Net Neutrality: 2018 No Lube Edition

[TahoeHorn 107]

I have mixed feelings about net neutrality.  I'm sure a lot of that is due to a lack of understanding of some of the issues.

I think that:

- there are some functions which are essentially a utility, and should be operated like a utility.  To use an example I understand if somebody owns the interstate from Houston to Dallas they shouldn't be permitted to fuck over their competitors by treating their cars differently.

- not all users are alike.  Again an example I understand, it isn't right to expect the huge truck to pay the same fee as a car.  The utility should be allowed to charge the truck a truck rate.

These points conflict, and the answer lies in understanding the facts.  And I don't.  I know the trucking companies want one pricing system and subcompact car owners another.  I can see the right balance for cars but not for internet users because I understand the real costs for highway usage but not for internet usage.

And teo more things: 

1. The model is a fixed cost model.  Variable costs are almost zip.  So utilization is very, very important.

2. The price performance of the technology changes dramatically.  New capacity might be provided at one one hundredth the cost of a decade earlier.  That also does ugly things to pricing models.

 

It's not easy to understand and I distrust simple answers.

Edited May 18, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

I’m relatively ok with infrastructure owners regulating speed.  Not content.  To me that’s what it boils down to.  

[TahoeHorn 107]

12 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’m relatively ok with infrastructure owners regulating speed.  Not content.  To me that’s what it boils down to.  

That would address my conflict because speed affects their cost.  Content does not. 

Unfair discrimination is still possible but less so.

Edited May 18, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[burntorangebongos 10,681]

Those house members should think of this and vote against the dotard for the record. So What if he vetos it.  Fuck the graft and collusion and do the right thing, fucking cowards!

[relapse98 634]

15 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

because speed affects their cost.  Content does not.

Kinda, sorta.

Where the content comes from can affect the cost. If its coming from a local caching server on the providers network, it may be cheaper than content coming across internet links. Of course the most expensive portion is the last mile, but still, where packets come from can make a difference in cost.

[Biff Tannen 45,500]

13 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Those house members should think of this and vote against the dotard for the record. So What if he vetos it.  Fuck the graft and collusion and do the right thing, fucking cowards!

Lol, good luck.  "Do the right thing" and "House members".  The two shall never meet.

[JBJ 3,649]

My thoughts:

1) Blocking shouldn't be allowed with the exception of suspicious or illegal activity.

2) Throttling shouldn't be allowed based on source, but based on classification I'm okay with.  For example, throttling generic web browsing to prioritize video streaming.

3) Paid-prioritization.  We already have it.  Most people just don't realize it.  I'd allow for ISPs to provide paid caching and the like, pay or be throttled is not okay.

4) Data-rating should be allowed, again, only by classification and not source.  Unlimited free music, not unlimited free Spotify.

5) Has the definiton of "last mile" changed?

[atomheartbevo 89,452]

4 hours ago, relapse98 said:

Kinda, sorta.

Where the content comes from can affect the cost. If its coming from a local caching server on the providers network, it may be cheaper than content coming across internet links. Of course the most expensive portion is the last mile, but still, where packets come from can make a difference in cost.

These companies are not losing money because of data in and of itself.   Bandwidth is insanely cheap, especially for the largest providers, but it’s cheap for us peons who run small and medium websites as well  

These companies feel they lose money because somebody drops $90 worth of mostly shitty channels in deliberately designed shitty tiers in favor of $25 spent on Hulu and Netflix.   They deliver shitty and unwanted products at a high cost alongside the products we actually want. 

[relapse98 634]

Quote

These companies are not losing money because of data in and of itself.

There is a cost difference. That's black and white fact.  Per packet, not huge, but multiplied out, there is an actual accountable dollar difference.

Quote

These companies feel they lose money because somebody drops $90 worth of mostly shitty channels in deliberately designed shitty tiers in favor of $25 spent on Hulu and Netflix.   They deliver shitty and unwanted products at a high cost alongside the products we actually want.  

Yeah, the cable game is a losing proposition. For the most part, the content providers increase the cost that the cable companies must pay every time the contracts come up for renewal. And for the most part, the cable companies just increase your bill by that same amount.

 

And you know why you get shitty channels in shitty tiers, right? Because of the shitty content providers. "To be able to get X channel that everyone wants, you must also sell Y channel and put it on your lowest tier". Or their new fun one, we don't care who you give our channel to, but we will charge you for every video customer you have. F that.

 

What's happening is that MSOs are getting smart and either getting out of the video game. Or providing a box for a flat charge and if you want channels on top of it, that's fine, here's our cost. Or you can use the apps on it and subscribe to netflix, hulu, amazon, hbo, playstation, twitch, and on and on and on and on. And I think what's going to happen is that the market will continue to fracture and to see the latest show, you must subscribe to yet another streaming service. And eventually your bill might be the same as it was before cord cutting, you just are getting different shitty channels from different providers.

[Bill Clinton 73]

Article 13 - the real internet killer, for the EU. Requires all social media to perform automatic filtering of all content. Bye bye EU surly users.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

Quote

"By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users," that letter read.

The authors note that copyright is an important part of law, which exists to encourage creators to ensure their work is put out into the world. But the automatic systems being considered by the EU are not the right ways of controlling that, they argue.

 

[Doris 9]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1019286994478911488

virgin UK censors Breitbart 

[Js1 85,115]

Hi Annie!

[TwiceHorn 31,290]

Hmmm.  The EU rule is directed against copyright material.  It is irreconcilable with the DMCA (rather than imposing a take-down rule after notice, it requires providers to actively filter copyright content).  So it isn't censorship and it isn't like net neutrality.

 

I'm conflicted over that.  The internet is the greatest copyright infringement machine since the photocopier.

[bernorange 8,348]

I started a thread dedicate to the Article 13 issue:  http://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/2952-so-the-eu-wants-to-destroy-the-internets/

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

3 hours ago, Doris said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1019286994478911488

virgin UK censors Breitbart 

For those of you who don't follow all the cloak and dagger troll/sock shit, Doris was also Annie (banned), and also Barbara (banned), and will be Frances next. All those handles were registered on the same day, and as soon as one gets banned, he moves on to the next. 

[Ted Lange 16,053]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,547]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/verizon-throttled-santa-clara-county-fires-data-battled/story?id=57332361

Santa Clara County Fire Chief, Anthony Bowden, said fire teams were hampered in their work battling the recent California wildfires by Verizon’s intentional slowdown of data, despite the fact that the fire department had an "unlimited data plan."

Bowden detailed the situation as part of the lawsuit filed by 22 states and the District of Columbia that challenges the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, which prevented internet service providers from purposely slowing the data, called "throttling," and blocking or discriminating against users, platforms or content providers.

[TwiceHorn 31,290]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/verizon-throttled-santa-clara-county-fires-data-battled/story?id=57332361

Santa Clara County Fire Chief, Anthony Bowden, said fire teams were hampered in their work battling the recent California wildfires by Verizon’s intentional slowdown of data, despite the fact that the fire department had an "unlimited data plan."

Bowden detailed the situation as part of the lawsuit filed by 22 states and the District of Columbia that challenges the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, which prevented internet service providers from purposely slowing the data, called "throttling," and blocking or discriminating against users, platforms or content providers.
 

That's gross and Verizon is the devil, but that really isn't a net-neutrality issue.  Even with NN, providers are allowed to throttle data, as long as it isn't content-based.  This is probably deceptive, though, can't really tell.

[Incredulity 11,555]

This was throttling based on amount of data, not content or user.

Of course it is a bad look for Verizon and certainly public safety should be an exception.

 

[Captainant 27,468]

Bump

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-comments-lawsuit/

[Biff Tannen 45,500]

Man, take the time to copy and quote the content so my work computer doesn't get aids from your link.

[atomheartbevo 89,452]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Man, take the time to copy and quote the content so my work computer doesn't get aids from your link.

Quote

Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Ajit Pai said it was a “fact” that there was Russian interference in the public comments ahead of its controversial net neutrality vote last year, amid sparring between another commissioner about a lawsuit the agency is in the midst of.

The admittance was made in response to a lawsuit filed by the New York Times, who requested access to records surrounding the public comments that they argued would “shed light to the extent to which Russian nationals and agents of the Russian government have interfered with the agency notice-and-comment process about a topic of extensive public interest.”

