It should be obvious that AT&T's "concerns" are simply a thinly-veiled threat to withhold high-speed access from the citizenry unless they get guarantees that they can manipulate said access with impunity.
The thing is that AT&T and others won't just pack up their broadband monopolies and go home; they'll respond to whatever market conditions the regulatory regime shapes. They can complain all they like, but the citizenry overwhelmingly wants more integrity guarantees for their internet connections.
This sort of threat is akin to a tantrum from a spoiled child.
>AT&T's "concerns" are simply a thinly-veiled threat
I don't even think they are a threat. They're a rhetorical point that their lobbyists and bought and paid for supporters in government are going to drum endlessly leading into the 2016 elections.
-----
Do you remember how Obamacare said you could keep your policy, but it turned out that there were many horrible policies that wouldn't turn a profit if there were better policies with lower prices available from exchanges, so the insurance companies stopped offering them? Obama 'lied'. Just wait for Obamanet, where Obama told everyone that net neutrality would guarantee equal access for everybody, but AT&T couldn't afford to roll out to your town because of the burden of his new regulations. Regulations that didn't exist during the Internet's rise, and if they had existed would have strangled it in it's crib.
It is simply unprofitable to operate under regulations that micromanage every aspect, every packet that is delivered to every home. The rollout of gigabit internet to 2M homes over the past two years (to wealthy/gentrified portions of a few, big, prosperous cities) shows you how wonderful your internet could have been if AT&T could have figured out to make their original plan to roll that same speed out to 100 cities profitable under Obamanet. They couldn't; nobody could - the only reason they rolled out to the 2M households was as an extortion payment because Obama threatened to hold up their acquisition of DirecTV if they wouldn't do what he wanted.
Obama wants to treat every piece of the internet equal[sic] - hardcore child pornography and stolen music should download exactly as fast as your netflix that you paid for downloads to your TV, or your electronic medical records (that keep your family safe) download to your family doctor. That seems like something that should be managed by the technicians and job creators that actually built the networks, and have run the networks since the beginning - maybe they know a little more about your internet than some jerks in Washington that are worried that their fancy wine and cheese magazine website won't download fast enough because no real people want to read it. They don't like what we like, so their socialist instincts kick in, and they get scared that what they like can't survive in the market without cheating (Solyndra!!! Solyndra!!! They're trying to kill us!!!), so they regulate that their things must always have as much of the internet as everybody else's things do, even if nobody has ever visited those websites in so long that when you go there, you get spiderwebs on your keyboard (chortle!)
It's socialism for their internet, but not for yours. When you hear them talking about this 'net neutrality' being 'fair' for everyone, look at all of those people in Brooklyn with their super-fast internet while your netflix is freezing so long that you can make a sandwich before it comes back and ask yourself - is this fair???.
-----
If AT&T weren't confident it had the political support, it would do whatever it was told. It would still be absurdly profitable. Profit levels might even end up being written into the law. AT&T knows that they have all of the Republicans (even the libertarians), they have the head of the FCC, and they have plenty of individual Democrats.
I think it's a good thing because the industry is going to pull out all stops and show all of their cards in order to kill this. We'll know who to target politically and who to support. I have little doubt that they will win, though, and this push will be entirely killed for some legislative procedural reason or in the courts on a technicality. Obama is terrible, always loses because he doesn't actually care, and the only reason he's pushing this is political pandering to people like me.
First, there's quite a difference between unprofitable and less profitable.
Secondly, the internet is a utility. Utilities are regulated because they are essential and because they spawn natural monopolies. Interestingly, the prices I pay AND the service I get for utilities that are recognized as such and regulated (electricity, water, natural gas) are great. Completely the opposite for my cell service and internet. YMMV.
The only way capitalism works is if you have competition. The investment costs are too high, the players have implicit noncompete agreements, and when competition threatens to happen in this area, one player just buys out the other.
Regulation before, the whole monopoly thing, came with rates set based on a rate of return, in exchange, all traffic had to be carried equally - and service had to be provided universally, meaning to every customer in the service footprint.
If we return to that mechanism, it will all work, if we try to do one or the other, nothing will work, meaning, you can't net neutrality it without making internet access a common carrier product, and by setting rates based on a reasonable rate of return.
Local regulation is a far bigger impact on building out a new network than any other single factor - it can take up to two years just to pull a permit to upgrade a cell site cabinet, its an order of magnitude more for something the magnitude of building out even a FTTN network.
The CEO is implicitly claiming here that: a) given the current regulatory environment, the expansion would be profitable (since they're doing it), and b) if net neutrality were passed, there is a serious possibility that it would no longer be profitable.
Net neutrality does not really affect what customers pay. So, there are two possibilities here: the first is that AT&T was planning on shaking down Netflix, Google, et al for peering, in an amount large enough to make the difference between the expansion being profitable or unprofitable. The second possibility is that he is full of hot air and net neutrality would not significantly affect their profit margin.
If Google and Netflix want to use all of the internet and still take all of your money, why shouldn't they pay for it? Under net neutrality they're not allowed to.
Traffic on the modern internet is almost totally unidirectional: it comes from big content providers and goes to consumers. When I pay my ISP for internet, I am paying them for the service of delivering the bits from the content providers to me. The concept of Netflix or Google "using up" all the internet is incoherent, because by the definition of an ISP all the traffic they generate is going to consumers who are paying the ISP and are bandwidth-capped.
Imagine if the major postal service providers decided that, instead of only the sender paying for the package, now both the sender and the receiver have to pay, because they are both "using" the service.
I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with someone being paid twice for the same service, although it comes across as incredibly greedy, but the end effect is that consumers pay more and the ISPs get more profit, because the content providers' costs will be passed on to consumers.
EDIT: There's also no logical reason why the content providers should be paying ISPs for peering. The reverse is equally "logical". You might as well ask why Google and Netflix aren't shaking down ISPs because they provide things that customers want and the ISP would be less desirable without them.
> I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with someone being paid twice for the same service, although it comes across as incredibly greedy, but the end effect is that consumers pay more and the ISPs get more profit, because the content providers' costs will be passed on to consumers.
Well there are obvious conflicts of interest here. Many ISPs are also content providers. E.g. Comcast has xfinity TV streaming which competes pretty directly with Netflix.
So if Netflix has to pay an exorbitant amount to link a server to Comcast but Comcast can stream stuff to their customers basically for free...
Poe's Law strikes again. That argument was intentionally twisted to be maximally confusing and deceptive. The fact that it's working so well in this thread that people feel like they have to respond to it makes me think it'll work on Fox News just as well.
I can't think of a clearer indication that a monopoly needs to be broken up than when they hold the customer hostage after their lobbying doesn't affect legislation to their benefit.
You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure. You only actually have to split it into two companies - one which owns the cables, and the other which runs an ISP.
Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost.
Then you implement a law which says that no ISP may own a last mile, and all last mile infrastructure past and future must be under those terms.
That way, you entirely skip the issue of the cable owners having no competition or incentive to expand, and you have competition between ISPs as well, without tying one to the other. ISP implements throttling? You can use another ISP that uses the exact same neutral last mile.
This is more-or-less what the UK does, with the addition of the no-ISP-may-own-a-last-mile law, which I strongly believe we should implement.
> You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure.
The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs".
And at that time AT&T was split into (for the telephone service parts):
1. The reduced AT&T -- long-distance and some other things
2. The "baby bells" -- local service in different geographical regions.
> Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost.
Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier, covered under Title II until it was reclassified in 2005 (so much of the Title II hand-wringing over Open Internet rules misses the point that consumer internet in the US grew up when the lines were covered by Title II, and it manifestly did not kill innovation.)
> The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs".
Indeed, there were phone companies. It seems obvious now that the breakup was done wrong, but with the technology at the time it likely couldn't have been done how I'd like it to be done today. I over-simplified when I said "you did it wrong".
> Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier
But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be.
> But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be.
