The FCC's Net Neutrality rules are now published. 400 pages long. I
skimmed it and also keyword searched a few items.
Overall, it doesn't look too bad, but to say that it is "heavy-handed"
is an understatement. But it does a good job of setting the rules for
pretty much all forms of "Internet Access", whether it is provided by
wireline, cable, fiber, wireless, cellular and satellite. However, it
fails to actually address the interconnection agreements between
carriers. It looks like this will end up being the next huge
battleground.
Just a cautionary note for my "conservative" friends who will rail on
this as another "Obama Overreach". I had great concerns about how this
was going to go, and I still do. But to deny that there was a problem
means that you cannot be part of the solution. What the FCC did was
pretty much establish the rules of what is and what is not allowed by
ISPs in regards to prioritization and blocking (exceptions for
blocking spam, hackers, bittorrent, etc., are in there). There have
been service providers who have been testing the limits of what they
can get away with and the FCC has been in a continual mode of playing
"whack-a-mole" with one-off rulings for the past 20 years. This new
400 page ruling pretty well throws most of the one-off rulings out the
window and is written generically enough to be flexible to new
applications that come along. However, it is also written generically
enough that it is a given that the courts will throw out large
portions of it over time.
Did the FCC have the right to do what they did? YES! Did they need to
go with the "Nuclear Option"? Probably not. When you figure that each
regulation or law is a stepping stone to the next one, EVERYBODY
should be terrified of it. But in itself, this is looking halfway
decent and appears to level some of the playing field (except for some
gimmes to the wireless carriers, and still punishes the telephone
companies very unfairly).
Two things that I see happening. (Please note that this is my own
opinion, not that of my employer, "Acme Telephone Company"). I fully
expect that over the next year, rates will increase by $10 per month.
Why?
1. No more "advertiser or partner-provided perks". Do you like that
neat streaming app that your cellular provider doesn't charge for on
your phone? Gone. If you want the Nascar Sprint Cup streaming on your
Sprint phone, you'll now have to pay for it like everybody else on ATT
and Verizon do.
2. Unlimited data plans are history. Expect tiered data caps on all
forms of internet access, not just wireless. The difference is that
instead of arbitrary slowing down of data for the top 5% of users,
you'll hit hard caps and automatic advances into higher priced plans.
3. Bundling of ISP services with ISP access will no longer be the
same. Either the level of service will go down (limited storage on
email, etc) or the ISP services (email, etc.) will be a distinct price
add on. How this manifests itself will vary. But you can expect to pay
for things that are not currently being charged for or are currently
included in the package cost.
4. Related to the previous point, more and more items will be moved to
the content provider side of the Internet where prioritization and
other perks are NOT regulated yet.
5. Net Neutrality did not address the interconnects. See below:
Interconnection agreements between the ISPs and upstream Tier-1
providers, as well as agreements between ISPs, Tier-1 providers and
Content Providers were not addressed in this ruling. If I can praise
the FCC on any one thing, it's that they didn't monkey this one up,
yet. Netflix won a battle, but may have lost the war.
Let's follow the chain here:
1. You are sitting at home watching a Netflix show.
2. Your television is connected to the ISP's modem (Wired or WiFi).
3. The ISP's modem is connected to a box on the other end of the phone
line, cable, fiber or radio connection.
4. This box is connected to a network transport device to get it from
your town to where the router is using very expensive connections.
5. This router is connected via VERY expensive connections to a couple
of routers that then touch a Tier-1 network.
6. The dozen or so Tier-1 networks are all connected to each other.
7. Netflix has a connection to one of those Tier-1 networks. Netflix
has essentially paid for just one fat connection to that one Tier-1
network provider and told everybody else to pound sand. (they were in
the process of establishing more connections until they saw the
opportunity to manipulate the rules).
What has happened, that is a good thing for the ISPs, but lousy for
Netflix, is that without the FCC regulating these interconnection
agreements, the throttling, etc., can occur right up there at the top.
Right where all the ISPs come together. The Tier-1 providers can now
set different rules that allow them to charge far different rates for
different classes of service. The FCC, in this ruling, has just pushed
the throttling and paid services to a different choke point in the
network. This will mean that if Netflix wants a better connection to
YOU, they have to have a better connection to your ISP. What Netflix
was trying to avoid, having to setup interconnection agreements with
every tom-dick-and-harry ISP, has effectively backfired on them.
So, in a nutshell, the new FCC rules addresses the "access portion" of
the Internet, but does not address the "interconnection portion" of
the Internet. Because of this, I see where the new Net Neutrality
rules are good, as it stabilizes the regulations and fixes the issue
of things changing every few months. One month the ISPs can do one
thing, and the next they can't. This fixes that problem. It is also
good because it does not address the global aspect of the Internet. It
leaves things as they are in that regard. This is VERY good because it
could have meant the end of the USA as being the primary location for
major data centers and would have caused the bulk of the Internet to
go "off shore".
The courts will clearly reject parts of this ruling and will clarify
other parts. In all honesty, I don't think that a legislative approach
from this congress would have done it better. Instead of 400 pages, it
would have been 40,000 pages and would have created loopholes for some
small ISP in rural Montana or someone's congressional district. This
congress and president would have come up with something MUCH worse
and would have probably created a whole branch of government to run
it. Of course, that would have come with taxes.
The FCC did address one concern that many of us had. That had to do
with specialty applications. As long as the connection isn't some
back-door way of getting access to the Internet for normal uses, it
does allow for connections that are single-purpose or special-purpose
that can have specific prioritization across the network. ISM
(Industrial, Scientific, Medical) uses can use dedicated connections.
This is consistent with Title II for telecommunications as there is
general telephone connections and dedicated data connections. In fact,
you can still order a telegraph circuit.
So, did the FCC overreach? Yes and No. They did not overreach because
they just solidified a lot of watery Jello, but they did overreach in
the areas of establishing the foundation for future FCC rulings that
WILL alter the landscape in ways that we can't even imagine today.
This is NOT Obamacare for the Internet. This is the FCC throwing a
hissy-fit and finally getting around to fixing some issues that
they've been neglecting for a while. I believe that some of the data
they used to justify or base some things on is faulty, as well are
many of their conclusions about that data and their understanding of
the "Layers", but at a glance it doesn't look too unreasonable.
Where the FCC very much FAILED, in this regulation is the recognition
that quality of service will suffer. Without means of adequate traffic
shaping (some is allowed, but very minimal), the only solution is to
either limit how much data any one user can get or to throw bigger and
bigger pipes at the problem. Everybody wants more taxis in New York
City, but if New York City had more taxis, there would be more traffic
jams and the actual passenger throughput would actually decrease. Same
thing happens when every user gets as many taxis as they want--there
just isn't enough road for them. Roads cost money. Probably $10 per
month more money, just to start.
These opinions are MINE, not that of my employer.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|