 

 

[elfenix 34,172]

FCC wants to reclassify text messages from a Telecom service to an information session

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/senators-oppose-fcc-plan-for-rollback-of-net-neutrality-for-text-messages-2018-12-07

 

 

The real issue is that the definition of information service is so broad that you could make anything be an information service.

 

However, if you think back to the mid 90s when the telecom dereg act was passed, it really isn't that hard to figure out. Back then you had a bunch of walled garden networks that were independent of the internet, such as AOL or CompuServe (along with lots of BBSes). Sure, some of them offered internet access as well, but on something like AOL you never had to leave AOL's network if you didn't want to. The other thing you had back then were dial in ISPs. You dialed in, got an IP address, and were fully part of the internet.

 

If you remember how things were, it's pretty clear which of these is an information service and which is a telecom service.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,290]

That telecom act has proven to be a really epic pile of shit. Not that deregulation wasn't warranted, but the 1996 Act has had so many unforeseen consequences. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Ted Lange 16,053]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,452]

17 hours ago, elfenix said:

If you remember how things were, it's pretty clear which of these is an information service and which is a telecom service.

There's a reason why the telecoms were so pissed at Apple when the iPhone rolled out and Apple told them to fuck off when they wanted to load up third-party apps and control what the users do with it.

My first phone with a camera was a prime example.  My cell phone company (and the others selling it) did everything they could to try and force users to pay to download their photos to their computers, upload ringtones, etc (they did not provide a cable to connect to your computer).  I bought a dongle from Hong Kong and bypassed all of that but most users didn't know any better (and the companies had all kinds of threatening phrasing about using third-party cables, etc.).

They would love to take us back to those days.

[kevwun 15,657]

I have a friend who is convinced the whole reason Google is rolling out their own cell network is to capture iphone user data.

[Captainant 27,468]

5 hours ago, kevwun said:

I have a friend who is convinced the whole reason Google is rolling out their own cell network is to capture iphone user data.

Does your friend understand encrypted network traffiC? The best Google could do with that data is see how much traffic, and to which IP's (assuming the user isn't using a VPN) but none of the content of the data. 

[kevwun 15,657]

Oh he understands that.

[maninblack 7,974]

One year ago today the internet ended


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ted Lange 16,053]

[maninblack 7,974]

Loading....loading.... loading


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ted Lange 16,053]

Well that’s strange, since we were promised that if NN was dumped all the ISPs were gonna start dumping piles of cash into infrastructure. 

[Incredulity 11,555]

5 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Well that’s strange, since we were promised that if NN was dumped all the ISPs were gonna start dumping piles of cash into infrastructure. 

Fwiw I have a cousin who’s business is busy as fuck installing “antenna” to all types of light/power/cellular poles all over the PNW for Verizon to upgrade to 5g

[Brian Fantana 6,668]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/centurylink-blocks-internet-access-falsely-claims-state-law-required-it/

CenturyLink briefly disabled the Internet connections of customers in Utah last week and allowed them back online only after they acknowledged an offer to purchase filtering software.

I'm happy all you morons celebrating the end of net neutrality got what you wanted! 

[Captainant 27,468]

Can't you just feel your internet freedoms being restored??

[Ted Lange 16,053]

But what about @maninblack memes he got form the Daily Caller to own the libs, that is better than NN!

[Brian Fantana 6,668]

Just now, Ted Lange said:

But what about @maninblack memes he got form the Daily Caller to own the libs, that is better than NN!

You mean The_Donald/voat

[maninblack 7,974]

6 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

But what about @maninblack memes he got form the Daily Caller to own the libs, that is better than NN!

You can leave CenturyLink. Can't leave the government.

[maninblack 7,974]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You mean The_Donald/voat

Keep up junior

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,547]

20 minutes ago, maninblack said:

You can leave CenturyLink. Can't leave the government.

The government left. Same one taxpayers funded to come up with the internet.

[Brian Fantana 6,668]

25 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Keep up junior

You're the one that got outed by a simple Google image search, champ. 

[Tom 2,959]

8 hours ago, maninblack said:

You can leave CenturyLink. Can't leave the government.

 

The libertarian answer for everything.  "You can always leave CenturyLink.  Just utilize the wonderful free market!"

Great idea, except for the millions of Americans who may only have access to 1 high speed ISP or at best two.  Never mind the costs, fees, and nuisance that comes with having to switch providers, if that's even a possibility at all.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Tom

[Captainant 27,468]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

Great idea, except for the millions of Americans who may only have access to 1 high speed ISP or at best two.  Never mind the costs, fees, and nuisance that comes with having to switch providers, if that's even a possibility at all.

And nevermind that in the case of having two "options", they're the exact same product with the same prices and options. Or one is vastly inferior (as in 1.5mbps vs 50mbps). ISP's are just digital plumbers. They do not bring extra utility to internet connectivity that would exempt them from being classified as common carriers. I would love to hear an honest argument to that end, because I can't for the life of me think of a reason why they aren't common carriers.

[DixonHur 11,228]

Well, this will come as a big surprise to...NO ONE!

Quote

Network investment is down, layoffs abound, and networks are falling apart.

I thought ending Net Neutrality was supposed to remove the shackles of regulation in order to bring about massive investment in infrastructure.

I'm shocked that greed would win out...just shocked I tell ya.

Link

[Brisketexan 104,631]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, this will come as a big surprise to...NO ONE!

I thought ending Net Neutrality was supposed to remove the shackles of regulation in order to bring about massive investment in infrastructure.

I'm shocked that greed would win out...just shocked I tell ya.

Link

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,359]

Corporate overlords win again

[elfenix 34,172]

ars on data caps (which aren't verboten under net neutrality but are just as bullshit):

Quote

OpenVault found that households that face data caps use 8.5-percent less data than un-capped users, suggesting that cable customers limit their Internet usage when they face the prospect of overage fees. According to OpenVault, the caps can help cable companies avoid major network upgrades.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/01/terabyte-using-cable-customers-double-increasing-risk-of-data-cap-fees/

Quote

Un-capped customers are, naturally, more likely to exceed a terabyte. "The percentage of flat-rate (non-UBB) households exceeding 1TB of usage was 4.82 percent, a full percentage point higher than the 3.81 percent of UBB households who exceeded the 1TB threshold," OpenVault said.

people aren't thinking strategically.  when i didn't have data caps i was pulling about 600/GB a month.  once i was subject to comcast's 1 TB data cap, i started pulling 950-1000/GB a month (i'd cut it even closer but comcast's bandwidth usage meter is a fucking joke).  since the unused bandwidth doesn't roll over, it's use it or lose it, so i use it. 

[atomheartbevo 89,452]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/fcc-restores-net-neutrality-rules-that-ban-blocking-and-throttling-in-3-2-vote/

She pulled it off

Quote

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3–2 to impose net neutrality rules today, restoring the common-carrier regulatory framework enforced during the Obama era and then abandoned while Trump was president.

The rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful content and ban paid prioritization. Cable and telecom companies plan to fight the rules in court, but they lost a similar battleduring the Obama era when judges upheld the FCC's ability to regulate ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

Quote

"Consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at today's meeting. "They do not want their providers engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. And if they have problems, they expect the nation's expert authority on communications to be able to respond. Because we put national net neutrality rules back on the books, we fix that today."

Quote

"This is a nonissue for broadband consumers, who have enjoyed an open Internet for decades," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter said. "Rather than pushing this harmful regulatory land grab, policymakers should keep their eyes on the real-world prize of building opportunity for everyone in a hyperconnected world."

I guess Jonathan missed the part where Time Warner tried to push through data caps of  5GB-40GB, or all of the broadband CEOs that bitched that they should get a share of revenue of the fees that we were sending to Netflix, etc. (they already get paid for our use of Netflix).

It sucks that the Republicans are vowing to dump this if a Republican gets back in the White House.

[atomheartbevo 89,452]

I'm willing to compromise - all of the broadband companies bitching about this can return all of the government subsidies and grants they've collected over the years, and they can compensate land owners when their infrastructure is directly on private property (I'm fine with overhead cables, but not the boxes/trunks located on/in the ground), and in return they don't need to be held to these standards.