The ILECs were permitted to sell to retail customers and required to sell to wholesale customers; and there was preferential treatment (especially around pricing/promotional rates), but it was significantly more competitive than today, and price preferences could have been resolved by narrow regulatory action. Yes, a complete split would be more competitive, but a partial split is probably more likely to go through, and would put us in a much better place.
> Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier, covered under Title II until it was reclassified in 2005 (so much of the Title II hand-wringing over Open Internet rules misses the point that consumer internet in the US grew up when the lines were covered by Title II, and it manifestly did not kill innovation.)
I would hypothesize that a major part of why cable internet blew past DSL in the 2000-2010 time frame was that the latter was regulated under Title II for so long.
The reason why cable internet blew past DSL is that cable internet runs over coaxial cable that was designed to be a radio frequency transmission line and is maintained to deliver video signal, whereas DSL runs over ancient copper pairs that are barely maintained well enough to deliver crappy audio.
Not true--the U.K. has had good success incrementally upgrading their DSL network by pushing fiber closer to the home and using higher-speed DSL technologies that require shorter loop lengths. I actually have an FTTP implementation of FiOS, where we get fiber to each floor and then VDSL2 to each apartment. It delivers a rock-solid 50/15 connection.
This is by far the most sound proposed solution I've seen yet. Unfortunately the current political climate encourage M&A activity for various economic reasons and would consider such a break-up inappropriate (they didn't even float those proposals after the financial collapse which would have been wholly appropriate).
Which from a lobbying/public policy perspective, is often indistinguishable from ATT. They certainly don't act like they view each other as competitors.
AT&T = KiloQuads & Byte Reversals.
Same old song.
Some day they might realize that faster service
leads to empty slots in the mux stream that they can sell.
Seems to me that they're trying to strong arm the government to get what they and all the major ISPs (especially those with media services to offer) into more ways to double dip revenue streams.
It's kind of an odd double edged play, in that trying to purposefully prevent faster internet nationally (to get the gov't to change its tactics) also makes AT&T less competitive at a time that they offer only DSL to most of the country. Guess that since wired data is only 30% [1] of they revenue they make enough money on mobile+voice that they have this potential revenue stream to dwindle in their arrogance? Or are they just knowing that G.Fast [2] and other ways of extending copper will come so they're playing a fiber card more willingly?
Unfortunately enough money is being exchanged between all the major players & politicians that no matter what we won't end up with a clean net neutrality. This is just a public display of that -- it would be infuriating to know the conversations we don't hear about. I'd love to hear someone finally understand that this is making the US less competitive and get it as a proxied issue in the 2016 race.
No, they are seriously expanding fiber. Almost all of their new hires are trained on and working on building out fiber, and minimal resources are devoted to repairing copper. It would be a complete reversal of their strategy to stop expanding fiber (Source: my dad works there).
In that light I think this is just a rhetorical gambit, and the FCC should call the bluff.
It's almost as if AT&T was only planning on rolling out fiber if they could sell it at a premium and effectively end around the cable companies in the next 5 years by replacing traditional TV charges with premium on-demand Netflix/Hulu/Whatever else. That would be a smart move for AT&T, but would be bad for the consumer. Just think, instead of spending $10 for Netflix, you could spend $15-20 to have FAST NETFLIX (and probably other bundled junk you don't care about). Even better, they could bundle internet with netflix with phone with dvr for like $150 a month!!!!! Think of the margin on that!!!!!
Seriously though, it's good that the FCC is looking into this, but I doubt they will do much about it. At some point there is just too much money involved for the "right thing" to happen when it comes to your average consumer/citizen.
Exactly this happened to the monopoly ISP/telco up here in the Yukon, Canada.
When the CRTC announced they were slashing the prices of the telco's proposed "bulk data pipe" products by more than 70%, the telco responded by saying they were no longer going to keep expanding their fiber network to more communities, because "it wouldn't be profitable to do so given this harsh pricing scheme".
There was huge outcry, and everyone pointed out this is exactly the reason a monopoly is bad, because they can hold everyone hostage, etc. etc.
