> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience.
Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery.
> 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with the executive's increased authority over the internet via the FCC?
The FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet. It's trying to establish rules within the authority granted to it by the US Congress.
> 3) The language "lawful content and services" to me seems concerning. Could this be the death of bit torrent?
This does seem concerning, but there's some discussion up the thread about what this likely means. We won't know for sure though until the actual proposed rules are announced. This is more of "announcing an announcement" than anything else.
I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules.
It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.
It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.
The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect is Netflix.
You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts.
However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set around it.
Technically. The problem is that setting the rules so that some providers saturate is functionally equivalent to throttling arbitrarily.
Verizon is setting these rules in a way that can't be reasonably complied with, so they are fully responsible for the outcome. It shouldn't be phrased as if it justifies anything.
That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.
Thanks, I didn't see that in the original announcement so I'm glad it is being covered and I stand corrected. Also, I didn't downvote you and this isn't reddit so lets not complain of downvotes anyway.
I'm not a networking expert so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but those peering terms also specify shortest-exit routing, in which case the 1.8:1 traffic ratio is necessary to ensure that one peer does not do dramatically more "work" in terms of bit-miles.
It seems like Netflix and a consumer ISP are never going to be able to peer with traffic ratio requirements. If the consumer ISP offered best-exit routed settlement-free peering options, though, Netflix could easily comply.
It is my impression that a consumer ISPs refusing to offer settlement-free peering with a best-exit routing policy is apparently charging for access to its customers, not charging for access to its network.
Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery.
> 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with the executive's increased authority over the internet via the FCC?
The FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet. It's trying to establish rules within the authority granted to it by the US Congress.
> 3) The language "lawful content and services" to me seems concerning. Could this be the death of bit torrent?
This does seem concerning, but there's some discussion up the thread about what this likely means. We won't know for sure though until the actual proposed rules are announced. This is more of "announcing an announcement" than anything else.