The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
81

If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it...

...and that would be fine as at that point we're talking about traffic exchanged between two transit providers, i.e. Level3 providing transit for Comcast and Cogent providing transit for Netflix. Settlement free peering and traffic ratios between transit AS's for these two respective parties is a different ball of wax from those some concepts in direct peering between the content provider and eyeball network.

Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic that Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get to charge Netflix for a private peering relationship that's beneficial to both sides.

82

If done on a cost-recovery basis (alternating or otherwise), the net cost to both providers should be small, well within the of the boundaries of a standard cost of doing business. That argument also seems to be overlooked by people in the "Yes, $ISP should be able to charge both customers and content providers for the same traffic" camp.

jms

83

Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center operation profitable, or at least break-even). This should be taken more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to the Department of Redundancy Department.

Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball customer is paying for their transit. But the content provider is further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is making money off of the eyeball network's pipes. Think like a businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.

Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.

84

Here we go again!

There is more than one commonly used meaning for "common carriers".

There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US
Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently
amended by...blah blah blah.

And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to
trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which
basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in "COMMON
CARRIAGE".

They can't be assumed to know what (or who for that matter) they are
carrying for a fee -- when they don't. Obviously if one can prove they
did or should have known that's an exception.

So therefore shouldn't be assumed responsible for the contents if
illegal or whatever.

And not dragged into civil lawsuits if, e.g., someone claims that
carrying the package caused harm unless perhaps the carrier threw it
at the head of the recipient in which case they'd probably be
culpable.

Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they
provide their service to the public without discrimination other than
ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone --
e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's
"before" picture in a nutrisystem ad. The details of that of course
have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law
and regulation.

SOOOOO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier
without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and
subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.)

ISPs don't in general have knowledge of the contents of the data they
carry except when you can prove that they did which is generally
assumed to be the exception or as a result of being served proper
notice.

  But I thought we agreed on all those terms in 1991 on the com-priv
  list? :slight_smile:

IANAL, if you mistake what I said for legal advice or accuracy you are
your own fool. But I don't have to be an animal expert to point out
y'all don't know the difference between a dog and a cat.

85

Barry Shein wrote:

  > > If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
  > > should lose common carrier protections.
  >
  > I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.

Here we go again!

There is more than one commonly used meaning for "common carriers".

There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US
Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently
amended by...blah blah blah.

And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to
trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which
basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in "COMMON
CARRIAGE".

Common AND civil law, and the context within which the 1934 act defines telecommunications carriers.

Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they
provide their service to the public without discrimination other than
ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone --
e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's
"before" picture in a nutrisystem ad. The details of that of course
have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law
and regulation.

SOOOOO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier
without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and
subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.)

And that is the key to all this bunkum about "network neutrality" - it's an issue only because the FCC has made the choice not to treat ISPs (or more precisely IP transport providers) as common carriers, but as "information service providers."

The recent Supreme Court decisions seems to have implied that the FCC has the power to, under current law, to define IP carriers as common carriers, and impose the obligations of common carriage on them. (Note that this does NOT immediately imply that the FCC would have to apply all the regulations and procedures typically associates with, say, telephone carriers.)

All the FCC really has to do is promulgate a rule saying "IP transport is common carriage" - and network neutrality would become a non-issue.

Miles Fidelman

86

However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch.

Jack

87

That's exactly right. But it somehow sounds better to blame it on the bandwidth consumed.

88

Jack Bates wrote:

Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.

However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch.

Which is why many policy oriented folks urge "separation of content from carriage" - i.e., you can't be in both businesses, or at least there needs to be a "Chinese wall" between the two businesses - otherwise the edge providers have both an inherent conflict of interest and a position that allows for monopoly abuse.

The original FCC Computer Inquiry II proscribed just such a separation for the Internet business - but defined the line as being between local loop (e.g., copper) and "information services" - and defined IP transport as an "information service." Great if you're trying to protect the nascent Internet carriers from abuse by Ma Bell (though just try to buy an unbundled local loop these days); not so great for protecting Internet content providers from broadband carriers.

Miles Fidelman

89

The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.

...which turns the eyeball network provider into a gatekeeper. I think
the clearest comment on this so far has been from Kristopher Doyen in the "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" thread, which goes into players abusing their position in the market to extract additional revenue with stuff like this.

Packets are packets are packets; aside from a sense of entitlement, why should the eyeball network provider get "a piece of the action" simply because the packets are revenue-generating for a 3rd party? This incurs a massive additional barrier to entry for any business that depends on the internet for their income, as now their revenue has to not only cover their own overhead and profits but also need to fund additional profits for ANY eyeball network provider that believes they're entitled to a "piece of the action". Why should I subsidize your business?

E.g. I sell a widget on my website. An eyeball network provider's customer visits my website to purchase some widgets. "Hey", says eyeball network operator, "you're making money off of packets traversing my network! Pay up!"

I know I've shifted this a bit from revenue-generating streaming content to a generic e-commerce situation, but how is that different except for the scale of traffic? If the eyeball network provider sees fit to charge Netflix $x/Gbps because of the $y/Gbps that Netflix is making from that traffic, the call on when to charge rests solely with the eyeball network operator. If my widget ecommerce store makes $1000y/Gbps because the traffic is small but revenue high, getting "a piece of the action" could mean $1000x/Gbps because there is more value "per packet".

90

Analysing the effects of vertical integration is often best done by
running structural separation scenarios.

Netflix does not give content to Comcast-transit, it gives it to
Comcast-ISP, this is especially true of cases where a network cache
server is installed inside Comcast-ISP network.

If Comcast-ISP told Netflix to install cache servers at one location,
and then Comcast-ISP uses Comcast-transit to distribute content to all
the cities it serves, it should be Comcast-ISP paying Comcast-transit
for that service.

It could just as well have installed the netflix appliance in every
major city and not have to purchase transit from Comcast-transit.

91

Please list only the meanings that involve "protections" that should be removed.

92

From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>

What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.

I was with you right up til here.

The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO
to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while
limiting the existing path to their own products and those content
providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.

So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...

and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal
from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete
with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated
alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem,
as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which
can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem
supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.

Those are "fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?

They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.

Cheers,
-- jra

93

From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>

What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.

I was with you right up til here.

The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO
to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while
limiting the existing path to their own products and those content
providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.

So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...

and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal
from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete
with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated
alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem,
as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which
can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem
supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.

I don’t explain it, don’t justify it, don’t support it.

Those are “fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?

Carving the pipe up into lanes to begin with is kind of questionable IMHO.
I realize it’s tradition, but if you think about it, it was only necessary
when things were TDM/FDM. Once everything is IP, dividing the IP up among
different TDM/FDM is just a way to take one large fast lane and turn it into
slow lanes (some slower than others, perhaps) where some traffic can be
given preferential treatment.

They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.

Agreed… I thought that’s what I said above.

Owen

94

In Canada, our "net neutrality" rules are called the ITMP, for Internet
Traffic Management Practices which occured as a result of Bell Canada
throttling P2P and then wanting to charge UBB *solely to manage traffic*
(since the UBB rates had nothing to do with costs, they had to do with
moderating usage to reduce congestion).

The ITMP rules as well as section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act
prevent undue preference and basically states thart if if apply an ITMP
(either throttling or UBB) it must be applied evenly to all content.

The apply "evenly" was even argued by the incumbents who stated that
everyonr had to pay the same UBB rate for all access in order to ensure
that the UBB ITMP plays an equal role in moderating usage. (users with
ower UBB rates or with some content exempt would then use mroe of the
network capacity and cause disproporaionate congestion which would hurt
those paying the higher UBB rates)

When an incumbent argues that its *broadcasting* service is on different
capacity and does not cause congestion to the telecom side of things,
then the "broadcasting" service does not have to play by those rules.

In the case of cablecos, their TV service uses different frequencies on
the coax, so they do not affect data transfers.

For Telcos, in the case of Bell, proper use of semantics and propaganda
convinced the CRTC that it FibeTV service was on totally different
network capacity right up to the DSLAM, and since there was no
congestion on the DSL last copper mile, the fact that the two shared the
last mile didn't matter because the congestion happened in the
aggregation network where FibeTV was already on a separate network.

So both cablecos and telcos get their wireline "broadcasting" execpt
from the net neutrality rules in Canada.

Currently, there is a complaint about wireless TV where the incumbents
do not charge UBB for their own TV service, while charging UBB for
competing services such as Netflix, or accessing content from a TV
station's web site etc. In the last round, they basically admitted that
in the case of wireless, those service co-exist with other internet
traffic on the same pipe to the handsets.

The TV on mobile phones is the first true test of "network neutrality"
under the 2009 ITMP rules. Previous complaints had to do with fautly
throttling which singled out certain applications like games.

The Mobile TV service is one where the incumbents give their own TV
service an undue preference.

Bell Canada argues that because their TV service is "broadcasting", it
is under a different law (Boradcasting Act) and not bound by ITMP rules.

95

It was pointed out privately to me that I may
have caused some confusion here with my
variable substitution. $BB_provider was
intended to be "BroadBand provider", *not*
"BackBone provider", as some people have
(understandably) misread it. So--to clarify,
this was not meant as any type of characterization
of backbone providers, but rather of broadband
providers.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Thanks!

Matt