Net Neutrality in Harm's Way!!!

[Virgorising]

I think this is the right forum for this; can't locate a more appropriate one....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html

 

[drebo]

Perhaps the FCC should have done its job in the first place and prevented monopolies and conflicts of interest from happening. Allowing content providers to become service providers and visa versa...wtf did they think would happen?

 

[Virgorising]

Perhaps the FCC should have done its job in the first place and prevented monopolies and conflicts of interest from happening. Allowing content providers to become service providers and visa versa...wtf did they think would happen?

Excellent points! Cept they were in bed with Big Business under it all, and spun wheels and did smoke and mirrors and dogs and ponies.

And this court of Appeals is what it is.....forget, the current High Court.....OMG. Beyond belief, the reality of the majority.

________________________________________
Edit: but remember, it was the FCC, for all their shortcomings, which issued the order int the first place, the one the court of Appeals just struck down. I fear this would to to the High Court, and that would not bode well for us.

 

[noobsrevenge]

How will VPN'd traffic be affected? What type of QoS methods will they apply?

There must be a way to tag traffic that is deemed, I don't know, "Emergency" or an otherwise "High Priority" traffic that can always get tagged and get priority over other traffic, I feel this will begin to be abused.

I think there will be a huge backlash and as much as I hate hate hate this, I am eager to see what some genius hackers black/white/grey hats do to any ISP that does this.

 

[drebo]

It's just chicken little bullshit, honestly. No ISP is going to make people pay to have their websites available. No one is going to throttle your Netflix or Pandora.

It just isn't going to happen.

I've been saying this for years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's just chicken little bullshit, honestly. No ISP is going to make people pay to have their websites available. No one is going to throttle your Netflix or Pandora.

It just isn't going to happen.

I've been saying this for years.

Well, Verizon FIOS is already doing that, running peering point at saturation, until the ISPs of the content providers pay their toll to access their subscribers (that are already paying Verizon, supposedly, for access to internet content).

Basically, you will start to see last-mile providers start to charge both end-users for access to web sites, and web sites for access to users.

 

[Virgorising]

How will VPN'd traffic be affected? What type of QoS methods will they apply?

There must be a way to tag traffic that is deemed, I don't know, "Emergency" or an otherwise "High Priority" traffic that can always get tagged and get priority over other traffic, I feel this will begin to be abused.

I think there will be a huge backlash and as much as I hate hate hate this, I am eager to see what some genius hackers black/white/grey hats do to any ISP that does this.

But more important, why assume most of us should have to employ VPN altogether?

And why assume, esp at this juncture... we are not a Democracy OF THE PEOPLE, BY the People.... and so, have to depend on hackers altogether? Isn't that a hugely defeatist, pessimistic premise??

 

[Virgorising]

It's just chicken little bullshit, honestly. No ISP is going to make people pay to have their websites available. No one is going to throttle your Netflix or Pandora.

It just isn't going to happen.

I've been saying this for years.

My take is this is not only about more corporations rabid to find new, pernicious ways to make more by any means necessary, starting with paying to put the "right" judges on the bench. My take is, this is also about some zealots hell bent on legislating their version of morality too.

Some species related to Creationism crazies.

And sorry, it could well happen. IF WE LET IT. As per VirtualLarry's post, it apparently, has already begun.

 

[Virgorising]

Well, Verizon FIOS is already doing that, running peering point at saturation, until the ISPs of the content providers pay their toll to access their subscribers (that are already paying Verizon, supposedly, for access to internet content).

Basically, you will start to see last-mile providers start to charge both end-users for access to web sites, and web sites for access to users.

I did not know this re FIOS!!! My God.

 

[cmetz]

It's just chicken little bullshit, honestly. No ISP is going to make people pay to have their websites available. No one is going to throttle your Netflix or Pandora.

It just isn't going to happen.

Happens now, all the time. It's just not throttling in the sense of traffic shaping, which actually requires equipment horsepower (expensive) to implement. It's throttling in the sense of private peering, or the lack thereof, controlling the level of congestion in a certain direction. The costs, or lack thereof, of that peering are case-by-case commercial negotiations, and you better believe that carriers with multiple interests (e.g., both Internet ant TV) consider those multiple interests when they negotiate on the terms of these deals.

"Net neutrality" is a seriously two sided debate that both sides intentionally oversimplify to mainipulate the public.

Government intervention and regulation is a force that both sides of the debate will dearly regret calling into this fight. I'm not saying that laissez-faire has always produced the best outcomes for the consumer either, but that there are serious uintended consequences to getting political forces involved.

 

[drebo]

Happens now, all the time. It's just not throttling in the sense of traffic shaping, which actually requires equipment horsepower (expensive) to implement. It's throttling in the sense of private peering, or the lack thereof, controlling the level of congestion in a certain direction. The costs, or lack thereof, of that peering are case-by-case commercial negotiations, and you better believe that carriers with multiple interests (e.g., both Internet ant TV) consider those multiple interests when they negotiate on the terms of these deals.

That's not even close to the same thing, and it's completely dishonest to even imply that it is.

Of course a CDN with a direct peering to an ISP (or any network) is going to get a better level of service.

You know what's fun about that? Almost all of those types of peerings cost NOTHING! Why? Because it benefits both entities.

Hell, you can peer directly to ATT's backbone for free if you have enough traffic and the ability to peer in more than one place.

 

[PliotronX]

Falling further and further behind other first world countries in terms of broadband...

 

[Virgorising]

Government intervention and regulation is a force that both sides of the debate will dearly regret calling into this fight. I'm not saying that laissez-faire has always produced the best outcomes for the consumer either, but that there are serious uintended consequences to getting political forces involved.

i disagree with the above. To the degree a given institution is relatively free of corruption (nothing is entirely free), gov regulations can be crucial. Re commercial air travel, anti trust legislation, campaign finance (wherein High Court recently gave big business carte blanche, OMG).....just for openers.

And we depend non the Federal Trade Commission every day in ways most are not aware of.

It is the corruption of power, the misuse of power that is always the issue within a given agency and within each and every member of that agency. keeping things real is OUR OBLIGATION in a democracy.

Witness how Act Up, back in the day, changed the world and save tens of millions of lives.

I don't see this important issue as being any different.

 

[Virgorising]

Update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling_n_4599492.html?utm_hp_ref=technology

My building is hard wired for both Time-Warner and RCN. Over time, RCN, being the far better David, has earned most of the building displacing TW. I, for one, would not believe a word TW says.

Again, inability of the government to evolve sound campaign finance reform because of the lowlifes with very deep pockets are hell bent in implementing their agendas with impunity and alacrity, allowed the foxes to steal our chicken coop (along with the complicit High Court re Bush V Gore) and that has not changed to this day.

 

[cmetz]

drebo,

>That's not even close to the same thing, and it's completely dishonest to even imply that it is.
...
>Almost all of those types of peerings cost NOTHING!
...
>Hell, you can peer directly to ATT's backbone for free...

Virgorising,

I agree with your points, but the issue is that telco/cable/utility regulation is horrible about regulatory capture. And then you have an army of lobbyists and PR people working for tech companies pushing what they call "net neutrality" which to the businesses doing the lobbying means massive cost shifting to the carriers. Two sets of lobbyists are fighting for their own selfish outcomes, each of which involves the customer losing.

Yes, grass roots can work, but it does require that a lot of people care and be educated. Right now, I see a lot of folks who are passionate about "net neutrality", perhaps with the best of intentions, but clearly don't understand the actual economics of this problem and why this isn't as simple in practice as it might appear in theory.

 

[PliotronX]

drebo,

>That's not even close to the same thing, and it's completely dishonest to even imply that it is.
...
>Almost all of those types of peerings cost NOTHING!
...
>Hell, you can peer directly to ATT's backbone for free...

Virgorising,

I agree with your points, but the issue is that telco/cable/utility regulation is horrible about regulatory capture. And then you have an army of lobbyists and PR people working for tech companies pushing what they call "net neutrality" which to the businesses doing the lobbying means massive cost shifting to the carriers. Two sets of lobbyists are fighting for their own selfish outcomes, each of which involves the customer losing.

Yes, grass roots can work, but it does require that a lot of people care and be educated. Right now, I see a lot of folks who are passionate about "net neutrality", perhaps with the best of intentions, but clearly don't understand the actual economics of this problem and why this isn't as simple in practice as it might appear in theory.

The thing is that competition is usually the best form of regulation, if a private entity offers a product nobody wants they will not be around for long. Internet access is not a competitive realm. We have one phone company and one cable company both offering overpriced service to localities of nearly all of the country. If they offer a product that is sub par, who can the customer turn to?

 

[Virgorising]

The thing is that competition is usually the best form of regulation, if a private entity offers a product nobody wants they will not be around for long. Internet access is not a competitive realm. We have one phone company and one cable company both offering overpriced service to localities of nearly all of the country. If they offer a product that is sub par, who can the customer turn to?

Would that were always true, re competion. History shows otherwise. Without regulation, the foxes truly find ways to steal our chicken coops.

The pure paradigm works when the structure affords we the consumers being the arbiters of the value of a given item and the survival of a given vendor.....for me, eBay is the ultimate example.

But ebay is the exception.

Again, what MS spends on fighting anti trust litigation exceeds the budget of a small country.

Then, there is the most pernicious of all: globalization. Wherein business j exploit the cheapest labor on the planet.....thus, eroding standards and quality of life, forget the health of a given economy, given that (and the tax base) owes to a healthy middle class in not third world countries.

Now, a pair of Jordans costs Nike around $15 to make. who profits? The consumer? Not so much.
Most reprehensible example: Walmart. Always hell bend on circumventing regulations the nuclear entity of collective bargaining so many gave their lives to put in place......regard the net result to workers and their capacity to help grow back a healthy economy here in America.

The end, never ever justifies the means. The regulations are all about the means.
I rest my case.

Read history. Perot got it right.

 

[Virgorising]

Update:

Trying to work, but jus got an email from Daily Kos where I subscribe....I signed, but thing is it was not the FCC this time, it was that had overturned by the appellate court; it is the latter now being Faust re big business.

I am pasting:

(My name), a court decision this week has jeopardized the internet as we know it. Please sign the petition telling the FCC to start undoing the damage right away. Click here to sign.

The DC Circuit Court struck down net neutrality rules that were in place to preserve an open internet and protect users from greedy corporations who are now free to control the Internet for their own self-serving purpose.

The consequences of this decision have the potential to impact every internet user. Sign the petition telling the FCC to stop giving into corporate interests and to save the open internet.

Providers are now free to throttle the internet—by controlling content, diverting users, charging for specific types of Internet usage—and any other profit-driven scheme they can come up with. Users could find themselves blocked from their favorite content or forced to pay more to access websites.

The FCC can rewrite the open internet rules in a manner that would reconcile the court decision, protect users, and establish an open internet. The FCC needs to use some simple reclassification procedures to solve the problem—except that the internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast, et al., are completely against this and actively working against it.

Sign the petition telling the FCC to stop kowtowing to corporate interests and to save the open internet. Classify broadband as a telecommunications service—which it obviously is—and assert your authority to stop internet service providers from throttling content or websites.

Keep fighting,
Rachel Colyer, Daily Kos
____________________________________
Edit: Scroll down on Kos front page for a detailed delineation of this situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/

 

[Virgorising]

Falling further and further behind other first world countries in terms of broadband...

That....is a FACT.

BUT ALSO, RIGHT NOW, not the main issue it think we need to address and respond to.

 

[Cabletek]

I think this is the right forum for this; can't locate a more appropriate one....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html

Sigh such drama queens....

Its not the end, the existing rules were not with authority due to the FCC not having that actual authority to make them. If your local sheriff said everyone has to be home by 8:00 PM you'd probably challenge his authority to do so too.

So now they question is who does? most likely the Federal Trade Commission [FTC not FCC] since they have involvement in anti trust issues, but they will have to determine that still.

 

[Virgorising]

Sigh such drama queens....

Its not the end, the existing rules were not with authority due to the FCC not having that actual authority to make them. If your local sheriff said everyone has to be home by 8:00 PM you'd probably challenge his authority to do so too.

So now they question is who does? most likely the Federal Trade Commission [FTC not FCC] since they have involvement in anti trust issues, but they will have to determine that still.

I am not big on fiddling while Rome burns. And not just cause I don play the violin.:sneaky:

And, in this, I smell smoke. Along with infinite other, discerning humans.

 

[Virgorising]

Update:

Pls, nobody try to give me, or anyone else who gets the potential here..... the fiddle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...id10|htmlws-main-nb|dl4|sec1_lnk2&pLid=431644

 

[Cabletek]

You ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-on-Net-Neutrality-Ruling-Dont-Worry-Trust-Us-127334

 

[Virgorising]

You ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-on-Net-Neutrality-Ruling-Dont-Worry-Trust-Us-127334

Yeah....."Don't worry, be happy." Never even liked that track.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It seems the government just wont quit with their war on the internet. If it's not SOPA, it's ACTA, if it's not ACTA, it's something else, now this. They just wont quit. We have to constantly be fighting all these bills and stuff and it's getting really old.

I think the only solution at this point is seriously looking into a darknet. Not a darknet on top of the existing internet, but actually running our own fibre and point to point wireless backhauls. A meshnet, basically.

There's a project going on for this: http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/

I really hope it works out in the long run. The biggest burden to physical links is money, as well as government regulation, as they could easily just make the whole thing illegal, which is probably what's going to happen. Currently most of the backhauls are still over the existing internet, but at least it's a network where everyone has more control. I've been wanting to setup a node myself. Waiting till I upgrade my VM environment, as it will be virtualized.