Bunch of telecom regulatory news today

[Zeus]

That subject should drive away 95% of the people here :-)

It was nice to see 3 separate articles coming out and slamming the current state of our telecommunications industries and current regulatory practices. These, particularly in Canada, are archaic and in dire need of updating as we're increasingly falling behind even second-tier industrialized nations in terms of services and prices to the consumers. And you Americans are also starting to fall behind too but at least you seem to recognize and react in a far more timely manner than we do.

These stories are as follows:

1) The Better Business Bureau in Canada gives cell companies an F rating due to so many complaints from customers

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/0 ... aints.html

2) Looks like the FCC is seriously considering what appears to be true net neutrality (to ensure your service isn't hindered by the ISPs) but first have to establish their true regulatory authority

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010 ... ernet.html

3) The useless and completely opaque Canadian Senate comes out and absolutely reams the Canadian ISPs and to follow Europe's open-access lead....likely due to the fact that Estonia is kicking our asses six ways from Sunday when it comes to implementation of an open and accessible digital policy. I can't believe we've gotten some positive action from a part of our governments who's sole purpose in life is to be as opaque as possible (we don't even know who these appointed - not elected - people are or what they do). Maybe they can start earning those high 6-figure salaries they siphon from our system for once.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010 ... eport.html

[SineSwiper]

Net neutrality is mostly a moot point. Every MSO has switched to non-protocol-based network mgmt, hence the caps. Oh, but you whine about that, too. (Though, whining about Canada's shitty service is perfectly justified.)

[Mully]

Sine always brings up NN, I'm in the dark about that, I could wiki it, but could someone give a quick primer?

[Louis]

In essence, it is giving all traffic an equal priority when traversing a network. Since Comcast got in trouble for completely dropping connections for certain types of traffic, net neutrality came more into the public eye.

Most ISPs use the indirect method at this point by placing caps on usage. Peer to Peer is typically a network hog. Therefore, if you use Peer to Peer often you would hit their cap and either a) begin a metering system, b) get shut off, or c) receive a notice for excessive usage.

So much for Unlimited packages that aren't really after you read the fine print or get your notice.

[SineSwiper]

Much of the whole NN concept came about from some small-time ISP monkeying around with slowing down access to a competitor's web site. The matter was corrected with enough complaints, so really NN wasn't the type of thing that had much traction at the time. Later on, many MSOs/ISPs were getting crushed with bandwidth issues from a tiny fraction of their customers. The prevailing solution was to use protocol-specific tools to target BitTorrent, as it was by far the biggest use of bandwidth on the pipe.

Comcast later got in trouble with lawsuits (backed by the EFF) because of the methods it was using to manage BT. Most ISPs were using stuff like Sandvine to throttle the amount of bandwidth torrents would use on the pipe. Comcast was actually spoofing connection disconnects on P2P to limit the number of connections a user could use for BT. Many thought that Comcast crossed the line.

Comcast eventually saw the public distaste for the methods, as well as other ISPs. So, the ISPs now use a GB/month cap on the service. Customers still don't like it, but a reasonably set cap is typically something that 99.9% of the public won't hit. As the Internet matures, BT usage is fallen in favor of a even bigger bandwidth hog: streaming video. Even if protocol-based throttling was still the norm, ISPs would have a hard time justifying throttling of streaming video. There are caching servers, which are used quite a bit among ISPs. (We have some for Google/YouTube traffic.)

But, the average kbps usage is climbing fast. Keeping up with it is a bit of a challenge for ISPs, even if the technology is there. Phone-based companies cannot use twisted pair for very long, and fiber rebuilds are very expensive. DOCSIS 3.0 is available for cable companies, but the technology is fairly new, requires new modems, and most MSOs don't have a lot of EIA (channels) to spare for the extra download/upload.

[Zeus]

Net neutrality is mostly a moot point. Every MSO has switched to non-protocol-based network mgmt, hence the caps. Oh, but you whine about that, too. (Though, whining about Canada's shitty service is perfectly justified.)

And our cell pricing is only now starting to get better. The 'net is in danger of following that route since there's nothing to break the oligopoly....yet. Bring in real competition and we might see those caps go away as well

[SineSwiper]

Not likely; the caps will stay. The idea of a unlimited service was only an illusion, but at least 10 years ago, it was very very unlikely that anybody would hit any limitations. Nowadays, usage is greater than ever and ISPs are hitting some technological brick walls that take quite a bit of money to smash down.

A lot of MSOs are undergoing digital conversions to get rid of their analog channels. That's because one analog channel takes up one EIA channel (6MHz band on a coax), but you can put up to 12 digital SD channels or around 3-4 HD channels in one EIA. So, it frees up EIA space to use for more HD channels, and more HSI downstreams. Of course, downstream channel bonding (getting more than just 38Mbps on a single shared downstream) is a DOCSIS 3.0 technology, and 98% of the modems are still 2.0 ones.

[Imakeholesinu]

If the FCC really wanted to flex some muscle they would declare that cell phone data plans are to be treated just like getting internet at your home. AT&T and Verizon would be furious as they just cut their Unlimited data plans.

[Zeus]

Not likely; the caps will stay. The idea of a unlimited service was only an illusion, but at least 10 years ago, it was very very unlikely that anybody would hit any limitations. Nowadays, usage is greater than ever and ISPs are hitting some technological brick walls that take quite a bit of money to smash down.

