other things you are talking about, those are also not a violation of net neutrality.
It might not be a net neutrality issue in the strictest sense of "not being restricted", but it is one in the sense of "discriminating between content" (i.e. some content is free, but some is not).
However, it is possible to properly meter traffic, as a utility, without doing this. Thus, it's a separate issue.
Just because the ideal is possible does not mean everything else is irrelevant in this discussion... At the very least, you need to answer this question Scott: "Why the hell wouldn't ISPs offer some services without metering, while metering everything else?"
"Why the hellwouldn'tISPs offer some services without metering, while metering everything else?"
They wouldn't dare. The first reason is that they all know WiMax is coming sometime in the next 10 years. When that happens, there will be crazy competition,and the local monpolies will be busted. Second, let's say some ISP decides to deal with Yahoo, and charge more for Google. If I were Google, I would just cut that ISP off. Now nobody wants to be their customer because they can't get to YouTube. They're going to be forced to sell Internet service as a utility whether they like it or not.
Second, let's say some ISP decides to deal with Yahoo, and charge more for Google. If I were Google, I would just cut that ISP off. Now nobody wants to be their customer because they can't get to YouTube. They're going to be forced to sell Internet service as a utility whether they like it or not.
It's not a question of charging more for access to Google. It's about charging less for access to Yahoo.
I said a decent metered system like the one Scott put forward, not one we have seen thus far and may never see. I don't have to look there to see how bad it can be.
Call me crazy, but I prefer to look at reality rather dream up a bunch of wishes. The reality is that Time Warner has set the bar for metered pricing - and the price is insanely high. As long as this is the case, I fear metered pricing and so should you.
The first reason is that they all know WiMax is coming sometime in the next 10 years. When that happens, there will be crazy competition,and the local monpolies will be busted.
Okay, lets say everyone is metering teh internets, and the crazy competition has begun. So, due to the crazy competition, everyone has a similar, not too high (<$1/GB) metering rate. Now, some big company (Yahoo) wants more traffic. So, they make an agreement (involving money, one must assume) with an ISP that their data will not be metered by that ISP. <i>Now their rates for everything else remain competitive, but suddenly they're offering Yahoo for free. EDIT: if you want it quick and easy, then:
It's not a question of charging more for access to Google. It's about charging less for access to Yahoo.
Second, let's say some ISP decides to deal with Yahoo, and charge more for Google. If I were Google, I would just cut that ISP off.
Isn't that yet another violation of network neutrality? Despite that fact, if major content providers were willing to boycott ISPs, that would be the best defense of network neutrality we'd have. However, not very many companies can afford to boycott an ISP in that manner. I'm not sure we can rely on this sort of thing...
So, kids, what do you propose? To maintain flat universal rates, you'll see your monthly prices doubling and tripling. To have true, fair metering, you'll need extensive price regulation imposed by the federal government on ISPs. To see actual local competition, you'll get outrageous price increases to pay for redundant physical infrastructure.
To see actual local competition, you'll get outrageous price increases to pay for redundant physical infrastructure.
Doesn't that sentence contradict itself? It's not competitive if it's expensive.
However, in Australia we have numerous ISPs rolling out DSLAMs for ADSL2+, which allows them to actually compete, and the fact that a reasonable number of them are doing it obviously means it's not as expensive as you imply - though I guess our prices here in Australia aren't all that great, though I do notice that ADSL2+ is generally faster than most of what's in the U.S. (My ISP's pricing, in AUD, which up until now have generally been a bit cheaper than USD).
I find the offerings of my ISP satisfactory, and I don't see them offering any evil metering exclusions, so I can't complain about what we have here in Australia. However, if things are starting to change over there in the U.S., it's only a matter of time before we have issues here. What then? I don't know.
Things are different in the US. The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to bring competition to the telecom industry but all it really did was rape the incumbents who were forced to lease access for at or below cost. When the laws were later changed to force those companies to actually invest in the infrastructure most of them went away. In my area there are only a few companies left with equipment in the local offices. Don't get me started on that!