The final result? The CRTC caved, and let the ISP/Telco charge whatever they wanted for the "bulk data pipe" products.
It's not hard at all when the CRTC subsidies said Telco/ISP for tens of millions of dollars annually. The internet products are some of the most expensive in the entire world.[1]
So AT&T threatens by halting their fiber expansion [1] but at the same time they try to beat Google in some fiber race [2]. Isn't Google actually 'enjoying' this news?
I don't think Google really wants to be in the ISP business, I think they just felt that moving into it would be the best way to stimulate the existing ISPs to raise bandwidth and lower prices (on the premise that as an Internet ad company, the more Internet people consume the better Google does).
Which has worked, but only hyper-locally (eg. Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T customers in areas served by Google Fiber get much better deals from those carriers pre-Google Fiber, but the rest of us get just as fucked as always).
Reasoning by analogy ( http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that , "proof by analogy is fraud"), I can't help but compare this to toll roads and roads that are free to drive on. I don't know anyone who likes toll roads or toll bridges, and I grew up in an area where they weren't common: I was a married adult before I actually saw a real toll booth. If the choice is between "toll road" and "non-toll road," then voters always choose a non-toll road. So toll roads are only ever built when the alternative is "no road."
Clearly AT&T and others have the ability to abuse their power over the infrastructure in ways that aren't possible in the world of toll roads. But, fundamentally, why would AT&T upgrade the infrastructure if they can't guarantee they'll get a profit from the improvements? In other words, is the debate really between "net neutrality, with little or no infrastructure improvements" versus "no net neutrality, but the infrastructure gets upgraded regularly?"
For the record: AT&T's current move is a simple strong arm tactic: they were willing to install fiber last month when they had no guarantee of an ability to collect a "toll" over it, the world hasn't changed so much that the project won't turn a profit. But I still think it's a useful question to ask: how do the companies providing infrastructure get paid, and why would they bother upgrading that infrastructure?
Would it not be the case that if ATT ran fiber to my home, they would charge me a fee to connect to it? (And possibly an installation fee to plug it in, and a rental fee for a modem to connect to it, but set those aside.) The point is that each terminus of a fiber is a cash generator, just as each landline telephone connected to ATT's voice network is a cash generator. They would invest in "infrastructure" in order to ensure a long-term flow of small cash payments -- exactly as they did for telephones in the 1920s, just as electrical and gas utilities did in the 1890s.
They have some costs running and maintaining the system. Connection fees aren't enough, of course people pay monthy subscription fees.
Again, I realize there are obvious ways to abuse its control of its network. I'm a big fan of net neutrality, I just want to know that we've considered what the world will look like down the road. And, really, I can see valid reasons to treat different traffic differently. If Netflix wants to send 2GB of data to a person, there is a deadline of how quickly that data should arrive for a good viewing experience. If somebody wants to deliver 2GB of data to an email server, they're probably OK if it takes a while. Then again, under the current system, there's no way to say what kind of latency or throughput data needs. The best AT&T can do is guess based on who the endpoints are.
You know, at first, I really was like "yee yee" when I heard the news about reclassification of broadband as a regulated common carrier. YAH, we're really stickin it to the man in the suit at Comcast and TWC!
It got me thinking... this is like, the nuclear option. Innovation around telephony stagnated. Since everyone and everything was the exact same, there was no need for innovation and competition was pretty much illegal. I'm not so sure I want the same for broadband. I'm starting to think it's not such a good idea.
Ideally, we need some middle ground. TWC shouldn't be able to slow youtube down because it competes with their cable business. Actually no one should be able discriminate based on content, period. We should maybe think about classifying ISPs and Transit providers as official legal terms, and the types of contracts you're allowed to enter depend on what type of business you are.
Anyway, flame away, I know this won't be a popular opinion. But that's my thoughts on the subject currently
If the current "complaint" from ISPs is that a few single sources are hogging all the bandwidth (and their response is to both throttle those services and offer upload speed match promotions[1]), why isn't there a Netflix / YouTube torrent app, where we end users all pass around encrypted traffic to each other that's hard to signature?[2]
Nails that stick up get hammered down. If our favorite services are getting pounded, why don't we all just work together to offer cryptographically obscured asylum?
I haven't figured out why the government doesn't focus on spurring a large increase in competition, rather than trying to shoehorn existing monoliths into a regulatory package that nobody can seem to agree upon. Net neutrality or not, I'd like to see a lot more competition in the market, such that your average consumer has, say, three high quality fixed broadband options.
We're only going to get to universal 1gbps consumer broadband speeds in the next decade with a lot more competition.
Nothing about net neutrality will encourage the sloth telecom companies to boost speeds faster.
Google demonstrated very eloquently that with a slight prod, companies including Comcast will dramatically boost internet speed.
> I haven't figured out why the government doesn't focus on spurring a large increase in competition, rather than trying to shoehorn existing monoliths into a regulatory package that nobody can seem to agree upon.
Spurring a large increase in competition would involve shoehorning the existing monoliths into a regulatory package that would be even harder to agree on that some form of net neutrality -- and would probably include some form of net neutrality to prevent the newly-spurred ISP competitors from having an incentive to consolidate in order to extract rents from a non-neutral internet.
Question: why do we need net neutrality right now? It seems to be pre-emptive legislation. (The ISPs might do something bad, so we need to prevent it.)
I hear a lot of concerns about internet access costs. If that's the true problem, then let's enable more competition. The last thing I want, personally, is an internet provider as innovative as PG&E.
When was the last time an ISP actually truly did something innovative that has stood the test of time outside of offering faster internet speeds? Or multiplexing cable/telephone (aka more delivery of content aka a utility)?
Net Neutrality wouldn't prevent these kind of peering battles. Comcast had the Netflix slow down and it's currently legally required to follow net neutrality.
> Net Neutrality wouldn't prevent these kind of peering battles.
That depends on the specific shape of the rules.
> Comcast had the Netflix slow down and it's currently legally required to follow net neutrality.
Comcast is currently legally required to follow one version of Open Internet rules -- a version that is weaker than many net neutrality advocates preferred.
Yet somehow it did. When you're comcast, it's easier to punish for months on end and muscle $$$ when you already have $$$ to delay consequences via lawyers and politicians. It's not like anyone is going to jail or being shot, so there's no real credible instant threat here to prevent them from acting in their current monopoly form.
And how do you plan to increase competition? The current climate doesn't do that. The barriers to entry are far too great for realistic threats outside of companies like Google that have money to burn.
By regulating the ISP as common carrier, you are actively encouraging competition, by forcing them to lease out the last mile to smaller providers who can give real service and actually have to compete. Net Neutrality is aimed directly at providing more competition on the last mile, where our current providers have failed so badly.
Common carrier designation would freeze our current infrastructure in place for all time. There is no incentive for a company to lay high speed fiber if they are forced to rent that fiber to their competitors at cost.
Why do you think we use cable for our internet and not phone lines? The phone system has been frozen in amber since the 80s. I'd be sad if the same thing happened to my internet pipe.
And how do we increase competition? The federal government could overturn local and state laws that make ISPs so expensive to roll out.
An interesting point.. I had to lookup that cable broadband is an information service and thus not subject to it. CCD was also what helped break up the AT&T monopoly, so it's clear that eliminating that all together isn't a solution either because without it one company still dominated and stopped innovating/competition.
If Obama and many on HN are advocating for net neutrality, which is requiring a shift in the laws, perhaps that also means that CCD is up for change as well.
To me the heart of the matter isn't so much CCD is that ISPs would be treated as their name suggests -- simply a provider of Internet as a utility where packets go through unchanged. That they also own NBC or Hulu starts to complicate issues because their major potential is to multiply those businesses together while strangling alternatives. The opportunity is too great and allowing these mergers in the first place was a terrible idea.
