Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

[DK]

"Hey fellas, those little brats have been ribbing us on Twitter! How do we get back at them?"

 

[TexRex]

I'm not convinced doing away with net neutrality breaks the internet, but how does doing so save it?

 

[Danoff]

No posts in this thread for a year! (sorry to break the streak).

So what's going on with this? Any updates? I haven't seen the internet crumble yet.

 

[randys]

sigh

 

[TenEightyOne]

Good FAQ on the current state of affairs.

 

[Jordan]

I haven't seen the internet crumble yet.

It is starting, you just haven't noticed it yet. And you probably won't until it is too late.

Of course, I haven't seen all the new ISPs that you predicted would flood the market offering faster, cheaper, "neutral" service yet, either. Nor have I seen the large, incumbent providers spending vast amounts of money to improve services — probably because they have been doing exactly the opposite:

"Remember when Ajit Pai said killing net neutrality would boost network investment? Yeah... about that..."

None of that changes the fact that Ajit Pai and a chorus of telecom industry sycophants repeatedly misled the public and Congress about the net benefits of their historically-unpopular policies. Repeatedly. Now, we're left with the end result; a coalition of natural monopolies with even less competition or accountability than ever, eager to get to work not on investing back into the network, but extracting higher and higher consumer and competitor costs courtesy of limited competition.

"Comcast network investment drops despite repeated claims killing net neutrality would trigger investment wave"

[We are] facing the one-two punch of little broadband competition and little real oversight of a growing natural monopoly, Comcast and other ISPs did what everybody knew they'd do, pass that savings on to investors and executives, instead of shoring up their networks or historically terrible customer support. All while raising rates higher and higher. And, oh, laying off employees despite nabbing billions in both Trump era tax cuts and regulatory favors, the financial impact of the latter is largely incalculable.

Thankfully, net neutrality efforts from some states like California are helping to hold things together, for now:

Comcast complains it will make less money under California's net neutrality law

Some edge providers purchase interconnection from Comcast because "they're afraid without that they have no way of reaching Comcast customers" when the other paths into Comcast's network are congested, Schaeffer said.

Without regulation such as California's, Comcast can delay upgrades in order to let its connections to Cogent become congested, Schaeffer said. To avoid congestion when bandwidth needs to increase, both Comcast and Cogent have to upgrade the ports that allow traffic to pass between them.

"They reluctantly honor their agreement with Cogent and they do upgrade capacity, but they do it in a very slow manner, and it usually results in some level of congestion," Schaeffer said.

But after California passed its net neutrality law, Comcast "began to turn up those additional ports much more quickly," he said. Comcast accelerated the upgrades nationwide, not just in California, he said.

"I think the importance of California as a state has forced them to modify their performance everywhere," he said.

^ Cogent, the network provider mentioned in this article, has long carried much of the bandwidth for GTPlanet and smaller sites like ours. Without net neutrality, Comcast is freely giving advantaged access to larger companies which pay to connect directly to their networks, leaving GTPlanet/Cogent traffic in the "slow lane". California's rules are forcing them to keep playing fair — for now.

We also got to see a nice example of a canary in the coal mine last year when a small software company (appropriately?) named Panic, which also uses Cogent, discovered that all of their customers who used Comcast were experiencing very slow downloads:

Fortunately, Comcast quickly resolved the issue, but they won't have that incentive when they are unconcerned about saving face in the net neutrality debate. This is a textbook example of how small businesses will be hurt by the lack of net neutrality. We get caught up in the fights between network providers, as big tech companies pay for access to the "fast lanes".

The golden age of an explosion of streaming services that we have experienced over the last few years, with Netflix, Hulu, etc. — enabled by a fair Internet which fosters competition — will also likely be coming to an end as ISPs make it more expensive to access video platforms which are not their own:

"How the new AT&T could bully its way to streaming domination"

Verizon’s unlimited plans, for example, now throttle all video to 480p (about 1.5 Mbps) by default and ban the streaming of 4K video entirely. To receive video streams at their full quality, users have to pony up significantly more cash. Researchers have suggested that this has nothing to do with managing network congestion and everything to do with making additional money.

In the absence of net neutrality rules and FCC oversight, it’s not hard to see how this idea could be expanded and abused. Verizon or AT&T could, for example, throttle Netflix 4K streams specifically, while avoiding any such limitations for its own video services, justifying the discrepancy by implying that their own services simply work more efficiently by design.

As Verizon’s recent throttling and upselling of California firefighters showed, this kind of behavior is far from theoretical. These companies are, historically, fixated on crafting arbitrary and unnecessary limitations consumers, and competitors are then forced to hurdle at ever-escalating cost.

And, now that the FCC has neutered itself as an ISP watchdog (along with abolishing net neutrality), it will get more difficult to know exactly what is going on or understand exactly how things are changing:

Competitors without telecom support could face higher costs and anti-competitive restrictions with only the Federal Trade Commission (whose authority here is extremely limited) to turn to. Without net neutrality’s transparency requirements, ISPs won’t have to clarify the limits of a connection, meaning competitors and consumers alike may not even realize what’s occurring.

Like the boiling frog fable, ISPs are likely to move slowly to minimize consumer backlash and negative media coverage. But the past is filled with examples of ISPs wielding their advantage as network gatekeepers as a bludgeon, and critics say it won’t take long before they use that power to reduce choice, raise rates, and bully their way to the top of the streaming heap.

It is not often that we get to look to the developing world for a glimpse of the future, but Brazil offers us a nice preview:

"WhatsApp skewed Brazilian election, proving social media’s danger to democracy"

Internet access is very expensive in Brazil. A broadband connection can cost up to 15 percent of a household’s income and mobile plans with unlimited data, common in rich countries, are rare.

Instead, mobile carriers entice users by offering “zero rating” plans with free access to specific applications, typically Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. Nearly three-quarters of Brazilian internet users had these prepaid mobile-internet plans in 2016, according to the technology research center CETIC.br.

Most Brazilians therefore have unlimited social media access but very little access to the rest of the internet. This likely explains why 95 percent of all Brazilian internet users say they mostly go online for messaging apps and social media.

Yet the “rest of the internet” is precisely where Brazilians might have verified the political news sent to them on WhatsApp during the 2018 election. Essentially, fact-checking is too expensive for the average Brazilian.

^ This is what it looks like when you give large corporations ultimate control over the Internet and allow them to funnel people into their own walled gardens. Those corporations are not competing on the quality of their service or the features they provide, they just happen to the ones with the deepest pockets who are able to pay the ISPs the most money. This is the type of anti-competitive environment which breeds monopolies.

It is ugly, it is scary, and it is certainly not the "Internet".

 

[Danoff]

It is starting, you just haven't noticed it yet. And you probably won't until it is too late.

Of course, I haven't seen all the new ISPs that you predicted would flood the market offering faster, cheaper, "neutral" service yet, either. Nor have I seen the large, incumbent providers spending vast amounts of money to improve services — probably because they have been doing exactly the opposite:

"Remember when Ajit Pai said killing net neutrality would boost network investment? Yeah... about that..."


"Comcast network investment drops despite repeated claims killing net neutrality would trigger investment wave"


Thankfully, net neutrality efforts from some states like California are helping to hold things together, for now:

Comcast complains it will make less money under California's net neutrality law

^ Cogent, the network provider mentioned in this article, has long carried much of the bandwidth for GTPlanet and smaller sites like ours. Without net neutrality, Comcast is freely giving advantaged access to larger companies which pay to connect directly to their networks, leaving GTPlanet/Cogent traffic in the "slow lane". California's rules are forcing them to keep playing fair — for now.

We also got to see a nice example of a canary in the coal mine last year when a small software company (appropriately?) named Panic, which also uses Cogent, discovered that all of their customers who used Comcast were experiencing very slow downloads:

Fortunately, Comcast quickly resolved the issue, but they won't have that incentive when they are unconcerned about saving face in the net neutrality debate. This is a textbook example of how small businesses will be hurt by the lack of net neutrality. We get caught up in the fights between network providers, as big tech companies pay for access to the "fast lanes".

The golden age of an explosion of streaming services that we have experienced over the last few years, with Netflix, Hulu, etc. — enabled by a fair Internet which fosters competition — will also likely be coming to an end as ISPs make it more expensive to access video platforms which are not their own:

"How the new AT&T could bully its way to streaming domination"


And, now that the FCC has neutered itself as an ISP watchdog (along with abolishing net neutrality), it will get more difficult to know exactly what is going on or understand exactly how things are changing:



It is not often that we get to look to the developing world for a glimpse of the future, but Brazil offers us a nice preview:

"WhatsApp skewed Brazilian election, proving social media’s danger to democracy"


^ This is what it looks like when you give large corporations ultimate control over the Internet and allow them to funnel people into their own walled gardens. Those corporations are not competing on the quality of their service or the features they provide, they just happen to the ones with the deepest pockets who are able to pay the ISPs the most money. This is the type of anti-competitive environment which breeds monopolies.

It is ugly, it is scary, and it is certainly not the "Internet".

Exactly what I was hoping someone would provide, thank you.

Comcast needs to die. It's a horrible company, and I do not think it can restructure itself internally enough to overcome its complacency. I say this being currently a comcast customer (for one internet line, the other that I'm typing this on is Centurylink). I was kinda excited to try Comcast after leaving Cox in California, but Comcast is worse. If Comcast wants to play throttling games, they'll die much sooner, which is good. I guess I should say that I've noticed Comcast improving in recent years, but I'm not optimistic about it, and progress has been slow.

But I'll note that even in the absence of net neutrality forcing comcast to make sure that Panic was experiencing normal speeds, they fixed the problem. I'm more than a little skeptical then that they somehow sent a secrete corporate memo to squash Panic's speeds. Maybe they did, and then they responded to public outrage, but again I'm seriously doubtful. Or maybe they sent a secret memo to squash Panic just to see if anyone noticed. Again I'm seriously doubtful, Comcast is not exactly the shrewdest company.

I'm glad that folks are out there watching to see if small businesses are being railroaded as everyone said they would. The public response was supposed to have no effect, because presumably Comcast could just thumb their nose and jog on. But it seems to have solved Panic's issue. I'm also happy to see that the net neutrality narrative has changed from "death and destruction immediately" to "they're going to boil us like frogs, slowly and carefully". That seems like progress to me.

Consumers needed the net neutrality discussion to focus their thoughts better on the internet product that they're purchasing. And that has happened, maybe not to the extent that you'd like, but it has certainly happened in a major way. Now more than ever if a company tries to get away with what you suggest (and I think they will in the absence of net neutrality), the market will correct that on its own. Poor business practices create demand.

In terms of the investment to overhaul internet, a lot of companies have rollouts planned for 2019: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/5g-release-date,review-5063.html.

I still fully expect 5G to take over wired connections completely. Wireless coverage is better than wired coverage for broadband right now (as best I can tell at least, in rural Texas which is my usual testing area). With 5G speeds, it will render a large portion of the current wired coverage obsolete.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I still fully expect 5G to take over wired connections completely.

That's only a connection to the ISP though. You can have a 400-lane information highway to your ISP but it means nothing if they're waving the cheap cars through the gate one at a time.

 

[Danoff]

That's only a connection to the ISP though. You can have a 400-lane information highway to your ISP but it means nothing if they're waving the cheap cars through the gate one at a time.

It breaks up (to an extent) the monopoly claims. Right now broadband access is somewhat limited (although not as limited as most people like to pretend). Right now in terms of broadband accessible in my house I can have fiber, cable, satellite, DSL, 4G, and T1. With 4G and T1 being the dregs of the group. The top 2 being single-provider options.

If you live in a rural area, that breakdown can easily end up being just T1 and 4G. 5G easily has to potential to bring multiple carriers (ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon) right to the front of that list alongside fiber. And that improves my situation a bit (I might be inclined to ditch comcast in favor of 5G), but it also can drastically impact the outlook for someone in a rural area.

 

[Pupik]

In terms of the investment to overhaul internet, a lot of companies have rollouts planned for 2019: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/5g-release-date,review-5063.html.

Of course, we didn't really have blanket 4G coverage (90% of populated areas) until 2014...based on the amount of rolling coverage I'd get during typical gallivantry. Even still, there's dead spots near towers, especially those used for emergency services, as well as areas well-shielded from cell and data signals, such as thick concrete structures, metal walls, or anything subterranean.

I have no great hopes for immediate 5G coverage, but every web design group is presently licking their lips for a future that's a half-decade away for the rest of us, and the telecoms and phone manufacturers are whispering louder than necessary on that front.

To future-proof this post, I'm aware I'll be eating my words sometime around 2022-24.

 

[randys]

Thank you Jordan...HOw in the world is anyone taking time out of their day to DEFEND taking away our rights SIGH

 

[Danoff]

Of course, we didn't really have blanket 4G coverage (90% of populated areas) until 2014...based on the amount of rolling coverage I'd get during typical gallantry. Even still, there's dead spots near towers, especially those used for emergency services, as well as areas well-shielded from cell and data signals, such as thick concrete structures, metal walls, or anything subterranean.

I have no great hopes for immediate 5G coverage, but every web design group is presently licking their lips for a future that's a half-decade away for the rest of us, and the telecoms and phone manufacturers are whispering louder than necessary on that front.

To future-proof this post, I'm aware I'll be eating my words sometime around 2022-24.

No of course 5G won't be immediate nation-wide coverage. And as you say, 4G isn't complete right now. What I'm saying is that right now 4G is better than cable, fiber, and high speed DSL in terms of coverage.

Thank you Jordan...HOw in the world is anyone taking time out of their day to DEFEND taking away our rights SIGH

...and what rights are those?

 

[ryzno]

Thank you Jordan...HOw in the world is anyone taking time out of their day to DEFEND taking away our rights SIGH

Internet is a right?

 

[Jordan]

It breaks up (to an extent) the monopoly claims. Right now broadband access is somewhat limited (although not as limited as most people like to pretend). Right now in terms of broadband accessible in my house I can have fiber, cable, satellite, DSL, 4G, and T1. With 4G and T1 being the dregs of the group. The top 2 being single-provider options.

If you live in a rural area, that breakdown can easily end up being just T1 and 4G. 5G easily has to potential to bring multiple carriers (ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon) right to the front of that list alongside fiber. And that improves my situation a bit (I might be inclined to ditch comcast in favor of 5G), but it also can drastically impact the outlook for someone in a rural area.

Unfortunately, 5G will not prevent "last-mile" broadband monopolies, nor will it incentivize providers to offer neutral Internet access.

First, 5G is very exciting technology, but let's be honest: it is glorified WiFi. It operates on high frequencies and has short range (really short range, as in 500 feet). To operate like 3G/4G service, it will require a high-density network of new antennas to be installed in coverage areas, which will need to be connected with a robust fiber-optic network to actually carry all of that data. Although it might not be as expensive as running cable or fiber directly to everyone's homes, make no mistake: it will be difficult and expensive to install and maintain for anyone other than existing telecom providers.

Second, unlike WiFi, 5G frequencies are regulated by governments, so a 5G ISP startup will have to pay for a license to use that spectrum, and those licenses cost billions of dollars. Telecom providers in Italy's recent 5G spectrum auction spent $6.8 billion for access to those frequencies. So, don't expect a flood of mom-and-pop 5G ISPs offering service in rural areas like we did in the 56k dial-up era.

Third, even if you did spend billions for the equipment, the fiber network, and the wireless spectrum to start your own 5G ISP, you have to buy your Internet connection from someone. Guess who your choices are? Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and all the other companies you are trying to compete with. Once your customer's traffic hits their networks, it will be subject to all those same fast and slow lanes. You won't be able to offer that "neutral" service even if you wanted to.

The days of paying for an Internet connection and being able to do whatever you (legally) want with it will soon be over. The speed and quality of your Internet service will no longer be defined by what you are willing to pay your ISP, but what others are willing to pay your ISP. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunately, 5G will not prevent "last-mile" broadband monopolies, nor will it incentivize providers to offer neutral Internet access.

First, 5G is very exciting technology, but let's be honest: it is glorified WiFi. It operates on high frequencies and has short range (really short range, as in 500 feet). To operate like 3G/4G service, it will require a high-density network of new antennas to be installed in coverage areas, which will need to be connected with a robust fiber-optic network to actually carry all of that data. Although it might not be as expensive as running cable or fiber directly to everyone's homes, make no mistake: it will be difficult and expensive to install and maintain for anyone other than existing telecom providers.

Second, unlike WiFi, 5G frequencies are regulated by governments, so a 5G ISP startup will have to pay for a license to use that spectrum, and those licenses cost billions of dollars. Telecom providers in Italy's recent 5G spectrum auction spent $6.8 billion for access to those frequencies. So, don't expect a flood of mom-and-pop 5G ISPs offering service in rural areas like we did in the 56k dial-up era.

Third, even if you did spend billions for the equipment, the fiber network, and the wireless spectrum to start your own 5G ISP, you have to buy your Internet connection from someone. Guess who your choices are? Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and all the other companies you are trying to compete with. Once your customer's traffic hits their networks, it will be subject to all those same fast and slow lanes. You won't be able to offer that "neutral" service even if you wanted to.

The days of paying for an Internet connection and being able to do whatever you (legally) want with it will soon be over. The speed and quality of your Internet service will no longer be defined by what you are willing to pay your ISP, but what others are willing to pay your ISP. It is a sad state of affairs.

I think I might not have been clear about what I see for 5G.

I do see ATT, Verizon, T-mobile, and Sprint playing in that sandbox. I wasn't envisioning random startups creating their own 5G networks (though maybe a few). What 5G brings is a realistic competitor for Comcast, Cox, and others who right now have a pretty strong grasp on residential broadband. At the moment Verizon, T-Mobile etc. are not strong competitors with Comcast for residential broadband. 5G has the potential to change that.

If your very high speed, low-latency residential broadband providers go from Comcast and basically nothing else to suddenly Comcast, ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint, that's a huge gain.

 

[mustafur]

Even still it's a different type of connection, 5G will be fast but it hasn't got the connection stability of fibre and never will, different uses for different purposes.

In Australia one company ran all the lines for our fibre network then leases it out to company's that want to use it(this is solved by making them do so by law) so we have alot of competition in that regard.

 

[Danoff]

Even still it's a different type of connection, 5G will be fast but it hasn't got the connection stability of fibre and never will, different uses for different purposes.

That's not what I would assume. I know people that rely partially on 4G for home internet now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The problem with 5G is that in large-scale rollouts it's not expected to get over 100Mbps, which already falls behind many new fibre installations which have (up to) ten times that speed. The other thing, as I already mentioned, is that they're still a connection to the ISP.

 

[Northstar]

The problem with 5G is that in large-scale rollouts it's not expected to get over 100Mbps, which already falls behind many new fibre installations which have (up to) ten times that speed. The other thing, as I already mentioned, is that they're still a connection to the ISP.

The fiber rollout has been a very slow process, so 5G may be the better option for quite a large portion of the U.S.

 

[Danoff]

The problem with 5G is that in large-scale rollouts it's not expected to get over 100Mbps, which already falls behind many new fibre installations which have (up to) ten times that speed. The other thing, as I already mentioned, is that they're still a connection to the ISP.

Yea gigabit fiber is at my house, and yet I'm not a customer of it because it's too absurdly expensive. 100Mbps definitely qualifies as high speed broadband. The connection to the ISP for 5G is via wireless companies (at least in the models I've seen thus far) which increases customer choice and forces them to compete more directly with each other.

By comparison, T1, which is a real consideration in some rural areas not served by cable, is 1.5mbps. If you are served by cable, and T1 is the alternative, you can see why some people are willing to put up with a lot from their cable company. And you can also see why folks might use 4G if they're not served by cable.

 

[Sander 001]

Trump: State’s rights! (Except when it comes to Net Neutrality. And anything else that goes against plutocracy.)

 

[mustafur]

Yea gigabit fiber is at my house, and yet I'm not a customer of it because it's too absurdly expensive. 100Mbps definitely qualifies as high speed broadband. The connection to the ISP for 5G is via wireless companies (at least in the models I've seen thus far) which increases customer choice and forces them to compete more directly with each other.

By comparison, T1, which is a real consideration in some rural areas not served by cable, is 1.5mbps. If you are served by cable, and T1 is the alternative, you can see why some people are willing to put up with a lot from their cable company. And you can also see why folks might use 4G if they're not served by cable.

100mbps is good but that's just a standard package here(not that expensive) and Australia has consistently had one of the worst internet speeds of any 1st world country since they did comparisons on it.

 

[Danoff]

100mbps is good but that's just a standard package here(not that expensive) and Australia has consistently had one of the worst internet speeds of any 1st world country since they did comparisons on it.

You can get 100mbps from cable here without trying hard. I think mine is close to that. I get 40mbps out of my fiber line, and that's more than enough for what I use it for. That's a gigabit line, but I save the cash because I don't need more. In US cities and small towns, 100 is a pretty easy number to hit from your best internet line (usually cable). It's often not possible to hit with your second best internet line (usually 4G or DSL). I'm lucky to have two providers at my house that can pull that kind of bandwidth. In rural areas,100 may be basically impossible today, especially if you require low latency.