Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Wireless Networking Government Your Rights Online

Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too 38

jfruh writes As it looks more likely that the U.S. will impose net neutrality rules on landline ISPs, big Web companies are aiming to get wireless data providers under the same regulatory umbrella. The Internet Association, a trade group that includes Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, and eBay, wants the FCC to "harmonize" the treatment of mobile and wired broadband providers in its net neutrality rules. Wireless providers are fighting back, claiming their networks are fundamentally different.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too

Comments Filter:
  • by gatfirls ( 1315141 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @07:01PM (#48164127)

    "fiercely competitive,"....aww.

    "Give us monopolies and then you can regulate us. Deal?"

  • > As it looks more likely that the U.S. will impose net neutrality rules on landline ISPs

    Is there a citation?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Either way it wont be until 2020 at the earliest. Internet providers will ignore the rules while they fight this all the way to the supreme court.

  • There seems to be two disjoint discussions on the same thing around here...

    When we talk Net Neutrality we talk about giving every node on the Internet an equal chance to speak.
    When we talk about Netflix/Google/Amazon buying fast lane access to users, we're violating the rules of Net Neutrality to give people what they're paying for faster.

    Do you see how when we celebrate one side of this, the other side loses?

    • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @07:44PM (#48164557) Journal

      When we talk about Netflix/Google/Amazon buying fast lane access to users, we're violating the rules of Net Neutrality to give people what they're paying for faster

      I'm pretty sure thats why when we talk about netflix being forced to buy fast lane access to users in order to get video to their customers at the speeds the customers paid their ISPs for, we use negative and derogatory terms about the ISPs, especially Comcast.

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be deliv
      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        QoS has nothing to do with net neutrality, it merely signifies what the sender would prefer to be done (when prioritization is necessary) among it's own packets. If I want to prioritize SSH and VoIP, then I'll set the necessary bits so that when I fill the bandwidth with other stuff, those tend to get priority.

        QoS is perfectly possible within a neutral framework. The providers treat each customer equally, if the customer wants certain aspects of it's own traffic prioritized, it could do that without impedin

        • by msauve ( 701917 )
          Nope. You can't mark the traffic being sent to you. That's so fundamental, it's clear you don't understand how it works.
          • by adolf ( 21054 )

            Apparently nobody here has used the QoS features in Shibby's version of Tomato-USB.

            Torrenting and Netflix and gaming and multiple kids playing with Facebook and Youtube, all at once, all on 2Mbps of downstream while maintaining sufficient low-latency that interactive tasks and VoIP work fine?

            Why not?

            I did this just last night, as I have many nights before.

            I'm perfectly capable of prioritizing my own bandwidth, thanks. I don't want my ISP prioritizing it on my behalf. Ever. At all. Not even a little bit.

            • by msauve ( 701917 )
              Nothing you do locally prioritizes incoming traffic across the Internet. For that matter, for most (all?) ISPs, your markings won't be honored on outbound, either. The most you can do locally is control which packets are sent out first when there's contention. You only control the single hop in your toy router. There simply is no QoS through the Internet.

              But then, you obviously didn't know that, given your basic misunderstanding of how QoS actually works.
              • by adolf ( 21054 )

                Nothing I'm doing with QoS involves DiffServ -- at all.

                That you proclaim otherwise shows that you haven't used the QoS features of Shibby's version of Tomato-USB.

                And until you do, we don't really have much to talk about here.

                The fact remains that I can rate-limit specific ingress UDP and TCP streams based on a number of parameters, leaving room in the otherwise-saturated pipe for other packets, using nothing more than an ancient freebie WRT54G and a small Shibby build.

                How does this all work behind the scene

                • by msauve ( 701917 )
                  Calling flow throttling "QoS" doesn't make it QoS, it just displays ignorance. And rate-limiting certain flows is a piss-poor way of ensuring bandwidth for others in comparison to real QoS. It does nothing to improve latency or jitter.
                  • by adolf ( 21054 )

                    Again, you haven't used it. You're working with a theory, and really have no idea what you're going on about.

                    Latency increases somewhat under load (as it must), though not appreciably enough to affect any of the things we do with it. Jitter is very low as well. No matter how hard people or things hit the network, the user experience remains very responsive for interactive tasks...perceptibly the same as it is with an unladen connection.