There really is not competition in the US because of the way the industry is regulated. You can't just say, "I want to offer Internet Access in Manhattan, Los Angeles and Boston." That is called "cherry picking". If you want to service the major metro areas you also have to service East and West Backwoods counties.
In Australia are companies allowed to just service the large metro areas and ignore the small towns in the inner country?
Doesn't that sentence contradict itself? It's not competitive if it's expensive.
You fail to understand. The physical cost of running cables on the local end is enormous. Thus, the local providers have effective monopolies on the "last mile" of cabling. In order to expand this infrastructure, subsidies or increased prices will result, giving the existing provider an massive advantage.
To see actual local competition, you'll get outrageous price increases to pay for redundant physical infrastructure.
This is a problem in the US yes, why the hell can't you make it a proper free market as us? We can dump our current ISP, choose out of several other ISPs and then pay them the moment the modem has arrived and we have plugged it in. All without extra physical infrastructure.
Doesn't that sentence contradict itself? It's not competitive if it's expensive.
You fail to understand. The physical cost of running cables on the local end is enormous. Thus, the local providers have effective monopolies on the "last mile" of cabling. In order to expand this infrastructure, subsidies or increased prices will result, giving the existing provider an massive advantage.
Rym speaks the truth.
Adding a million dollar Cisco router to an office is nothing compared to the cost of laying copper/fiber. Buying the materials is the lowest expense. Once you have the cable to run you may need to get right-of-way agreements and zoning variances. Right now AT&T; in CT is in big shit because they are being sued over the size of the boxes they are hanging on poles.
Hanging a box on a pole means less paperwork. Putting up a cabinet on a concrete platform requires much paperwork and expense.
You also need to factor in all the construction and engineering expenses that come into play whenever you break ground.
This is a problem in the US yes, why the hell can't you make it a proper free market as us? We can dump our current ISP, choose out of several other ISPs and then pay them the moment the modem has arrived and we have plugged it in. All without extra physical infrastructure.
In Australia are companies allowed to just service the large metro areas and ignore the small towns in the inner country?
Basically, yes. Perhaps this is the reason your situation in the U.S. is broken?
Yes.
Recently AT&T; in CT had to fight to be able to offer its Internet TV service. The rules for cable TV in CT are such that you have to wire the entire state before you can sell a single service. These rules came into effect (obviously) long after the incumbent cable franchises were in place. The law is effectively a barrier to entry that is so high that no one will ever launch a competing cable TV service in the state.
If AT&T; were forced to build the complete infrastructure system (state-wide) before signing up a single paying customer the service would never get built.
Ah, I get what you all mean; the monopolisation of the "last mile" of cabling. Sorry, I hadn't really understood. You see, in Australia, we manage to have competition despite this issue, so I hadn't realised this was the problem in question.
However, we haven't had it that long, and it's still a work in progress. Basically, it seems we're only getting competition through regulation.
I'll name the major players here, so you can google them (I could try to give you more info if you're interested, but I need sleep anyways). Telstra owns pretty much the entire last-mile infrastructure here. The ACCC is a regulatory commission that has forced Telstra to enable competition.
Before 2001, Australia's broadband situation was AWFUL. Basically, Telstra was offering wholesale ADSL to other ISPs (I guess this is basically access to the last mile), but the pricing was poor, and hence there was essentially no competition. However, through the attention of the ACCC, essentially starting with this, the situation has improved greatly.
Starting in 2005, many ISPs started rolling out ADSL2+ DSLAMs, which has made for an improvement in service. Telstra had avoided doing this on its own due to anti-competitiveness, but the other ISPs were able to do this on their own since. I guess this is because the only thing required to switch the "last mile" of Telstra's they pay to ADSL2+ is the DSLAM at the exchange and an ADSL2+ modem on the user's end.
Essentially, I guess it's an issue of regulating that "last mile". I know for a fact now that we in Australia would be pretty screwed without some heavy hitting from the regulatory authority. It seems, then, that the regulation in the U.S. is pretty poor. I guess authorities in the U.S. just need to force reasonable resale of use of the "last mile" infrastructure?
