Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/28/09
10/28/09
Call me paranoid, but spam finds its way through places. #voice
10/28/09
10/28/09
Tiered pricing is bullshit: Google, Last.Fm, everyone who has a website or presence on the internet Already Pays for Their Own Bandwidth! No one is getting a free ride through any ISP's network.
You already pay for your own bandwidth! You buy bandwidth that has no restrictions on where you go or how you use it.
Now, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, all the major douches, want you and everyone with a web presence, to pay twice. Pay for bandwidth to the ISP's data center/colo, then pay again for bandwidth from the ISP to the website. Doesn't make sense? No shit. You pay to get to Google and Google pays to get to you, yet that is simply not enough for these assholes who need to make record profits every quarter for the poor investors. They need to put up a toll booth on the bridge and you pay a fee to get past it.
So you'll pay to reach any website that isn't hosted on a server at your ISP. Even though you and the website are both already paying to be able to reach each other. So, awesome, you can get to Google! Have fun paying out the ass to open the websites your search turns up! Because they didn't pay to host at your ISP, and you didn't sign up for the "access to 25 small business/individual websites" package for an additional $15/mo.
All of you that are calling bunk or disbelieving, this has been going on for years, and it will be the end of the internet if you don't pull your heads out of the sand and get educated!
What Net Neutrality is REALLY About:
[www.dslreports.com] #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
First, we should acknowledge that the cheaper service options will probably appeal to some people. My father, for example, is an AOL user and rarely travels outside that ecosystem. He and other basic Net browsers may be quite happy paying less for less service. Don't assume your level of browsing is the same as everyone else's.
Second, what do you think will happen when a limited-tier user gets a link in an e-mail from a close friend, a link to a site outside her tiered service? She'll click on it and Rotten Prick ISP will intercept the connection and tell her she'll need to upgrade her service to access the site. How many times do you think that'll happen before the user gets frustrated and starts demanding an everything-goes access plan? Multiply that by everyone else irritated by the limits.
Suddenly, the interconnectedness of the Net reasserts itself through the end users who don't want to figure out which websites are allowed and which ones aren't. Who wants to wait for the SocialNet upgrade to include the next big thing once Facebook fades away? Who wants to have to install software to parse links to tell you ahead of time that THIS is allowed while THAT isn't? What ISP admins, financial accountants, and sales managers want to deal with sorting, analyzing, checking, ranking, packaging, and adjusting the service plans for the hundreds of new websites that appear each day?
Fewer and fewer people, I'd say. All-in-one packages make the most sense for Net access because you have no idea where your browsing will take you each day.
Speaking practically, I doubt this finely-grained nightmare tier scenario would last long. Think of the competitive advantages to ISPs who didn't adopt tiered service plans? They'd have their PR practically written for them ("Sick of wondering what website is allowed THIS WEEK? Tired of inconsistent download speeds because your Internet service provider plays favorites? Switch to XYZ ISP, where one price is all you need for the whole Internet, at the same high speed.") #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
agreed. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
I'm saying that:
1) Opponents of NN should acknowledge that ISPs may implement the type of plan featured in the graphic above.
2) That type of service is not necessarily a doomsday scenario for some users.
3) The nature of the Net means tiered access will result in increasingly frustrated users who will ask for more freedom to browse.
4) A tiered access system will spawn competition explicitly offering flat-rate, all-access plans.
Therefore, using the state to force Net businesses to operate according to your values is not only wrong, but ultimately not a necessary as some think.
My core argument against NN is contained here: [gizmodo.com] #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
And I don't think it's that over the top... it'd only take some time, a bunch of excuses and lots of small changes.
We've seen it happening on other stuff like cellphone and cable plans, it wouldn't take much for ISPs to do the exact same thing.
They'd start with some excuse of lowering the prices for people who don't use Internet too much, saying it's unfair for them to pay full price, but what would really be happening is unfair pricing for all. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
So regulating ISPs accomplishes what exactly? #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Currently TV works because it is multicast over satellite, peered locally, and rebroadcast. The net needs to work the same way.
The masses by and large do not understand that the net is point to point and satellite is multicast.
Right now, the net has to be something like 10-20x more expensive for 1/3rd of the quality.
We'll get there, I just think we are all jumping the gun here and we all need to keep in mind that much has to change before VOD (or live) over the net makes real sense and HD is at an acceptable level (720+).
10/28/09
TV doesn't 'work' because it is delivered over satellite. Thats just for delivery to the hubs, MSOs, and cable distribution points. That could easily be moved to the network backbone.
The end of the wire we are discussing here is for all intents and purposes a direct connected network of unicast (althought not unique) connections called cable. Your cable company is ALREADY moving to IP based delivery and Verizon/AT&T have been IP all along. Your current STB probably has a VLAN IP connection as it stands. The next generation of cable termination equipment is not only IP based, it has rate shaping, and high levels of stream management.
Your understanding of television, its infrastructure, cable, and satellite delivery is outdated. It will change, it is already changing, and the only thing standing in the way of us all doing a complete reboot to 90's error cable subscriptions is net neutrality. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
1) What does net neutrality have to do with IP based delivery of tv programming by your cable provider? There needs to be net neutrality for this to happen?
2) The delivery networks for VOD are in place and in most areas they are IP, but the content owner still has control over how that content is provided (live or VOD). Is that not the case? Does net neutrality let ISPs rebroadcast whatever they want without dealing with the content creators (the networks in this case I guess)?
I don't argue that the distribution of live and vod programming is already in place in most areas, that isn't where I was going. I was talking about the limitations on the existing system. The existing system makes it cost prohibitive for Hulu (just for example) to stream programming to the masses when a cheaper solution is already in place.
I don't understand your point at all. How is net neutrality going to make all of the content on the web (video that is) appear on my cable provider’s distribution network?
As far as my knowledge goes, it's not a question of that (I worked in vsat for over 5 years), I think we are just looking at things in a different way. I'm looking at it as consumer through ISP to content provider as to where I think you are looking at it like the current cable model is.
That is what I meant by peered. The provider peering the content (peering more than likely was a poor choice of words)... I was also talking about access to sites like Hulu which again, financially can't stream to tens of millions of people on their own.
10/28/09
1. What does IP delivery of television have to do with net neutrality
All I was really pointing out was that your analogy doesn't really fit.
In direct response to your statement that it is a pipedream and we have to wait for peering agreements I am pointing out that its not a pipe dream and the technology will already be in place if net neutrality loses out. This in turn creates a pay-per carriage service where those that have money can usurp the bandwidth from those that do not. The cable company can put premiums on popular content because they can and basically because that is how they think. When they move from the traditional cable system to what is coming, there will be no difference for them between traditional television and alternative, content such as Hulu (or whatever). My point is that the work that is going on today paves the way if we lose net neutrality. It could happen faster than you think.
2. Content owners control distribution.
Not really, they control it at the highest levels (distribution contracts) but the technology is beyond the scope of their agreements and in some cases they would want the plausibile deniability of having someone else take care of it. AS LONG AS the minimum requirements are met with regard to security and access for things like localized advertising.
3. Hulu doesn't scale/isn't profitable.
Only because it is centrally delivered (CDN aside) and has to carry the burden of all delivery costs. As soon as there is money to support those costs at the various stages of the delivery pipeline via prioritized content and subscription services it will convert from cost center to profit center *instantly*.
To put it simply.
Your television provider is your ISP (in the vast majority of case). Even if they are not, they probably control the bandwidth of your ISP at some level (see the monopoly of Bell and Rogers in Canada).
Their mentality is simple, build a service nobody wants (really) and carge the minimum for it, but put premiums on everything else. In the move to IP based television delivery this means that all content whether it is live television, VOD, or internet content will be part of the same system and that's where their culture overlaps with this new technology and the access that we enjoy today is at risk.
Net Neutrality is important in this because it is a placeholder for the free access (bandwidth) you use for what is important to you, not what the cable company or the content owners wants to reserve it for (there is finite bandwidth). It keeps the playing field level for everyone. It means that you have equal and fair access to content which cannot afford to be part of this 'system' of prioritized content.