                    This, as opposed to hundreds of torrent peers hammering away, one or

                    • by msauve ( 701917 )
                      You really don't have a clue how real QoS works.
                    • by adolf ( 21054 )

                      Nay, I have plenty of clue. But the private commercial networks I manage do not benefit from QoS, as all packets that transverse these networks are equally important and congestion is -- by design -- not an issue.

                      You really don't have a clue that it's even possible to solve this problem with a home gateway. Your perception clouds your vision.

                      Your loss, friend.

                      Now get off my lawn.

  • Net neutrality is not what the name implies, at least not to the end user. How one can come up with a set of rules that are "neutral" to all users and providers is going to look like the IPv6 equivalent of a rube Goldberg machine, or it's going to be very disruptive to the internet in the USA.

    You can mandate "equal packet routing treatment", but that doesn't mean a network operator has to keep the links between the source and destination from being saturated (as in the Netflix/Verizon dispute). You can m

  • by gcnaddict ( 841664 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @08:19PM (#48164889)
    If you as a wireless ISP offer unmetered usage of select services over the Internet, you lose the "our networks are different" argument.

    Anyone offering select unmetered services such as music pass access, etc. should be prepared to lose this battle.
  • Seems like they're all maxxed out and congested until they want to offer a great deal on data for the new iPhone. Suddenly, additional bandwidth is available for these new subscribers.

  • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @11:07PM (#48165901) Homepage Journal

    Wireless bandwidth is limited by the allocated spectrum. With landlines, you can always drag more fiber or copper, hook it up, and expand your bandwidth. You can't do that with wireless.

    But I expect to be modded down because I'm not jumping on the "everything should be unlimited" bandwagon.

    • by ThatsMyNick ( 2004126 ) on Friday October 17, 2014 @01:16AM (#48166365)

      Net neutrality is not even anything close to unlimited bandwidth. It is about not discriminating traffic. At&t can keep their 2 GB caps, but they can't discriminate websites or discriminate customers for the matter

      • Don't you want to discriminate voice over bulk data to make VoLTE calls work even when the cell is at full load during peak time? That is what is done, and it's not only QoS: at the radio level the way a voice connection is handled is different. To optimize for voice, even if it's voice over IP, LTE does use different techniques (SPS, ROHC, TTI bundling...) that adds complexity to the system.

        And although overload doesn't always happen, it's something to be dealt with. We don't yet have the technology to o
        • by Qzukk ( 229616 )

          Don't you want to discriminate voice

          The telcos do, that way they can degrade Vonage connections until you cave in and get their phone service.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      In mobile, you can invest in newer technologies, more spectrum and better antennae. There is quite a bit of bandwidth available in the licensed spectrum, the spectrum is actually just as big for wireless than for copper and fiber. And precise direction of specific channels is also being worked on.

    • It's true that there are some inherit limits to wireless technology, but just because there are limits doesn't mean that the limits apply in a given scenario. If the degree of throttling has nothing to do with the amount of congestion, than the mere fact that congestion may be physically possible doesn't mean we are actually experiencing it.
    • Wireless bandwidth is limited by the allocated spectrum. With landlines, you can always drag more fiber or copper, hook it up, and expand your bandwidth.

      You can only safely put so many runs on a pole. And first you have a have a pole. So no, you cannot always drag more fiber or copper. But now we have pretty good spectrum-sharing technologies as well as beam forming and wireless is getting better all the time, whereas phone poles are pretty dead tech.

    • Wireless bandwidth is limited by the allocated spectrum. With landlines, you can always drag more fiber or copper, hook it up, and expand your bandwidth. You can't do that with wireless.

      No, but you can:

      • install more towers
      • reduce the power output/coverage on the existing towers, creating smaller cells
      • re-use the bandwidth you've already been allocated, in smaller cells

      This is how wireless carriers increase bandwidth. There's considerably more bandwidth available, per square mile, in a city than in a rural area. Not because they have more spectrum in the city. But because each tower services a smaller cell.

      It's slightly more complicated than that; adjacent towers need to use non-overl

  • That no one seems to get this? We have a tiered system now for internet access and it works damn good I believe. I get the bandwidth I pay for, If I want more speed, I pay more. Once you add in "net neutrality" it all turns to a pay for what you use system which will most definitely drive up prices. How the hell do people not see that? This is one big scam to bilk more money out of the consumer in the end. Does anyone really think that Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, and eBay are looking out for consumers on
  • If the carriers are marketing "Internet access" then it's deceptive to be anything other than "net-neutral" and the FTC should use its existing powers to force them to at least change their marketing.

Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham