Thoughts on interview of small ISP against Net Neutrality & Title 2

Level1Techs INBOX.deb
1

I wanted to see what your thoughts on this interview with Brett Glass were.

Security Now 457 - Interview with Brett Glass; Who should pay for bandwidth?

http://youtu.be/rt5aHSkRuGc?t=6m25s

Note: If the link doesn't start you at the right time, the interview starts at about 6:30.

It's a pretty balanced interview, with some tough questions and points on both sides. I came away not really sure what to make of this, I don't really know enough about how things work behind the scenes to feel I could form a informed opinion.

 

He's making some claims, like that Netflix will only offer to help large ISPs, and wouldn't let him locally cache content even if he paid for the servers. And that Title 2 is terrible and has everything people don't want for net neutrality. Such as requiring people to pay different amounts for different content, and depending on where it's going etc. And that Net Neutrality is not really about freedom at all but about who should pay for what.

Or at least that is my understanding of his points & arguments.

It makes me wonder if we really need to be pushing for some entirely new type of rules and not the existing ones. Though in all honesty I don't have enough faith in the politicians and the government to get any of this right..

Thank you!

P.S. The Tek is awesome! Keep it up! :)

Edit- Changed link from excerpt to the full episode with a time code as the excerpt seems to leave out some detail.

2

Well, I've only watched about 36 minutes of this so far (I'll watch the rest later) but I have a couple thoughts.

1. Brett Glass is mistaking Netflix offering to place servers in Comcast's data centers as them giving preferential treatment to Comcast because they wouldn't do the same for him. This is somewhat true, but the difference is that Comcast represents a large number of Netflix customers and Comcast wasn't delivering adequate service to those customers. So in that case, Netflix tried to meet them half way by offering to install Netflix servers in Comcast's data centers (we all know how that turned out).

Yes, it is giving preferential treatment to a degree, but it was a move born out of desperation because Comcast was essentially blocking good service to a massive number of Netflix customers. It was basically extortion, and Netflix shouldn't have been forced to make that offer in the first place. Mr. Glass seems offended that he didn't have enough leverage to extort them into making him the same kind of offer. Net Neutrality (done correctly) would have kept Comcast from extorting them in the first place, thus, no preferential treatment.

2. Mr. Glass is glossing over the fact that Data is Data and that if you pay for it, you should be able to use it however you want on whatever you like. If his network can't handle the load to any one place, then he has no business selling that service because he can't deliver on it (nor do any other ISPs). It's on the provider to have the infrastructure to provide the service they advertise. If your network can't handle people using 25mbps 24/7, then offer a lower speed or improve your network. Doing otherwise is false advertisement or at the very least misleading to your customers.

Complaining that you don't know who the heavy users are going to be and so you don't know who to charge more to is a strawman argument. It means you are offerning a service that you can't honor in the first place. There shouldn't be a need to charge heavy users more if your network can handle the bandwidth you are offering. It is only neccessary when you can't produce the service you advertise.

3. Comparing internet service to electricity service in not a good analogy. When you use more electricity, you pay more money. that is true. However, there is no practical limit to the amount of electricity you can draw at any one time (well, there is, but for residential purposes you aren't likely to max out your draw no matter how much you run your AC). With internet connections, there IS a limit to how much you can draw at once. It's your connection speed, which SHOULD be determined by overall network capacity (but it rarely is). If the connection had unlimited speed (or a speed high enough to be practically unlimited for residential purposes), then it would make more sense to charge by data used.

That's all I got for the moment. I understand why he has the position he does. He's a business owner and is looking at his bottom line and wants to offer the best service he can while still making a profit. It's understandable, but that doesn't make him right. The answer to most of his issues is simply "don't offer a service you can't deliver". But that sentiment seems to fall on deaf ears most of the time.

Everyone wants to offer more, without actually investing the money to be able to deliver it. Or they just want a monopoly so they don't have to worry about offering more lol.  Or at least that's my take on what's been discussed so far.

3

One thing that they seem to gloss over is that ISP's are not limited by total data transferred (that is an end result from the true limitation of a network which is simultaneous throughput. People pay different amounts for different speeds because that is the true limitation of a network (so you pay more for a larger pipe on your end) Limitations like transfer caps are simply indirect ways of blocking content, for example if an ISP did not have the network capacity to deliver on what it is selling, then they can discourage the use of any service that will actually make use of the fast speeds they are paying for (if it means that they will blow through their cap in a few minutes)

 

A straw-man argument that they used was the metered use of electricity. Electricity is a lot different from data, and on top of that, the electricity company does not throttle you. I have a 200 amp breaker, and I can pull 200 amps 24/7 if I wanted to (though it would cost a lot), and if I wanted, I can install a 600 amp breaker and pull 600 amps 24/7 with no problem (though I would end up with a bill that would put the national debt to shame)

Electricity and data are handled in 2 completely different ways because they carry a completely different set of challenges.

 

If an ISP is going to sell a specific speed, then it is up to them, and their cost of business to make sure that their network can deliver that speed at all times. the only bottleneck in the network should be the endpoint bottlenecks, e.g., if I have a 20mbit connection then my max speed will be 20 megabits per second.

 

Many ISP owners like his want the fast lane because it will legitimize an extremely consumer unfriendly business practice that will be very profitable. For example, even if they are not allowed to throttle, there is nothing barring them from letting the network become congested. This creates a business practice where they can simply prioritize the traffic going to the companies that pay them.

Think of it like this. Imagine a 6 lane road with so many cars on it that traffic is moving insanely slow (e.g., rush hour when cars are going  15MPH on a 65MPH road). Without fast lane the ISP would be forced to add more lanes to improve the traffic. With the fast lane, it suddenly becomes more profitable to take 3 of the lanes and say "hey these banks are paying us lots of money, so you are only allowed to use these 3 lanes if you are heading to the bank, for everything else, you must use one of the remaining 3 lanes" This allows people going to the bank to enjoy very good speeds right up to the speed limit, while everyone going to non bank locations will end up going twice as slow. The cost of maintaining the road did not increase ad they did not expand on it, and they get extra income by reserving the lanes. If an ISP wants to charge based on data transferred, then do not cap my speeds, if I install a 40 gigabit ethernet adapter, then let me download at 40 gigabit/s, but if they are going to sell speed tiers, then the cost is already covered, as everyone is already paying their share, (par less for a slow connection, and pay more for a fast one.

(In my area, when the apartment complex were being built, the power company upgraded the electrical lines and facilities in the area to meat the demand of multiple apartment buildings. (reason being, the added customers would more than cover the cost of the upgrade (not sure if the city was involved with the upgrade or not) but to meet the new demand, they upgraded the infrastructure).

 

all in all, it is the ISP's job to provide customers access to the content they want. The servers/ producers pay for an internet connection, and residential customers pay for internet connections, it is each ISP's responsibility to make sure their own networks are able to handle the load (and making sure the interconnect is able to handle it (by sharing the cost. e.g., if customers from ISP A want content from servers on ISP B, and the interconnect cannot handle the load, then each ISP on their end will swap out the gigabit switch for a 10 gigabit switch, or even install a 40 gigabit switch (because  they have customers on both sides of that peering port demanding use of it.

4

Hello :)

 Apologies for not replying back sooner!

 

Thank you both for your thoughts and insight. I had watched many times what Logan & Wendell were saying about this stuff, and that interview gave me pause because it was not from some giant megacorporation standpoint and some of the points he brought up were new to me.

But one thing you two mentioned really stuck with me, and I am really baffled now how this isn't mentioned more because it seems to be standard practice big or small, and a huge part of the problem. That is how it is fully accepted practice to sell more capacity than you actually have! I highly doubt any other service/utility could easily get away with that. Yet it seems par for the course with internet.

If I pay for a phone line, I expect to be able to use it 24/7/365 if I so desire, should be the same with internet. (Obviously barring service maintenance and unavoidable downtime from natural disasters, etc.)

Anyway, Again thank you, and I look forward to reading anyone else's insight on this or maybe even seeing what one of the Tek Crew thinks of it(Though I know the chances are, understandably, somewhat low).

5

Hopefully they will also cover these issues on the next episode.