This is a problem in the US yes, why the hell can't you make it a proper free market as us? We can dump our current ISP, choose out of several other ISPs and then pay them the moment the modem has arrived and we have plugged it in. All without extra physical infrastructure.
Who owns the wires outside of your house?
The cable companies, who else? Why does that matter Scott?
The cable companies, who else? Why does that matter Scott?
It verymuch matters. In most places, one company owns the physical, local cables. Any service provider must least these cables from them.
That's what happens here, yet still the ISPs here are able to offer high speed internet for very little money. In the case of ADSL over the telephone lines, thanks to the ISPs we now have ADSL2+. From what I gather is that the US companies are apparently freakishly greedy and stupid. So AT&T; owns a shit ton of last mile cable, why aren't they leasing it out to ISPs? Why aren't they using it to make more money?
The cable companies, who else? Why does that matter Scott?
It verymuch matters. In most places, one company owns the physical, local cables. Any service provider must least these cables from them.
Yep. However, in Australia, presumably because of our regulatory body (the ACCC, as I mentioned before), these prices have finally become reasonable. The term we have here is "Line Sharing Service"
LSS (Line Sharing Service) enables a Telstra competitor to use the high frequency part of the phone line to provide ADSL2+ using its own equipment, while Telstra still provides the normal voice service.
ACCC LSS prices The ACCC has forced the price for LSS down to about $2.50 per month.
There is also ULLS (Unconditioned Local Loop Service), which is unconditional acess (both voice and high frequency), now at ~$16 per month. As a result, some ISPs offer both phone and DSL, while others offer naked DSL (no phone service), though it is more expensive by necessity.
I guess I'll say this now - regulation, and I mean tight regulation, of that last mile is an absolute necessity.
So AT&T; owns a shit ton of last mile cable, why aren't they leasing it out to ISPs? Why aren't they using it to make more money?
They are. The problem is that some players in the DSL market don't even want to install their own equipment to hook into the last mile. They want to lease the last mile AND the AT&T; DSLAM itself on a per order basis. They basically just want to be a reseller.
It's kind of like calling "Joe's Pizza" and placing your order. Joe then calls Sal's Pizza next door who actually makes and delivers the pizza after putting it in a box marked "Joe's Pizza". You pay Joe for the pizza and Joe turns around and pays Sal a flat rate equivalent to the cost of making and delivering the pizza with perhaps a tiny margin for profit. Joe is making a killing because all he needs to pay for is a call center to take your pizza orders while Sal has to maintain the entire pizza making and delivery infrastructure.
There are some that do have equipment in the central office. Those companies are the good ones. We connect their equipment to the outside plant everyday.
It strikes me that the major issue that this thread has pinpointed is regulation and, thus, politics. In which case, should US citizens be contacting their representatives about their concern over the lack of competition and need for regulation? Should they start an Internet Users Party to publicize their concerns? Should they organize a grass roots lobbying program? Or should they take to the streets and protest?
It's kind of like calling "Joe's Pizza" and placing your order. Joe then calls Sal's Pizza next door who actually makes and delivers the pizza after putting it in a box marked "Joe's Pizza". You pay Joe for the pizza and Joe turns around and pays Sal a flat rate equivalent to the cost of making and delivering the pizza with perhaps a tiny margin for profit. Joe is making a killing because all he needs to pay for is a call center to take your pizza orders while Sal has to maintain the entire pizza making and delivery infrastructure.
Wait. Was that meant to be an analogy? Seeing as *flips coin* Rym..? knows about this kind of stuff could he do the no-simplification-explanation of how this stuff works.
As I understand it, ISPs only need to pay for bandwidth going outside their network and by agreeing to carry bandwidth between themselves without having to go up to the backbones (large places with lots of bandwidth which connect to each other and form the major fail safe internet structure.) they can save money and the backbones come under less strain. [Correct where wrong.]
As an example, my ISP operates an Ubuntu mirror and I get maximum bandwidth when downloading from it (I think without throttling either.) so by putting more stuff within the network (caching being most obvious) they could save money.
