Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > Areas of Expertise > Technology and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 15 December 2017, 13:33
Streck-Fu's Avatar
Streck-Fu Streck-Fu is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,510
I read a very good summary: You are being told that Net Neutrality is necessary by the same people that told you that you could keep you health insurance plan.

Quote:
Either we remove control and let the private businesses run amok and do whatever they want --- and we KNOW what they are planning to do (censorship, thought police, etc) ---
Net Neutrality was the second prong of the Obama administration's attempts to control content. The other was the Fairness Doctrine. Only Net Neutrality passed.

And now the internet has returned to the same conditions it operated under just two years ago.

Don't forget that former FCC Chairman, Wheeler, was against Net Neutrality until he was summoned by Obama to the White House, after which he became an ardent supporter. LINK

Last edited by Streck-Fu; 15 December 2017 at 13:41.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15 December 2017, 14:11
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
This is what the rules are, why they were created and the court cases that inspired their creation in the first place.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...CC-15-24A1.pdf

"A. Strong Rules That Protect Consumers from Past and Future Tactics that Threaten
the Open Internet
1. Clear, Bright-Line Rules
14. Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
service.
15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
telephone network.
16
Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
devices, subject to reasonable network management.
16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary
prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground
that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard
against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content,
application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network
management.
17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a
customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to
avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source,
destination, or content.17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a
broadband provider’s business model.
18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts
payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,
applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes
that:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. "

Last edited by Shark0311; 15 December 2017 at 14:24.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15 December 2017, 15:21
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
Not likely. The impact is tangible. When you have to pay an internet surcharge for video streaming or suffer from low quality video once again people will get it.

All of this has happened in the past thus the decision to regulate the ISPs as a utility. Every major ISP is also a content provider and have favored their content over the competitions. It costs more money and takes more skill to innovate and create content then it does to shake down the competition for protection money. AT&T wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars to acquire a good phone company like Ring Central to replace their shitty ip phone products ever again. They would simply tax them for making a better product.
What do you mean once again? ISP's offer different packages as it is. For example, I have uverse, and because I pay less than some other people, streaming video in HD is a pain in the ass.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15 December 2017, 15:42
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
If you pay for 10GB per month or 10MB/s downloads Net Neutrality says that you can do whatever you want until that 10GB or 10MB/s download speed is exhausted and it's legal.

Without it the ISP can say you can stream our XYZ video product in HD but cannot use Netflix without us degrading the quality or simply by blocking access to it (unless they pay a surcharge, which gets passed to you)

Netflix has a vast user base so it really doesn't hurt them as much because they can simply pass the cost on to you or as they have been doing become the ISP. It would significantly impact the SYFY channel online streaming or smaller less revenue generating businesses and limit your choices.

Last edited by Shark0311; 15 December 2017 at 15:52.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15 December 2017, 17:11
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,669
How is that any different than the same company doing the exact same thing with cable/satellite service? Want HD?

Your argument is basically that you would rather receive a higher bill from the ISP than from Netflix.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15 December 2017, 17:43
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Ungood
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,375
When it comes down to government or private sector oversight, I'll default to private.

Also, good luck coming up with a system for monitoring if an ISP is throttling for nefarious reason. Throttling happens all the time in order to provide the best possible service (VoIP getting priority over web, as a very simplified example of QoS).

Lastly, have Congress get involved if you want to regulate something. Not the FCC.
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15 December 2017, 18:28
Gryfen-FL Gryfen-FL is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: east coast
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve83 View Post
My favorite Internet ranter's take on it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA
Summ beech. He's got a point.
__________________
Quote:
Since it was Virginia, did they go ahead and write a traffic ticket to the corpse when they were done?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15 December 2017, 18:39
8654maine 8654maine is offline
Another pool cleaner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,991
How could the new net neutrality rules affect things like e-commerce or cryptocurrency transactions?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15 December 2017, 22:03
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by havok88 View Post
How is that any different than the same company doing the exact same thing with cable/satellite service? Want HD?

Your argument is basically that you would rather receive a higher bill from the ISP than from Netflix.
When you pay for a cable tv subscription you are buying a content package. When you pay for internet access you are buying access to the internet.

NN ensures that you get what you pay for unencumbered.

No blocking, no throttling, no paying for preferred access.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15 December 2017, 22:04
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by CV View Post
When it comes down to government or private sector oversight, I'll default to private.

Also, good luck coming up with a system for monitoring if an ISP is throttling for nefarious reason. Throttling happens all the time in order to provide the best possible service (VoIP getting priority over web, as a very simplified example of QoS).

Lastly, have Congress get involved if you want to regulate something. Not the FCC.
QoS needs to be application agnostic unless there is a good reason. Section 221 of the document I linked.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15 December 2017, 22:24
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
When you pay for a cable tv subscription you are buying a content package. When you pay for internet access you are buying access to the internet.

NN ensures that you get what you pay for unencumbered.

No blocking, no throttling, no paying for preferred access.
Yes, when you sign up for cable, you sign an agreement for what you are paying for, just like with internet.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 16 December 2017, 00:47
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
At the end of the day none of this really matters. It's interesting history. Now we just sit back and see how it plays out.

Hopefully Ajit stops making videos and continues to take interviews in a suit.

If the ISPs start messing with your content then pay for a VPN service. They can't block what they cant see.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 17 December 2017, 10:29
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Ungood
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
QoS needs to be application agnostic unless there is a good reason. Section 221 of the document I linked.
The good reason is that's how the Internet works. If you treat all traffic the same, you're in for a world of hurt and are also thrashing two decades of technology designed to make sure prioritization and service create a better experience online.

You're trying to boil NN down to simple terms, when simple terms cannot be applied--let alone enforced through some arbitrary rule by the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311
NN ensures that you get what you pay for unencumbered.
It doesn't do that at all. There is no reasonable or efficiently way to monitor and enforce NN. It's a buzzword and political football.
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 18 December 2017, 09:48
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
That's a valid point. It is a very complex issue and those harmed by it were the small WISPs / ISPs.

A tiered system would have been much better to continue to foster competition. If you have more than 10,000 subscribers let's say then you need to adhere to XYZ regulation etc.

For example Comcast already had to adhere to NN and still does for a period of time as per their merger with NBC.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 18 December 2017, 10:18
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by CV View Post
Lastly, have Congress get involved if you want to regulate something. Not the FCC.
The FCC, FAA, EPA, etc. are the subject matter experts and are subject to congressional oversight.

I wouldn't want elected officials who work a pretty light schedule handing out individual decisions on complex matters. The glazed over look in their eyes the first time that they would have to do so would be telling.

Kind of reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

Last edited by Shark0311; 18 December 2017 at 10:30.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 20 December 2017, 10:07
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
I just thought of an interesting scenario. Let's say that George Soros decides to invest in small regional WISPs / ISPs and as a term of service decides to filter and block access to information with opposing view points on his network. Without NN this is perfectly legal.

A church could run fiber and sell internet access and do the same. So could the flat earthers, green peace or anyone with enough funding and desire to sell a point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 20 December 2017, 10:32
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 469
"Telecommunications and Internet service companies[edit]
In 2007, Verizon attempted to block the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America from using their text messaging services to speak to their supporters. Verizon claims it was in order to enforce a policy that doesn’t allow their customers to use their service to communicate “controversial” or “unsavory” messages.[60] Comcast, AT&T and many other ISPs have also been accused of regulating internet traffic and bandwidth.

eNom, a private domain name registrar and Web hosting company operating in the U.S., disables domain names which appear on a U.S. Treasury Department blacklist.[25][26]"

“It is only a matter of time until we get pressure from above regarding you--they have done it many times in the past with spammers and pornographers that were downstream from us...None of those businesses are around today. These people will go after each link of the chain until one of the links break.”6

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/erobe...ensorship.html
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 21 December 2017, 21:54
anachranerd's Avatar
anachranerd anachranerd is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Dallas, TX
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
I just thought of an interesting scenario. Let's say that George Soros decides to invest in small regional WISPs / ISPs and as a term of service decides to filter and block access to information with opposing view points on his network. Without NN this is perfectly legal.

A church could run fiber and sell internet access and do the same. So could the flat earthers, green peace or anyone with enough funding and desire to sell a point of view.
Good post.

Bottom line- ISP's are there to sell you layer 1-3 connectivity. Physical connections to their network, and routing at the border gateway layer.

The entire design of the internet is that each layer doesn't give a damn what is in the layer above/below it as long as the data follows protocols.

Applications like Skype, Facebook, Google, etc etc operate at the application layer, level 7. The ISP's can use their monopoly on layers 1-3 to create artificial scarcity on level 7.

There in no technical justification for them to filter on the type of level 7 traffic that is being passed(outside of QoS)- unless they want the ability to say "Hey thats a nice application you wrote- it would be a shame if something were to happen to it".

Like Netflix- people are using their fairly purchased bandwidth to watch shows there instead of on the providers overpriced TV services. Providers don't like that- so they want to be able to look at the application layer and fuck with the normal supply and demand.
__________________
"Seems like not having friends from all walks of society might mean missing out on a lot of what the world has to offer."

-SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22 December 2017, 01:34
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Ungood
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,375
How do you propose the government would be able to monitor and enforce "net neutrality"? Being able to discriminate whether traffic is throttling, or just QoS, would require a significant amount of power and authority over the companies. This doesn't even begin to touch the 4A issues surrounding packet inspection under the guise of NN.

It's a farce. I'd rather a greedy ISP than the government. As I've said, 'Net Neutrality' is the new 'Assault Rifle'.
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22 December 2017, 22:29
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 7,772
Not really spun up on the discussion, but you enforce it by crushing corporations when they get caught, as they invariably will, just like Apple with their current de-rating of older I-phones. Not too hard to justify some form of theft type charges.

The ideal form of relationship between government and business, from the perspective of the consumer(ie the citizenry) should be adversarial. S/F....Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what I’m about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons."— L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:36.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET