Net Neutrality 2017

[pcm81]

This thread is intended to discuss the technical feasibility of traffic segregation if something stupid is to happen to net neutrality under republican hill.

Lets say net neutrality is no more and providers can segregate traffic. It seems to me two implications are possible:
1. Completely blocking content. This may run into a problem with first amendment, since in this case cariers are suppressing content providers freedom of speech.
2. Slowing down certain content types like video.
3. Providing content from service provider at faster speed or not counting it towards data cap. I don't see a problem with this as long as the rest of the content is provided per TOS signed by the customer.

Now, let's talk about the technical side of things:
1. How reasonable is it to actually have the above (and what ever other scenarios i did not think about) being enforced? Does existing hardware support traffic segregation or do service providers have to buy new fancy gadgets to implement such segregation?
2. How likely that such traffic segregation can be overcome by ssh tunnels to european server or even a home server on a different provider network? Could ssh tunnels fall under "segregated" traffic criteria like video content?
3. Any other technologies on the horizon (other than ssh tunnelling) that will help to hide traffic types and render traffic segregation useless?

4. Do you think passing of net neutrality legislation will backfire on FBI and other national security agencies by accelerating "going dark" condition due to increased use of encryption to circumvent traffic segregation.

What did I forget?

 

[dank69]

If? There is roughly a 0.0% chance that the GOP won't eradicate net neutrality. It's standing in the way of mountains of corporate profit just to protect consumers.

 

[Sonikku]

Net Neutrality is as good as dead.

 

[pcm81]

I get the whole legislature aspect of net neutrality. My question is about technical aspect of it. Theoretically someone could make SSH proxy and hide the traffic type... Of-course this assumes the proxy's ISP is not segregating the traffic as well...

 

[Thump553]

The payola money is 100% in favor of defeating net neutrality. Trump's picks are against it. It's gone.

 

[compuwiz1]

Net Neutrality is as good as dead.

And pretty much anything Obama created with his pen. If Trump doesn't like something, it'll be like watching line run off a fishing reel.

 

[pcm81]

Let's keep this to a technical discussion... I really do not care about politics anymore....

 

[greatnoob]

I get the whole legislature aspect of net neutrality. My question is about technical aspect of it. Theoretically someone could make SSH proxy and hide the traffic type... Of-course this assumes the proxy's ISP is not segregating the traffic as well...

So long as data is encrypted, transmitted and received in real time there would be no way for ISPs to intercept, check and block a stream.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let's keep this to a technical discussion... I really do not care about politics anymore....

In P&N of all locations?
Well that would change my reply...

So long as data is encrypted, transmitted and received in real time there would be no way for ISPs to intercept, check and block a stream.

Yes... how could they bypass that?
Maybe such an effort would be to make encryption illegal, or easily void and bypassable for those interested.

 

[greatnoob]

Yes... how could they bypass that?
Maybe such an effort would be to make encryption illegal, or easily void and bypassable for those interested.

I doubt they could pass legislation making encryption illegal without an uproar or massive backlash. I also highly doubt they'd be able to do anything against encrypted transmission unless they have some sort of well-hidden, futuristic quantum computers that can crack in real time

 

[pcm81]

Theoretically ISPs could block SSH traffic, of-course that would cause a havoc from customers that actually use ssh and vpn. SSH won't help to smart TVs and ruku type devices, unless someone can come-up with ssh tunnelling router, so the LAN traffic is vanilla and smart devices never see SSH. It seems to me that the technology fundamentals exists for both sides of the camp. A paketeer box could block BT traffic back in early 2000s while SSH tunnelling hides it pretty well... The point is: what is the current status of the technical capabilities for both sides of the camp? Is traffic segregation just a switch flip away for ISPs or do they have to upgrade their infrastructure? Anyone working on a TOR router, essentially using TOR passively without user interaction?

Any predictions on which team will win?

 

[Sonikku]

I doubt they could pass legislation making encryption illegal without an uproar or massive backlash.

You're talking about a population that believes Trump was endorsed by the Pope. You're dealing with a congress making far reaching decisions dictating technology that probably couldn't program a VCR to save their lives.

 

[pcm81]

You're talking about a population that believes Trump was endorsed by the Pope. You're dealing with a congress making far reaching decisions dictating technology that probably couldn't program a VCR to save their lives.

While I agree with your opinion on the intelligence level of the population, and the export of strong encryption has been banned... I doubt encryption altogether can be illigalized. Encryption proponents can present an argument that encryption is protected under freedom of speech. I am free to say what is on my mind and i am also free to say utter gibberish that only one other person can understand.

 

[MrSquished]

Let's keep this to a technical discussion... I really do not care about politics anymore....

politics has it's hands all over the role of technology in this country. the two are inseparable.

 

[pcm81]

politics has it's hands all over the role of technology in this country. the two are inseparable.

But politics can't make a 8196 bit pseudo prime number all of a sudden factorable in under a minute.

 

[CA19100]

1. Completely blocking content. This may run into a problem with first amendment...

An internet service provider is not bound by the first amendment. If they decide to block all porn sites, for example, there's nothing you can do other than go to the (nonexistent) competition.

2. Slowing down certain content types like video.

I fully expect them to do that. Comcast could slow Netflix down, for example, until they pay a huge sum of money for "premium access" to their network. Then, in short order, everybody's Netflix bill goes up $5 a month.

3. Providing content from service provider at faster speed or not counting it towards data cap. I don't see a problem with this as long as the rest of the content is provided per TOS signed by the customer.

My plan is for "up to 150Mbit" service. I think you know how this will go.

Time to renew my Witopia VPN account, I guess.

 

[greatnoob]

You're talking about a population that believes Trump was endorsed by the Pope. You're dealing with a congress making far reaching decisions dictating technology that probably couldn't program a VCR to save their lives.

I initially took this as a joke but I think you're correct in saying the majority of people are tech-illiterate and a majority probably don't even know what's good for them. Take for example Australia's downgraded "fibre" network that was initially meant to be fibre-to-the-home and then cut down to fibre-to-the-node-cable-to-the-home .

It's sad that our fibre network was downgraded to a multi-cable network that not only severely limits future network expansion but also cost us $11bn more for a downgrade! Reason being: our version of the Republicans (Liberal Party) thought our current speeds (most on 10/1 - 5/0.5mbps plans and lower) were "good enough." Regardless of this, Australians were in favour of said cut-back and $11bn of their money being spent on an absolutely useless network.

I think despite their tech-illiteracy, it is possible to explain to them in layman's terms that no encryption = no privacy. I'm willing to bet a majority will be swayed into opposing any legislation that affects their privacy (or at least I hope they have the common sense and reasoning to see it this way).

 

[Sonikku]

Republicans. Clueless or corrupt in any country.

 

[brycejones]

Damn it the 80% margins aren't good enough, broadband providers should be able to get at least 300% margins plus data caps with $1 per GB overages to protect the intertubes from evil haxors and preserve the precious bytes. No need for big guberment to get involved unless it is to tell local guberments they can't do anything to improve competition in their communities.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You're talking about a population that believes Trump was endorsed by the Pope. You're dealing with a congress making far reaching decisions dictating technology that probably couldn't program a VCR to save their lives.

But they know in which direction to extend their hands for a payout just like they did with Enron and Arthur Anderson. Just remember what Enron did to punish the Democrats under the guise of power constraints when they introduced the rolling brown and black outs to California after they'd bought the Republican Congress. Primarliy Democratic demographics were affected by their little scheme but all was well since the investigators were already bought and paid for to the tune of 85% of them and the facts are the facts boys and girls.

 

[senseamp]

No net neutrality and no anti-trust enforcement under the GOP. Get ready to bend over and pay through the nose for everything, and thank Republicans and their supporters for it.

 

[Sonikku]

Expect telecoms to extort Netflix into handing them extra cash to stop from throttling their service which will in turn be passed onto customers through Netflix.

 

[kage69]

No net neutrality and no anti-trust enforcement under the GOP. Get ready to bend over and pay through the nose for everything, and thank Republicans and their supporters for it.

The funny thing is for a lot of (GOP voting) middle-class small business owners, the orifice of payment changes direction after the whole bending over part. I guess they're expecting tax breaks to offset the incoming wallet sodomy and lack of consumer choice for all?

 

[zerocool84]

Expect telecoms to extort Netflix into handing them extra cash to stop from throttling their service which will in turn be passed onto customers through Netflix.

That's already happened, Netflix paid Comcast years ago because they were slowing them down.

 

[kage69]

That's already happened, Netflix paid Comcast years ago because they were slowing them down.

Sure did. I'm sure Sonikku is aware though, pretty sure she's an Oliver fan too.

Making America great again apparently means shitting on the consumer and allowing corporations to extort and lie their way to whatever they want. Go figure.