A lot of MSOs are undergoing digital conversions to get rid of their analog channels. That's because one analog channel takes up one EIA channel (6MHz band on a coax), but you can put up to 12 digital SD channels or around 3-4 HD channels in one EIA. So, it frees up EIA space to use for more HD channels, and more HSI downstreams. Of course, downstream channel bonding (getting more than just 38Mbps on a single shared downstream) is a DOCSIS 3.0 technology, and 98% of the modems are still 2.0 ones.

I think it's going to go the other way, personally. Internet right now for all but some business is a luxury. But if it becomes the absolute essential service for everything (like your phone for emergency calls) the regulations will hit harder. There will be a breaking point when it becomes a necessity but until then, I agree, the cap system stays.

[SineSwiper]

We can't even regulate oil and gas companies right, and that's more essential than Internet. Hell, phone is going the OPPOSITE direction on regulation. VoIP is unregulated, cell phones are only loosely regulated, and Ma Bell land lines are becoming extinct.

I think part of it is the different methods of communication have made certain regulations unnecessary. Who doesn't have three or four different ways to call 911? (That's not to say that making sure 911 is available is not necessary, but it's not like everybody has only that one 1930's rotary phone, either.)

[Imakeholesinu]

As long as federal agencies and providers get immunity when they prosecute a "terrorist" might as well leave it unregulated.

[Tessian]

The problem is that you as an end user have little control over how much bandwidth you use; you're at the mercy of how efficient or lazy the developer was when they wrote that site / codec / game. At least when I buy a fridge it clearly states the expected energy consumption, there's nothing like that on the internet. Very few developers give a rat's ass about optimizing their web code until maybe recently.

[SineSwiper]

The problem is that you as an end user have little control over how much bandwidth you use; you're at the mercy of how efficient or lazy the developer was when they wrote that site / codec / game. At least when I buy a fridge it clearly states the expected energy consumption, there's nothing like that on the internet. Very few developers give a rat's ass about optimizing their web code until maybe recently.

Actually, that's not the case at all. The famous id Software fubar with Quakeworld and Carmack's line of "I have a T1 to my house" made sure that everybody cared about how much bandwidth apps use. After all, if there's still a bunch of 56K users out there, you don't want to alienate them with software that only works on good broadband lines.

The problem is not apps using too much bandwidth, but the average consumption of bandwidth has gone up dramatically. People are using something that uses an Internet connection constantly. That one app is efficient, but overall, it's like having a bunch of lightbulbs turned on 24/7.

[Louis]

Study: net neutrality could lead to "devastating" job losses

Dark words fly as FCC launches new net neutrality probe

A crusade against the Internet's "regulatory uncertainty"

[Zeus]

Study: net neutrality could lead to "devastating" job losses

Dark words fly as FCC launches new net neutrality probe

A crusade against the Internet's "regulatory uncertainty"

So, let's see. We have the ISPs and related companies using fear-mongering to attempt to scare people into thinking that there will be a net job-loss should net neutrality come in while the content providers are sayin' "Dear Lord, bring it on already!" (did anyone even attempt to guesstimate how many jobs would eventually be created?). At the end of the day, if I'm going to pick a side, I'd rather pick the side of the company who makes its shitloads of money by offering its products for free (Google) and actually providing a product people want than one who uses an oligopoly-like structure to maintain insane profits (Comcast) by forcing people to overpay for something they need.

I'm dying for someone, anyone to come up with a good argument against net neutrality. So far, all I see are the incumbents using fear-mongering and bullying tactics without any kind of real merit behind their arguments.

[SineSwiper]

MSOs had a good argument against net neutrality, though current protocol-agnostic methods have dodged the issue altogether, and is ultimately better than the former.

The real question is: Do the "content users" agree with the tradeoff?

Also, I'm close enough to the people that deal with the kind of jobs they are talking about, and if net neutrality was implemented, there would be no jobs lost. So, that part is bullshit.

However, some considerations do need to be taken in account in regards to what is defined as net neutral. For example, everybody would agree that phone content (read: VoIP) is more important that internet content. Hell, that even applies to cell phones, and stuff like Skype. Would that prioritization go away with NN?

[Louis]

Back room net neutrality deal? Reform groups up in arms

[Zeus]

Back room net neutrality deal? Reform groups up in arms

Hey, at least we know that the political system is working fine and dandy

[Imakeholesinu]

The political machine will always work as long as you feed it gobs of money and pay its prostitutes.

If anything I would think that jobs would increase in the sectors mentioned in that article. Reason being would be because the larger ISPs would now actually have to meet demand and provide service to customers who pay them for the service. That being said, more jobs for content providers since now you have more bandwidth to deliver fatter web page content (which is what drove the broadband revolution with such video sites like YouTube) and can deliver content quicker to the customer. On the physical side of things, you have more techs out in the field upgrading VRads and laying new cables providing service to new customers which the ISPs couldn't really get to. This in turn increases competition and reduces cost to the consumer which is win-win.

I believe the ISPs are just lazy and they aren't looking at the LONG term. They are too concerned with the quarterly projections than the 5-10 year projections. This is because they are being affected by their own scare machine against net neutrality. The cost THE COST!!! Bullshit. They pay maybe dimes on the dollar for the equipment they roll out. The big boys are just getting greedier because there is too much pork at the top.

Maybe they all know something we don't and they know it is all about to tumble.

[SineSwiper]

Nobody's really addressed any of my points...

[Zeus]

Nobody's really addressed any of my points...

Glad to have another club member....

Honestly, there was nothing more to say. I agree

[Louis]

I agree also. I don't think there was any real need to debate.