They are. The problem is that some players in the DSL market don't even want to install their own equipment to hook into the last mile. They want to lease the last mile AND the AT&T; DSLAM itself on a per order basis. They basically just want to be a reseller.
Thanks for that. Then I fully understand why the hell the internet business is so horrid in the US.
From what I gather, the ISPs that are leasing the broadband help the cable companies with getting better equipment, for the more data that can be put on those cables, the more they can lease and thus sell.
Wait! Was that meant to be an analogy? Seeing as *flips coin* Rym..? knows about this kind of stuff could he do the no-simplification-explanation of how this stuff works.
It's a good analogy for what Steve intended to explain. But it would be interesting to see Rym explain it in SUPAR-GEEKNIGHTS-TECH-LEVEL!(oneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneone)
So AT&T; owns a shit ton of last mile cable, why aren't they leasing it out to ISPs? Why aren't they using it to make more money?
They are. The problem is that some players in the DSL market don't even want to install their own equipment to hook into the last mile. They want to lease the last mile AND the AT&T; DSLAM itself on a per order basis. They basically just want to be a reseller.
It's kind of like calling "Joe's Pizza" and placing your order. Joe then calls Sal's Pizza next door who actually makes and delivers the pizza after putting it in a box marked "Joe's Pizza". You pay Joe for the pizza and Joe turns around and pays Sal a flat rate equivalent to the cost of making and delivering the pizza with perhaps a tiny margin for profit. Joe is making a killing because all he needs to pay for is a call center to take your pizza orders while Sal has to maintain the entire pizza making and delivery infrastructure.
There are some that do have equipment in the central office. Those companies are the good ones. We connect their equipment to the outside plant everyday.
Even if they lease both the last mile and the AT&T; DSLAM, aren't they still responsible for pipelines from the exchange to the internet backbone? Nonetheless, the DSLAMs are of some importance. I think the best illustration of this is the fact that there is so little spread of ADSL2+ in the USA, while it is spreading quickly in so many other countries.
Even if they lease both the last mile and the AT&T; DSLAM, aren't they still responsible for pipelines from the exchange to the internet backbone? Nonetheless, the DSLAMs are of some importance. I think the best illustration of this is the fact that there is so little spread of ADSL2+ in the USA, while it is spreading quickly in so many other countries.
That I can not answer. AKAIK there are two types of competition for DSL. Those who have equipment in the CO that we wire directly to the outside plant and those that just resell services that run on AT&T; equipment. I'm pretty sure that if they did reroute the traffic to the other ISP it would happen so far up the chain that it really does not matter. We plug a big fat pipe into the back of the DSLAM that goes directly to the AT&T; Internet cloud. They might offer tunneling to the reseller's cloud, I just don't know for sure.
You will not find much ADSL2+ in the USA because the big Telecom companies are rolling out fiber to the prem and fiber to the node systems. Verizon has the best one with their FIOS service (fiber to the prem). AT&T; uses a fiber to the node system and uses copper for the last mile. You get your 20Mbps over that copper but we don't refer to it as ADSL2+.
I wrote an angry E-mail to my congressperson and this is the response I got to her no vote on the Net Neutrality bill.
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In particular, I am pleased to share with you my views on net neutrality.
The Internet has become an ingrained tool that has been used to spur innovation, provide virtually unlimited access to information and commerce, and dramatically increase our capacity to communicate. As the marketplace for broadband continues to evolve, there are varying viewpoints as to how to ensure that we best promote a thriving Internet.
On July 31, 2009, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R.3458) was introduced in an attempt to protect against discriminatory network practices. This bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband Internet policy, including aspects of access, consumer choice, competition, content, and discriminatory practices. On October 22, 2009, the FCC voted, to open a rulemaking process that would establish net neutrality rules to codify and supplement existing Internet openness principles, while maintaining the ability of Internet service providers to engage in reasonable network management.
While I believe that action is needed to ensure that broadband providers do not abuse their market power, I also believe that we must ensure such legislation does not negatively impact the accessibility or affordability of broadband communications. I am hopeful that by working through the current rule-making process we can accomplish this balance.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can help in any way, and rest assured I will keep working to make sure the federal government is fiscally responsible, accountable, and responsive to my constituents. Also, if you would like to stay informed of my work, or to sign up for my e-mail newsletters, please visit my Web site at www.house.gov/Schwartz.
Comments
At the very least, you need to answer this question Scott:
"Why the hell wouldn't ISPs offer some services without metering, while metering everything else?"
Now, some big company (Yahoo) wants more traffic. So, they make an agreement (involving money, one must assume) with an ISP that their data will not be metered by that ISP. <i>Now their rates for everything else remain competitive, but suddenly they're offering Yahoo for free.
EDIT: if you want it quick and easy, then: Isn't that yet another violation of network neutrality? Despite that fact, if major content providers were willing to boycott ISPs, that would be the best defense of network neutrality we'd have. However, not very many companies can afford to boycott an ISP in that manner. I'm not sure we can rely on this sort of thing...
The current situation is untenable.
However, in Australia we have numerous ISPs rolling out DSLAMs for ADSL2+, which allows them to actually compete, and the fact that a reasonable number of them are doing it obviously means it's not as expensive as you imply - though I guess our prices here in Australia aren't all that great, though I do notice that ADSL2+ is generally faster than most of what's in the U.S. (My ISP's pricing, in AUD, which up until now have generally been a bit cheaper than USD).
I find the offerings of my ISP satisfactory, and I don't see them offering any evil metering exclusions, so I can't complain about what we have here in Australia.
However, if things are starting to change over there in the U.S., it's only a matter of time before we have issues here. What then? I don't know.
There really is not competition in the US because of the way the industry is regulated. You can't just say, "I want to offer Internet Access in Manhattan, Los Angeles and Boston." That is called "cherry picking". If you want to service the major metro areas you also have to service East and West Backwoods counties.
In Australia are companies allowed to just service the large metro areas and ignore the small towns in the inner country?
Adding a million dollar Cisco router to an office is nothing compared to the cost of laying copper/fiber. Buying the materials is the lowest expense. Once you have the cable to run you may need to get right-of-way agreements and zoning variances. Right now AT&T; in CT is in big shit because they are being sued over the size of the boxes they are hanging on poles.
Hanging a box on a pole means less paperwork. Putting up a cabinet on a concrete platform requires much paperwork and expense.
You also need to factor in all the construction and engineering expenses that come into play whenever you break ground.
Recently AT&T; in CT had to fight to be able to offer its Internet TV service. The rules for cable TV in CT are such that you have to wire the entire state before you can sell a single service. These rules came into effect (obviously) long after the incumbent cable franchises were in place. The law is effectively a barrier to entry that is so high that no one will ever launch a competing cable TV service in the state.
If AT&T; were forced to build the complete infrastructure system (state-wide) before signing up a single paying customer the service would never get built.
You see, in Australia, we manage to have competition despite this issue, so I hadn't realised this was the problem in question.
However, we haven't had it that long, and it's still a work in progress.
Basically, it seems we're only getting competition through regulation.
I'll name the major players here, so you can google them (I could try to give you more info if you're interested, but I need sleep anyways).
Telstra owns pretty much the entire last-mile infrastructure here.
The ACCC is a regulatory commission that has forced Telstra to enable competition.
Before 2001, Australia's broadband situation was AWFUL.
Basically, Telstra was offering wholesale ADSL to other ISPs (I guess this is basically access to the last mile), but the pricing was poor, and hence there was essentially no competition.
However, through the attention of the ACCC, essentially starting with this, the situation has improved greatly.
Starting in 2005, many ISPs started rolling out ADSL2+ DSLAMs, which has made for an improvement in service. Telstra had avoided doing this on its own due to anti-competitiveness, but the other ISPs were able to do this on their own since. I guess this is because the only thing required to switch the "last mile" of Telstra's they pay to ADSL2+ is the DSLAM at the exchange and an ADSL2+ modem on the user's end.
Essentially, I guess it's an issue of regulating that "last mile". I know for a fact now that we in Australia would be pretty screwed without some heavy hitting from the regulatory authority. It seems, then, that the regulation in the U.S. is pretty poor. I guess authorities in the U.S. just need to force reasonable resale of use of the "last mile" infrastructure?
However, in Australia, presumably because of our regulatory body (the ACCC, as I mentioned before), these prices have finally become reasonable.
The term we have here is "Line Sharing Service" ACCC LSS prices
The ACCC has forced the price for LSS down to about $2.50 per month.
There is also ULLS (Unconditioned Local Loop Service), which is unconditional acess (both voice and high frequency), now at ~$16 per month. As a result, some ISPs offer both phone and DSL, while others offer naked DSL (no phone service), though it is more expensive by necessity.
I guess I'll say this now - regulation, and I mean tight regulation, of that last mile is an absolute necessity.
It's kind of like calling "Joe's Pizza" and placing your order. Joe then calls Sal's Pizza next door who actually makes and delivers the pizza after putting it in a box marked "Joe's Pizza". You pay Joe for the pizza and Joe turns around and pays Sal a flat rate equivalent to the cost of making and delivering the pizza with perhaps a tiny margin for profit. Joe is making a killing because all he needs to pay for is a call center to take your pizza orders while Sal has to maintain the entire pizza making and delivery infrastructure.
There are some that do have equipment in the central office. Those companies are the good ones. We connect their equipment to the outside plant everyday.
As I understand it, ISPs only need to pay for bandwidth going outside their network and by agreeing to carry bandwidth between themselves without having to go up to the backbones (large places with lots of bandwidth which connect to each other and form the major fail safe internet structure.) they can save money and the backbones come under less strain. [Correct where wrong.]
As an example, my ISP operates an Ubuntu mirror and I get maximum bandwidth when downloading from it (I think without throttling either.) so by putting more stuff within the network (caching being most obvious) they could save money.
From what I gather, the ISPs that are leasing the broadband help the cable companies with getting better equipment, for the more data that can be put on those cables, the more they can lease and thus sell. It's a good analogy for what Steve intended to explain. But it would be interesting to see Rym explain it in SUPAR-GEEKNIGHTS-TECH-LEVEL!(oneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneone)
Nonetheless, the DSLAMs are of some importance. I think the best illustration of this is the fact that there is so little spread of ADSL2+ in the USA, while it is spreading quickly in so many other countries.
You will not find much ADSL2+ in the USA because the big Telecom companies are rolling out fiber to the prem and fiber to the node systems. Verizon has the best one with their FIOS service (fiber to the prem). AT&T; uses a fiber to the node system and uses copper for the last mile. You get your 20Mbps over that copper but we don't refer to it as ADSL2+.
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In particular, I am pleased to share with you my views on net neutrality.
The Internet has become an ingrained tool that has been used to spur innovation, provide virtually unlimited access to information and commerce, and dramatically increase our capacity to communicate. As the marketplace for broadband continues to evolve, there are varying viewpoints as to how to ensure that we best promote a thriving Internet.
On July 31, 2009, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R.3458) was introduced in an attempt to protect against discriminatory network practices. This bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband Internet policy, including aspects of access, consumer choice, competition, content, and discriminatory practices. On October 22, 2009, the FCC voted, to open a rulemaking process that would establish net neutrality rules to codify and supplement existing Internet openness principles, while maintaining the ability of Internet service providers to engage in reasonable network management.
While I believe that action is needed to ensure that broadband providers do not abuse their market power, I also believe that we must ensure such legislation does not negatively impact the accessibility or affordability of broadband communications. I am hopeful that by working through the current rule-making process we can accomplish this balance.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can help in any way, and rest assured I will keep working to make sure the federal government is fiscally responsible, accountable, and responsive to my constituents. Also, if you would like to stay informed of my work, or to sign up for my e-mail newsletters, please visit my Web site at www.house.gov/Schwartz.
Sincerely,
Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz