different amounts to access different content.

Today, we pay $40 or so for Internet access and our cost to access each site is the same--bundled, really.

It's sort of the reverse situation with cable TV, whereby users want unbundled cable, but can't get it.  Here, we'd rather have a flat rate (I think, anyway) and we'll have that plus a premium to go to certain sites.

Netflix will be the new HBO, a premium channel on top of the basic Internet bundle. 

It's no different, I think, than the way cable TV works except that you could make a fair argument that there is some censorship or overall information control if sites like Yahoo or Google or branches from them become premium.

Problem is, users paying optionally to get content (paywalls for newspapers) hasn't been that successful, so information providers will like this just as much as video streamers.
Duh! 5/1/2014 | 11:00:09 AM
Re: I guess I don't get it We really ought to stop using this "fast lane on the Information Superhighway" metaphor.  The behavior of a road system in carrying individual cars is completely unlike the behavior of the Internet in carrying a duality of individual packets and flows.  How do you map packet drop policies - tail drop, RED, FRED etc. - to congestion handling on a highway -- artillery pieces at intersections to blow up random cars?  How about TCP slow start and congestion avoidance? 

Once we start thinking about the behavior of the Internet on its own terms, we can start thinking in terms of 25 years of research, standardization and experience in integrated services networks.  We can introduce the notion of "Best Effort Service" into the debate, and explain the while Best Effort is the default service, it is optimized for "Elastic" flows.  These can coexist peacefully with "Inelastic" flows,  using a "Premium" service that includes bandwidth reservation, traffic conditioning, complex scheduling disciplines (like WFQ), and admission control.  It's not a zero-sum game.  In fact, if anything, isolating non-TCP responsive flows from TCP responsive flows will improve the performance of both.

The risk is that admission control policy will either be absent or too permissive, shrinking the "pool" of Best Effort bandwidth to the point that packet loss and variable delay for Best Effort flows become unacceptable.  This is the big challenge for the FCC.  I'm pretty convinced that they can get this right, but also aware that it will be difficult, and that any loopholes will be exploited.

Does this make sense?  And how can it be explained to a non-technical audience?
brookseven 5/1/2014 | 10:12:59 AM
Re: I guess I don't get it Wanlord,

Disney has all kinds of Fast Lane Access...my HD version of that Fast Lane is on channel 724.

wanlord 5/1/2014 | 10:05:58 AM
Re: I guess I don't get it Is Netflix really getting "fast lanes". I don't think so. People are in such an uproar that Netflix will pay Comcast and Verizon for access, but this is not new. It's similar to an Akamai or Velocix putting CDNs in ISP networks. It's another peering relationship. Netflix is popular so it makes sense to have the servers as close to the edge as possible with more bandwidth to avoid negative experiences for customers. The ISP in this case has to support space, power, high speed interfaces, routers, etc., so why is it so wrong for Netflix to pay them? This is not a net neutrality issue, it's how the Internet works. What is popular gets priority.
DOShea 4/30/2014 | 9:20:39 PM
Re: I guess I don't get it For now, it's a lot of talk. I think he's determined to let carriers try to manage themselves through the introduction of premium services, perhaps betting that a lot of people won't notice degradation, or won't complain in large enough numbers.
DanJones 4/30/2014 | 6:53:50 PM
Re: I guess I don't get it Can't wait!!!
briandnewby 4/30/2014 | 6:41:51 PM
Re: I guess I don't get it Easy.  Most can hitchhike on the shoulder, while others go in the fast lanes.  There isn't a quota of how many can be on the highway.  Just for some, it truly is a pathway.
DanJones 4/30/2014 | 6:34:09 PM
I guess I don't get it I guess I don't get it. How can creating "fast lanes" for the Internet result in an "open pathway for all?"

As long as the pathway is open and you can ride down it in your horse and buggy it doesn't matter if others can get barrel past in the fast lane? 

Am I missing something? Seems like a cognitive disconnect to me.