The other issue is how to get them to actually compete in a meaningful way. Where I live, in SF of all places, I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat. That or Google fiber, but it's still pretty nascent. The US is just so big that without a meaningful way for high speeds to get distributed at a local level it's too expensive for anyone to enter. Either we need completely new technologies that allow people to enter at low cost, or we get local gov't somehow involved in facilitating basic infrastructure like water or power.
> I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat
San Francisco is a city where red tape, bureaucracy and the people will not allow another local access provider build.
> Or is the best response to increase competition among ISPs? How many people would choose the ISP that throttles Netflix?
That's really the core problem. Coming from Europe, the US has terrible telecom infrastructure* that is controlled by vertical monopolists. Of course bad things happen then. Cities are difficult about letting companies add infrastructure (it's costly and disruptive to add cables to the ground, it's ugly and disrubtive to add cables to poles), and in some cases the telecom companies themselves have succesfully lobbied to prevent cities/counties/states from building that infrastructure themselves.
Ideally, you'd have a public infrastructure (wire/cable/fiber), that is then leased out at cost to the actual ISPs, kind of like the power industry in texas (wire's public, power plants are private).
But that would be too large a change which of course the existing monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent, as it would break their vertical monopoly.
* and don't people go whining about "ah but rural this and distance that". Even the cities suck.
Customers may not know which ISPs are throttling Netflix. Netflix is stuck in a bind because customers have few if any ISPs to choose from.
In that situation, if Netflix passes on ISP fees for users of that ISP, then the ISPs video offerings get more competitive. ISPs then have incentive to increase the fees even more. The outcome is that customers lose a competitor to good video services in Netflix.
On the other hand, if Netflix hides the ISP fees from their customers and averages it out to all their prices, then that essentially adds onto the costs in general and everybody's Netflix costs go up.
Currently, customers have no direct choice that they can act on which correlates to cost and thus have no feedback mechanism to correct the market to actually make it competitive.
> why do we need net neutrality right now? It seems to be pre-emptive legislation. (The ISPs might do something bad, so we need to prevent it.)
It is not a pre-emptive response to a speculative future threat, but a response to actions that have already occurred. The Open Internet principles underlying the FCC's recent regulatory efforts in that domain were first articulated as principles that would be policy objectives to preserve (but that did not, at that time, need specific direct regulatory enforcement) several years before any direct regulation was attempted. The direct regulation came after several issues in which those principles were violated by ISPs, and in which the FCC had attempted to rein those in based on its ancillary authority rather than specific directed regulation, but failed [1].
The 2010 Open Internet Report and Order -- the first "net neutrality" regulation from the FCC -- was a response to both the violations of the Open Internet principles already occurring and the court decisions preventing the FCC from administratively enforcing those without specific regulation.
It's not pre-emptive. "Toll roads" on the Internet are a reality. It's also not a case of unilateral regulation imposed on a free market. ISPs have their monopolies due to regulation, and have in many cases received public funds. It's not and was never a free market to begin with.
here's a real life example that's happening right now:
tmobile will cap your 4G data on certain plans.
UNLESS you're using that data to access their approved partners.
that's clearly anti-competitive because a new streaming service now needs to negotiate with tmobile to be competitive on top of actually having a better service.
I don't see that as a net neutrality issue, although some who take a stricter view of net neutrality do. You buy a capped plan from T-Mobile, and you can use up to your cap's worth of data anywhere you want, and they don't selective block or throttle your data. Net neutrality, I think, should be about making sure you get what you pay for, free of interference. If an ISP, or anyone else, wants to give you free or reduced cost services beyond that, fine.
Their Music Freedom service gives you extra, free, data for music streaming separate from your plan for many major music streaming sites (and they have said they intend to expand to all legal music streaming sites). If objection is to be raised to that, I think it should be under antitrust, not under net neutrality.
What it comes down to is a question of whether or not an ISP can use their own network to offer services in addition to the service of "general internet connection". I don't see any good reason to disallow this), as long as these services do not interfere with the general internet connection service (and do not run into antitrust issues).
I think this is clearest in the case of cable ISPs. Most of these are also cable TV providers. Almost no one objects that your bandwidth for watching cable broadcast television does not count against any limits on your cable internet bandwidth, even though at the physical layer it is all coming from the same bandwidth pool. They do not have a separate TV cable and a separate internet cable running into your home.
If the cable company decided to use all of the cable bandwidth to run an IP network, and then run their broadcast TV service over that, would we expect them to suddenly start counting your cable TV service against your internet bandwidth usage? I doubt it. TV would still be a separate service from internet access--they just happen to be delivering both over their IP network now.
I see Music Freedom as being similar. T-Mobile runs a mobile device network. It includes an internet data service, and it includes a cellular phone service, and a text messaging service. Those all use the same physical layer (cellular radio), but I believe they have different network layers (and maybe different data link layers?). They are now also offering a service to access music from many streaming music providers. If they had somehow made this run over the cellular phone service part of their network, or the text messaging part, there would be little objection. Hence, I see no reason to object that they are doing it over the IP part of their network--if they keep it from interfering with the general internet access service, than that's just an implementation detail.
I think eventually the cellular voice network and the text messaging network and whatever else they currently run will go away. Each company will run just an IP network, and their logically separate services (telephone, messaging, internet in the case of mobile, and telephone, broadcast TV, internet in the case of cable/fiber) will run over that.
I agree, and indeed the Title II designation currently being pushed is particularly harmful for reasons among those outlined here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-vs-the-internet-1415667... (paywall, search the address on google and click the first result).
Unfortunately it seems the majority of tech-savvy folks and technology freedom organizations like the EFF draw a different conclusion.
I don't really understand what people are getting upset about. Isn't this just a business decision on their part not to invest $XXmillions on deploying out fiber when there's uncertainty about what regulations they will be subjected to?
The big debate around net neutrality is that Comcast throttled Netflix users, but I can't help but think that there's a real cost associated with the massive amounts of bandwidth that hi-def video streaming consumes. If AT&T has no scope to offset that cost to either Netflix or the customer, then doesn't it make perfect sense for them to not deploy this until they know all the details?
Granted, I have absolutely no knowledge about any of this stuff...I'm hoping someone on HN can educate me about why this isn't just a logical business decision, and why I should be upset about this as a whole.
AT&T has said they had plans for fiber expansion in 100 cities, and they have had to halt those plans because of uncertainty over net neutrality regulation. Many suspect that this is simply not true--they never actually had plans in the first place. Hence, the FCC would like to know what plans they have actually halted.
"AT&T has said they had plans for fiber expansion in 100 cities"
At DRLRports.com, this is referred to as "Fiber to the Press Release".
AT&T all but stopped their fiber rollout after the Great Recession started (along with Verizon), all current action is just to try to avoid too much embarrassment from Google Fiber and the like. And of course sooner or later the Net Neutrality dance would give them a convenient excuse to not even pretend to do it.
Right, that massive 4MBit of bandwidth that passes for Netflix HD. I think thats about the state of art in 1970.
Not to mention that the Netflix congestion isn't happening in the last mile, it's at interconnection points that could be trivially upgraded for very, very little money (compared to expanding fiber). Unless they are trying to hide that they have been massively overselling bandwidth to customers, in which case a class lawsuit would probably be in order.
> The big debate around net neutrality is that Comcast throttled Netflix users
That's not so much the big debate as the most recent highly-visible example. When net neutrality first became a point of debate, Netflix didn't even have a streaming service.
Well the main reason the FCC is getting ruffled is because ATT is a licensee and they only operate because the FCC enables it. Without the pull of the US government no company would be able to install cables all across the country. It would be similar to the railroads telling the US government to shove off. They are already bordering on being a utility. It's only a hop, skip, and jump to nationalization if they don't do the government's will.
The thing is that AT&T and others won't just pack up their broadband monopolies and go home; they'll respond to whatever market conditions the regulatory regime shapes. They can complain all they like, but the citizenry overwhelmingly wants more integrity guarantees for their internet connections.
This sort of threat is akin to a tantrum from a spoiled child.