Sophos Cloud Optix
The spinning wheel of death took over much of the internet on Wednesday, as companies displayed the “page loading” symbol to remind people what an internet without net neutrality would look like and to drive public comment to lawmakers.
The internet didn’t really slow down.
It was, rather, a display to illustrate what we might have to deal with if the participating companies were forced to pay more to ISPs in order to deliver service that customers could live with.
That same scenario, it’s feared, entails a stuttering-video, slow-loading-time service that we’d be stuck in if we didn’t pay our way out of it.
The participating entities included image and video streaming companies such as Netflix, Vimeo, Imgur, and Tumblr; news sites like Digg and Reddit; Kickstarter; plus Firefox browser developer Mozilla and WordPress – the engine that runs beneath some of the biggest blogs on the internet.
Participating entities and individuals are listed on the homepage of Battle for the Net, which rallied the net neutrality forces and provided code for the page-loading icons.
“Internet slowdown day”, on 10 September, coincided with the end of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) extended public comment period for online neutrality.
Under consideration have been proposals put forth in May 2014 that could leave the door open for internet service providers (ISPs) to give preferential treatment to those who shell out for it.
It’s been dubbed an internet “fast lane”, and the prospect is considered an unfair advantage to those who pay for better, faster service – one that could mean slower connections for those who can’t or won’t pay.
Clicking on the wheels of deaths on the participating sites were leading users to ways to protest the proposed rules, including by signing a petition or being able to send an email or to call the appropriate US senator.
The symbolic spinning circles will should have now vacated the sites by now.
If not, don’t blame internet slowdown day – you might need to reboot your router.
I find it ironic that Netflix participated in this when they kicked the door open with their Comcast deal.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. If I don’t use Netflix why should I have to pay for those that do? If they need the faster service, let them pay for it.
Someone has already paid for the internet. It goes like this:
Backbone companies build and maintain the backbone
Companies like ISPs pay the backbone companies to connect and use their lines
ISPs and backbone companies create peering agreements where they share each other’s data, usually at no cost
Consumer ISPs and hosting services pay those top level ISPs to use their networks
Consumers and businesses (including other hosting services) pay the above ISPs to use their services.
So as you see, under this model, everyone pays and everyone is connected.
However, what has happened in some places (in this example, parts of the USA) is this:
Consumer ISPs became top level ISPs, and then started using their subscriber base as an incentive for the backbone companies to pay THEM for access to their subscribers
Not content with this, they then made the same attempt to bypass the backbone companies and negotiate peering agreements with other top level ISPs where the other ISPs pay them for access to their customers
Not content with this, they then approached popular services (such as NetFlix) that operate on other ISPs and also asked THEM for more money to get unimpeded access to their customers.
And this isn’t about network infrastructure; they’re already getting grants from the government (that means you’re already paying) to improve the network infrastructure, and they haven’t met their commitments. Companies such as Netflix also have no issues with co-locating a content server inside the other ISP’s network (and paying for this service) to improve transmission speed to the customers. But the ISPs are rejecting these offers.
I find it more hypocritical than ironic, really.
NetFlix stood their ground for years while Comcast and Verizon actively devalued NetFlix’s services; Most others paid little attention and took no action. It’s only when NetFlix finally gave in to Comcast’s extortion that others started to realize that they could be the next target.
What I find ironic is that this event, intended to generate attention on the topic, coincided with the *end* of public comments. I would expect a larger impact if attention was gained while folks still had an opportunity for discussion.
Net neutrality (NN) is a good concept which is close to outliving its usefulness. In a capitalistic society, we should use all basic laws of supply and demand.
There are two fundamental problems, though, that prevent supply and demand from working properly:
First, there are monopolies on the supply side (ISPs).
Second, NN allows for exploitation on the demand side.
NN should, IMO, be removed. However, before that should happen, there needs to be non-monopoly ISP connections available, covering the entire spectrum of service. In other words, there should be at least two cable companies, two DSL companies, 2 satellite companies, etc. This should be true in all markets.
So, my opinion is that NN should only be removed once there is no monopoly of any type of ISP service in a geography. Until then, NN needs to stay, at least for the monopoly providers.
Downtown Houston doesn’t have two cable companies? Keep NN for cable. 2nd-tier suburbs of New York don’t have two DSL providers? Keep NN for DSL. Rural Arizona doesn’t have 2 satellite providers? Keep NN for satellite. Etc.