Left in the hands of the cable operators who really are the last mile, the entire system could become one big pay-per-use system and that is 'not a good thing'. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Either which way, we are on the same side, but we just have a different view on how we would get to the end result (the bad result that is). #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
a 3mb mp3 would cost you $750. you might want to rethink your proposal. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
Time to call up Mrs. Brady. The general public needs some informin'. #fcctvairwavesmobilebroadband
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
The 'free market' is very analogous to natural selection. In natural selection, parasites do very, very well. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
Seems to me, this would be a giant fucking red target painted on the backs of the ISPs, just begging people to fuck with their setup and try and get around it. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
(I might be totally misunderstanding something here, so correct me if I'm wrong.) #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
That is why this picture is fun, but stupid. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Tell me how it works out for you. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
You seriously think an ISP could get away with this in today's market?
Hint: If they could, why haven't any of them tried it, given that we all acknowledge them to be profiteering scum? #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Only one of those options allows you to be completely free of any existing ISP and circumvent their new model. Don't think that if you try and set up another ISP and piggy back off their lines that they won't catch on to what you're doing. And laying your own lines, is extremely expensive. You have equipment costs, construction permits, deals to work out with city officials, labor, etc. So, while this chart is alarmist and over-the-top and should not be taken seriously, do you seriously think you could build a new ISP from the ground up? #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
There are communities out there that have done this. There are WISPs all over rural America. If the business case is competing with $80 internet, I think you can overcome some hurdles. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
But why regulate something that isn't a problem? Shit, you might as well say we oughta have regulations that say ISPs can't discriminate and not provide service to short people. Have a compelling poster about how the internet will be lopsided because it will be nothing but tall people. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
If net neutrality falls, this could become a possibility. How's your TV service coming along? I've been looking for one that lets me get Showtime and HBO for the same price as the basic stations. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
They're called anti-discrimination laws. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
TV service is different. You won't get HBO for the price of basic stations because HBO charges your CATV provider for each subscription, and your CATV provider is passing that on to you--probably with a slight mark up. I can't roll my own CATV because I'm still going to get charged by HBO to deliver that package to you.
So, if Hulu was charging your ISP for allowing your ISP's end users access to Hulu, you might have a comparison. Right now you don't. For better or worse, right now if I roll my own ISP, I can deliver you Hulu with no mark up. So, yes, I can compete with this tiered offering.
@Mark Kent: When the government should regulate is sort of the crux of the issue. If there isn't a problem to be solved, I firmly believe no regulations are appropriate. Regulations have unintended consequences. For example, in another thread on this topic I mentioned a "family friendly" ISP. Say I want to offer a pron-free internet to people and they are willing to pay for that, instead of installing net nanny software on all their kids machines. I advertise I'll filter the 'net before it gets to your house. I can't under net neutrality rules. Why should that be illegal? #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
@danielgonzales01: You're shitting me, right? So all those signs at the amusement park that say "you must be this high to ride this rollercoaster" are, like, unconstitutional or something?
That's funny. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Are you really that dense? #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
So, WTF? Try reading the relevant posts before you accuse people of being dense. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
Like I said, dense. #netneutralitychart
10/29/09
10/29/09
There is currently no federal law prohibiting discrimination against height. There is one state--MI--that has a statute on height discrimination. There are two municipalities--Santa Cruz and San Francisco--that have local ordinances to that effect.
So, it is generally NOT illegal to discriminate against height. Nor, I might note, is there some principle in the existing discrimination laws that creates exceptions for safety (yeah, that Wilson's Big and Tall shop in your local mall doesn't carry short people's clothes for *safety* reasons).
So, you can pretty much suck my sweaty balls you incompetent, uneducated little shit. #netneutralitychart
10/29/09
10/30/09
Well, we also know what you are: a self-important douchebag. Enjoy taking everything way too fucking and way too fucking seriously. Do you seriously spend this much time on week-old threads? You don't have anything better to do than spurt out insults to people you know nothing about? Grow the fuck up. #netneutralitychart
10/30/09
You're pathetic. #netneutralitychart