T3H Official Net Neutrality Thread and Poll

[gnome]

Because nothing resolves an issue like a bunch of mostly amateurs arguing on an obsolete social media platform in a forgotten corner of the internet. This will settle it forever!

You can change your vote as the debate goes on.

BEGIN!

[gnome]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

[Grammatron]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

I'm all for net neutrality, but IMO what you're describing is some sort of a post-apocalyptic end of a slippery slope that I just can't imagine coming to fruition.

[gnome]

Don't misunderstand--I don't see it as necessarily catastrophic, just a serious chilling effect on independent content as there will be artificial barriers to reaching an audience. Also intercompany wrangling causing QoS issues--like how satellite providers are always fighting over local channels, or how Netflix got throttled by Comcast.

[Rob Lister]

Ya know, I say I don't understand it but maybe I really do.

Your ISP gives you unlimited access. Well, most do. But they pay per block of access. All the sudden Netflix comes along. At first it is not a big deal and then 90% of their customers are using it. So that block of access they use is suddenly not enough and they have to pay for 5 blocks of access. And that's not enough. So they have to upgrade their routers and pay for 10 blocks of access.

Their solution, obvious or not, is to raise prices for all or find a way to parlay the access. They choose to parlay (charge the source) because they did not what to double the cost of access.

One can dither about the cost but it is clear there is a cost. What to do.

I would choose to pay the extra cost for access at the user end (net neutrality) . They chose to charge the providers, like netflix, for the burden.

That's net neutrality in a nut-fucking-shell.

Who is right?

[gnome]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

[Rob Lister]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

I agree. because if they can charge you [them] they can charge for anything. Let's keep it as is. Let's let the consumer pay. Just so you know, it won't be free.

[Grammatron]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

There's also the technological progress aspect of this. Today you have to move, tomorrow you might be getting serious broadband competition from cell towers and wifi access points.

[Nyarlathotep]

"Might" being the keyword. Maybe. Someday, eventually. Maybe not at all, not in any reasonable time frame anyway.

My job requires me to deal with a lot of clients in areas best described as "somewhere past the ass end of nowhere". They were still stuck using dial up like some kind of neanderthal as late as 2011 or so. Because that was their only choice up until then.

Net Neutrality is another one of those issues where as a matter of principle, I side with one side but as a pragmatist, I side with the other. I agree with the principle behind not enforcing net neutrality, but I fear the fallout of what will happen when you can essentially only go to those websites and use those services approved by your ISP. Which side I come down on depends on how I am feeling that particular day

[Grammatron]

"Might" being the keyword. Maybe.

I was speaking in the context of the possibility. I chose to be optimistic about potential outcome, no one else has to.

[Rob Lister]

I'm always winning. I take exception to you.

[gnome]

Ok, the results are in. Summarized... Planet X was the clear winner at 40%. "Whatever/Don't know" tied with "Yes" at 30%, 0% said no.

I am disappoint.

[gnome]

Just to be contrary, or in actual opposition?

[gnome]

Well let's hear it, so that I can tell you why you're wrong

[Anaxagoras]

If we got "net neutrality" who would be enforcing it?

Top men.

[gnome]

I'm guessing the same people that enforce exiating laws.

Either direct regulation by the FCC, or being vulnerable to lawsuits in courtrooms. I would personally be fine with many different options. Heck, if NN persists without regulation just because the oligopoly finds it best to keep it so, that is fine too. Better than government, even.

[Witness]

Just saw that the Swiss passed last month a Net Neutrality law:

Abs. 1) Die Anbieterinnen von Zugang zum Internet übertragen Informationen, ohne dabei zwischen Sendern, Empfängern, Inhalten, Diensten, Diensteklassen, Protokollen, Anwendungen, Programmen oder Endgeräten technisch oder wirtschaftlich zu unterscheiden.

https://www.digitale-gesellschaft.ch/20 ... geschafft/

Roughly translated:
"Par. 1 The ISPs transmit data, without distinguishing between emitters, receivers, contents, services, types of services, usages, softwares or terminal hardwares, be it technically or commercially."

There are two more commonsense paragraphs (lawful requests, network overload, security, other services like telephone, &c.).

[Witness]

↑ Made me laugh.

You can also have Swiss encrypted e-mail (with double pw): https://protonmail.com/

[gnome]

Hey, my thread's back. And the results have morphed a bit.

[Witness]

House votes to reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules

The House on Wednesday voted to reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules prohibiting internet service providers from interfering with web traffic.

The bill passed by a 232-190 vote, mostly along party lines. Just one Republican, Rep. Bill Posey (Fla.), voted for the bill.

House Democrats pushed their measure, dubbed the Save the Internet Act, through the chamber in the face of opposition from conservative groups and Republican lawmakers, but the legislation will likely hit a wall in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Earlier this week the White House also came out in opposition with a threat to veto the bill if it makes it to President Trump’s desk.

The bill would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) party-line vote in 2017 to repeal the rules prohibiting broadband companies from blocking, throttling or prioritizing certain websites.
[…]
Republicans have resisted Democrats’ efforts to reinstate the rules over opposition to broadening the FCC’s oversight.

Republican lawmakers painted the Democrats’ effort as part of a “socialist agenda” with ominous warnings that setting rules for broadband providers would amount to burdensome government interference with the internet.

The GOP has introduced their own net neutrality bills that would implement prohibitions against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. But the proposals have been nonstarters with Democrats and net neutrality advocates because they lack the enforcement mechanisms of the 2015 order, which designated broadband companies as common carriers and gave the FCC broad oversight powers.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4381 ... lity-rules


In other news, my ISP spontaneously upgraded me from 200 to 300 Mbps.
(Of course there aren't that much servers willing to send you data at that speed.)

[Witness]

Judge Orders FCC to Hand Over IP Addresses Linked to Fake Net Neutrality Comments

A Manhattan federal judge has ruled the Federal Communications Commission must provide two reporters access to server logs that may provide new insight into the allegations of fraud stemming from agency’s 2017 net neutrality rollback.

A pair of New York Times reporters—Nicholas Confessore and Gabriel Dance—sued the FCC under the Freedom of Information Act after it refused their request to view copies of the logs. The logs will show, among other details, the originating IP addresses behind the millions of public comments sent to the agency ahead of the December 2017 net neutrality vote.

The FCC attempted to quash the paper’s request but failed to persuade District Judge Lorna Schofield, who wrote that, despite the privacy concerns raised by the agency, releasing the logs may help clarify whether fraudulent activity interfered with the comment period, as well as whether the agency’s decision-making process is “vulnerable to corruption.”

https://gizmodo.com/judge-orders-fcc-to ... 1843202071

[gnome]

I am very interested in that. But I think it's a bit overblown. If someone did fake it I don't know why they would bother. It could have been filled with 100% legitimate comments against it and the FCC still could have said "Thanks for your opinion. We're doing this anyway." I fully expected that.

[Rob Lister]

You're right, gnome but IMO the FCC is not immune to negative publicity; it may not kill but it sure stings. Trump openly wanted to nix Net Neutrality (one of my fairly few peeves with his direction) and Pai was his man with the plan. I don't think Pai would fake the comments personally but I'm sure he wouldn't look too hard at obvious comment stuffing that supported what he fully intended to do anyway.

[gnome]

True enough. And I hope someone gets busted if what it seems to be is true.

Of course, if "someone" is in Kiselyovsk or Veles or whatever I'm not sure what anyone can do about it after the fact.

[ed]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

I'm all for net neutrality, but IMO what you're describing is some sort of a post-apocalyptic end of a slippery slope that I just can't imagine coming to fruition.

Still believe that?

[gnome]

6-1 now. I wonder if sites being choosy about who they platform has affected this.

[Grammatron]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

I'm all for net neutrality, but IMO what you're describing is some sort of a post-apocalyptic end of a slippery slope that I just can't imagine coming to fruition.

Still believe that?

Yes.

[Grammatron]

Turns out I was wrong.

[gnome]

If it helps, I haven't changed my mind just because people I voted for are gaining power. Net neutrality would mean that you don't have to play ball with the big companies to get your content out.