Title II and why it is really a bad thing, for me anyway.

[grenefroggie]

So I had the chance to read an article about another WISP operator's blog. While it does not dive in to the nit and grit, here are two posts that point at why Title II is bad. It has nothing to do with getting people better internet service or providing more coverage. These are basically blindfolds the industry is using on consumers to fight Title II for ISPs and Net Neutrality.

Keep in mind, these aren't my view specifically.

Tales from the Towers Chapter 51 Once a Lobbyist Always a Lobbyist - the Tom Wheeler Story - MuniWireless

Tales from the Towers Chapter 53 Point-to-Point links in rural areas

All said and done, Title II will cost the consumer more. It will not improve coverage. And because big providers are what they are, they will stop developing and focus more on charging the customer more.

Honestly, until the rules are voted on and released, there really is no way to know for sure how it will affect me or the company I work for.

But I promise you, Title II doesn't help the consumer.

Discuss!! I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this.

 

[leeshor]

The whole Net Neutrality discussion is out of hand. So many people don't understand what's going on, imo. If the FCC simply made a ruling that ISPs must treat all companies and people the same, with equal access that would be fine and would truly be Neutrality. But ultimately they are trying to get a big government foot in the door to fix something that isn't really broken.

At some point I foresee the Internet having all types of add-on fees and taxes just like we see on landline phones. The problem is, and has been, that they can never account for where that money goes. It's rarely used for what they said it would be for. Then come the regulations which make it more expensive for the ISPs large and small to do business, then come the higher rates on top of the added fees they don't call taxes but which are in fact sneaker taxes.

 

[grenefroggie]

The biggest issue is the confusion of Title II and Net Neutrality. They are not related, and Title II classification needs to be redefined before applying it to wireless services.

Remember, wireless will ALWAYS be less reliable than landline. VoIP or Digital Phone services are less reliable let than Circuit Switched services.

I fear the dark ages of the Internet are coming. People laugh at me when I say that, but government regulation of the Internet is not the answer.

Also, research the history of peering agreements before the whole Netflix paid prioritization disputes. Peering agreements were free until this happened.


EDIT: Keyboard changed Title II to Title I. They are indeed very different.

 

[grenefroggie]

To add:

I am not for Title II, but I am waiting until the rules are voted on and published on Feb. 26 before I explain why. As they have not detailed to the public the specifics, they could have rewrote the whole definition of Title II and my fears could be for not. However, this is the US Gov't so I am sure I will not be let down and will have plenty to complain about.

 

[Ollie]

I found it pretty suspect that the ISPs never charged an LLC to ride their network until Netflix got hammered.

Without getting too deep into the discussion of the major media, being passed through the internet, changing from web pages to video streams there have always been consumer fast lanes. They come in the form of different throughput speeds.

So they need to drop one or the other. Don't charge them or don't charge me.

 

[grenefroggie]

So they need to drop one or the other. Don't charge them or don't charge me.

Sadly, @Ollie it looks like they are trying to do both. That means that Netflix, YouTube (Google), Facebook etc. will have to pay last mile providers for access to their networks. These agreements in the past have been at no cost to either company. Netflix's cache servers are a free option for last mile providers. The issue there is that there are claims that Netflix isn't using the open cache technology they claim to be using. And because of this, it makes it proprietary technology.

Bandwidth caps are not really fast lanes. You are paying for a subscription to a service, lined out by the service providers offerings. Fast lanes typically relate to traffic prioritization (VoIP, torrent, etc).

 

[Ollie]

So subscribing to a faster throughput doesn't reroute your personal traffic?

 

[grenefroggie]

So subscribing to a faster throughput doesn't reroute your personal traffic?

No. All it does is give you more bandwidth (5 Netflix streams at the same time instead of 2).

All major ISPs use packet shaping. VoIP data, especially services provided by the big ISPs usually have high priority on their networks. However, Vonage or MagicJack users may be out of luck, because they don't have prioritization.

We do the same thing. We would prefer people buy our voice services because we maintain the service and we can easily fix the issues with it. When using a 3rd party company, once traffic leaves our network, I have no control over it.

The difference between our service and cable service is that Vonage should work on any cable or DSL provider assuming ping times are stable. With our service, we have to tweak our wireless network to accommodate phone service.

 

[Ollie]

I use Magicjack while overseas. It works surprisingly well with less than a MB up. I'm usually rocking about 750kbps-ish over there. Every once in a while I have to jump on 3G when their awesome network is down.