Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Leap_seconds
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:24 am UTC

Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Leap_seconds » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:38 am UTC

Net Nutrality is back my friends. I call myself a Republican but this damn country needs net nutrality. I don't want to pay Verizon to use Google because Verizon forces me to use Yahoo (which it owns). What do you think?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:21 pm UTC

You arent going to be charged to use Google. What you will find is that Google runs much slower than Yahoo for some mysterious reason...

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:33 pm UTC

Except when your ISP is going to release a "No holds barred" plan that will spike your costs. And you streaming services are going to be more expensive too, since they'll need to broker deals with the ISPs to provide you with their content.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:55 pm UTC

Yeah it'll make it more expensive. But Google won't become locked behind a paywall, it just won't be accessible at all.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:10 pm UTC

If you favor free markets you should favor net neutrality. It's that simple.

Remove net-neutrality and you degrade the environment that fosters one of the biggest sectors of economic growth in the US economy, the tech sector. Small US tech start-ups have flourished and are "exporting" their technology to the world via the internet (e.g. Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Spotify, Twitter, Uber, AirBnB, PayPal, etc.) Removing net-neutrality will stifle the economic engine powered by small start-up tech companies and shift it to a handful of monopoly-minded slow-moving dinosaur internet services providers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) who cannot compete in a fast-paced tech world. We don't have to feel bad for these ISP dinosaurs either, because they already have what are basically regional monopolies or oligopolies to connect people to the web* and there's no reason they can't continue to make healthy profits in that service, but giving them control over the web content is ridiculous.

* - like a public utility, but ISPs hate that comparison even more than net-neutrality

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 pm UTC

They aren't satisfied squeezing enough. They didn't get the message back in 2012. The ISPs will do this again and again and again until they get it. It's time to fight back. No more ISPs. No, let's copy Tennessee. Make it an actual public utility, kill those beasts.

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:55 pm UTC

Obviously I concur. I have a query though: If net neutrality falls, will it have any impact outside of America? Could US ISP's give priority to some companies over others even for traffic exiting the US..?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5850
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:42 am UTC

elasto wrote:Obviously I concur. I have a query though: If net neutrality falls, will it have any impact outside of America? Could US ISP's give priority to some companies over others even for traffic exiting the US..?

America owns all the backbone internet connections. Anything they do will ripple throughout the world.
What I'm curious about is how long it will take to reverse the rules on net neutrality? I thought it took months if not years to change the rules? How did Trump's lackey get it done so fast?

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:11 am UTC

sardia wrote:America owns all the backbone internet connections. Anything they do will ripple throughout the world.

Is that true? According to the tier 1 list on Wikipedia, only about half are owned by US companies. And, assuming I'm reading it right, any tier 1 network is capable of routing traffic from my pc to any tier 2 network in the world.

So since I will be talking to Google/Youtube/etc. servers in the UK or Europe, I'd not be affected, right..?

moiraemachy
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby moiraemachy » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:14 pm UTC

Net neutrality is complicated, and I'm not too on board with it. On one hand, internet access obviously should be considered a public utility. But should, for example, 1080p Netflix qualify? Seems like a luxury to me, and properly regulating the boundary is hard (and something lobbyists do quite well to make their own points). A "one size fits is all" approach is great for young people who use a lot of data, but overcharges older folks who just use email and occasional social media.

The "don't discriminate data" policy has huge drawbacks. I don't want remote surgery data to be treated like my starcraft 2 data (unless I'm really serious about it and am willing to pay the premium). Also, why bother regulating traffic discrimination without regulating peering agreements?

The more I think about it, the more I conclude we should clearly define a basic internet plan in terms of latency and guaranteed data rate, treat it as a public utility and regulate the shit out of it, force cable companies to provide it at reasonable cost, and let them offer extra stuff the way they see fit for their business. If it ever gets too monopolistic, then competitive law should take care of it.

To me, it's either that, or forbidding ISP's to provide content, so there is no conflict of interest. Everything else just seems like a kludge.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby somitomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:15 pm UTC

moiraemachy wrote:Net neutrality is complicated, and I'm not too on board with it. On one hand, internet access obviously should be considered a public utility. But should, for example, 1080p Netflix qualify? Seems like a luxury to me, and properly regulating the boundary is hard (and something lobbyists do quite well to make their own points). A "one size fits is all" approach is great for young people who use a lot of data, but overcharges older folks who just use email and occasional social media.

It seems like that has more to do with bandwidth, not net neutrality. Different plans already exist and I don't think the presence of gigabit internet connections makes small-bandwidth ones any more expensive.
moiraemachy wrote:The "don't discriminate data" policy has huge drawbacks. I don't want remote surgery data to be treated like my starcraft 2 data (unless I'm really serious about it and am willing to pay the premium). Also, why bother regulating traffic discrimination without regulating peering agreements?

My impression is that by abolishing net neutrality, it isn't the remote surgery data, that gets into the "fast" (i.e. unhindered) lane, but whoever pays the ISP enough. You could give remote surgery data some government mandated priority, but I think in that case an exception needs to be made for very clearly defined cases without completely getting rid of net neutrality. Roads are a common analogy in this discussion: in general all motor vehicles have the same right to use the road; ambulances, fire trucks and police cars are granted special priority on top of that.
"It's like he's his own alt account. Saves all the logging in and out."/poxic
they/them/theirs = he/him/his ❖ If you want to use something else out of dadaist spite, I won't mind.
✆ Hello? This is Forum Games Discord, what is your emergency?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:22 pm UTC

moiraemachy wrote:But should, for example, 1080p Netflix qualify?

Who are you to judge? If I want to order a big box of lead weights by mail just because I feel like it, it goes through and I pay for the volume/weight, just as anyone else's things would go through.

The "don't discriminate data" policy has huge drawbacks. I don't want remote surgery data to be treated like my starcraft 2 data

That's not really a problem though. The issue isn't "Who gets priority access to this limited bandwidth?", it's "Can we artificially limit bandwidth for websites that don't profit us?"
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:58 pm UTC

moiraemachy wrote:The more I think about it, the more I conclude we should clearly define a basic internet plan in terms of latency and guaranteed data rate, treat it as a public utility and regulate the shit out of it, force cable companies to provide it at reasonable cost, and let them offer extra stuff the way they see fit for their business. If it ever gets too monopolistic, then competitive law should take care of it.
It's a moving target. Imagine this were done early on, and everyone were guaranteed 56k modem speeds. 'twould've been awesome back in the 300 baud days, but now if you aren't on DSL or cable, you pretty much can't access any web content at all.

So, all present day ISPs would need to do is offer competing sites at 56K while their preferred sites come to you at T1 speeds. Full compliance with the law, total ch*rp-up as regards even the idea of equal treatment.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:14 am UTC

For all those opposed to net neutrality, I ask you, what would you do if your ISP would only let you access Pornhub for an extra $30 a month? Or worse; what if your ISP is run by "moral" individuals who don't think you should be viewing any pornography at all?

speising
Posts: 2078
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby speising » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:46 am UTC

that's not how it's supposed to work. they'd charge *pornhub* to deliver their content unimpeded, while a small startup porn site that can't afford those charges gets slowed to a crawl so it can't compete wih the big ones.

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:23 am UTC

Well, it could work the way CorruptUser says: Your ISP in bible-belt country could decide all porn is immoral and so slow all porn traffic to a crawl.

(Well, that might be its stated reason but the real reason might be that porn accounts for, I dunno, 20% of all of its traffic and so it can cut its costs 20% overnight...)

But, yeah, in general the problem with net neutrality is that it slows innovation - raises the bar for newcomers and entrenches the old guard, which is never good for consumers.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

My father opposes net neutrality because he thinks from an economic argument, somehow it stifles innovation and prevents competition among ISPs. My response is that if net neutrality prevents competition among ISPs, why in the ever loving fuck would they want it to go away?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3556
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:For all those opposed to net neutrality, I ask you, what would you do if your ISP would only let you access Pornhub for an extra $30 a month? Or worse; what if your ISP is run by "moral" individuals who don't think you should be viewing any pornography at all?


They wouldn't do that because almost no-one would buy just access to Pornhub from their ISP.

Instead they'd bundle Pornhub into a 'complete internet' package with with a bunch of other content no one really cares about, then charge $120 a month for the bundle.

A lot of ISPs are cable TV companies as well after all.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Chen
Posts: 5274
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Chen » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:45 pm UTC

The bigger problem is the quasi monopolies ISPs have on various regions. If it was simple for another company to come in and compete this Net Neutrality stuff would probably be an afterthought since you'd be able to have specialized ISPs that are anti or pro porn, using the example given. The number now is too small so its easy to basically have them all collude just to make prices higher which wouldn't occur if there was legitimate competition between them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:32 pm UTC

The bigger problem is that you have to know what you're specifically looking for in order to know that you're not getting it. The small website that has just what you want won't be able to afford to pay the freight to be carried everywhere to ensure that you can find it. So, bigsite.com will end up supplying you with what they want you to want to read (or see or do). It's enough of a problem already; the loss of net neutrality (does the thread topic's spelling bug anybody else?) simply makes it a permanent part of the fabric of the internet.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:42 pm UTC

To be honest though, I think that if Comcast took away everyone's porn, that'd be the straw that broke the camel-toe's bareback, and there'd be political hell to pay.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:16 pm UTC

The future is already a minefield of invisibly poor choice, the way things are going.

Already fed up with your chosen Search Engine possibly dictating the on-the-first-page order of the things the Search Engine of choice may or may not have an invisible hand in promoting (above those similar things the most disinterested magical cataloguing order might have given, still with the same basic Spidering expertise behind it), now you ask the Personal Assistant Physical Avatar sitting on your coffee table/hanging from your ceiling to order a pizza and you don't necessarily even know whether you've just called upon the services of Pizza Hut, Dominos, Chicago, Pizza Express or gotten JustEat on the case to pop to chain-of-one-but-locally-affiliated Pizzetta Republic1, until you see the branding on the pizza box and/or hat that deliveryperson is supporting on the relevent part of their body as you open the door. And you've certainly abdicated all responsibility of checking that the price-to-quality matrix has given you something agreeable (the cheaper place just doesn't put enough cheese on it, whilst the gourmet solution just isn't actually that much better than the mid-range guys despite the premium cost) because you haven't even seen the top 20 (better than no-choice) options, just been Alexaed/Siried/Whatevered to the top-slot choice.


Which doesn't mean that this doesn't get even worse once NN is abolished (BigISP grants Google/Bing/AskJeeves rights to be dealt with 'fairly', but in return asks that BigPizza (another company under BigUmbrellaCorp) is elevated in a 'Sponsored link? No, of course not!' way), but we're already sleepwalking into that kind of mire, if we don't watch out, so…



1 Unless you've specifically taken the trouble to configure it to call Dino's, perhaps through an SMS-to-speech interface, and made sure Dino or his phone-handling assistant is actually prepared to react to "Hey, it's me at number six again, the usual please. Ciao!" in an unstoppable robot-voice.

Kludgy
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:45 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Kludgy » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:19 pm UTC

It disappoints me that Pai would do what he thinks is best for big Telecom, while everyone else suffers.

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:02 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:The future is already a minefield of invisibly poor choice, the way things are going.

Already fed up with your chosen Search Engine possibly dictating the on-the-first-page order of the things the Search Engine of choice may or may not have an invisible hand in promoting (above those similar things the most disinterested magical cataloguing order might have given, still with the same basic Spidering expertise behind it)...

The big difference is that you can change search engine at the drop of a hat: If you don't trust Google you can switch to DuckDuckGo or whatever in an instant.

You can also deploy digital counter-measures such as TrackMeNot (which generates hundreds of fake searches for every real search), AdNauseam (which blocks ads but also registers clicks on all of them) or Internet Noise (which silently visits hundreds of websites) or many others. You can generate so much 'digital chaff' that your actual web-presence becomes impossible to discern.

In contrast, the danger with the loss of NN is in most cases you can't switch ISP easily, and in some cases you can't switch at all...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:43 am UTC

I didn't say you couldn't navigate the minefield (in fact, I gave ways of doing so, from the "chosen" bit when talking about the Search Engine to personalising the hardware/cloud's default response to a command, where possible), but it's a minefield not so clearly marked.

NN similarly (though likely even more geekily) can probably be traversed with enough knowledge of how to find and avoid the buried dangers, given their 'legal' use. But I was not dismissing the problems, more demonstrating how it builds upon other problems.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:36 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:now you ask the Personal Assistant Physical Avatar sitting on your coffee table/hanging from your ceiling to order a pizza and you don't necessarily even know whether you've just called upon the services of Pizza Hut, Dominos, Chicago, Pizza Express or gotten JustEat on the case to pop to chain-of-one-but-locally-affiliated Pizzetta Republic
This is actually fodder for a separate topic - on of DECISION. With all of the previous {industrial-type} revolutions, the thing that remained true was that we (humans) retained the ability to make the Decision. We would decide what to do, and the {tool | machine | computer | whatever} would implement the decision better than we could. We decide to build a ditch, the ditch-machine does the digging. We decide where to go, the airplane gets us there. We decide who to demolish, the atomic missiles do the deed.

We decide

What's different now is that we are abdicating this top level thing to the machines. We are letting the machines decide more and more. {I}This[/i] is the thing about AI... nothing else.

As it applies here, you decide to have pizza, but you abdicate the decision as to where to get this pizza. You will be given what the machine thinks you will be content with as a "pizza". If it's dumb enough to choose Dominoes, you'll revolt. But it will get smarter, and you will get dumber in the process. Soon, Dominoes will seem like great pizza to you.

This is what the end of net neutrality amplifies - you (the internet citizen) allow the internet itself to decide what you would like to be willing to read okay with reading.

If I need to paint the result, it's already too late.

Soupspoon wrote:Unless you've specifically taken the trouble to configure it to call Dino's
elasto wrote:...you can switch to DuckDuckGo or whatever in an instant.

You can also deploy digital counter-measures...
Do you know anybody who would do this? I don't know about you, but the people in my life find it too difficult to respond to an email request "Did you really sign up for this service? Click here to confirm", and want {my service} to be "easy" and don't want to hear about why that's a bad idea. Not only do ordinary people not understand that the internet has traps, they don't want to.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:11 am UTC

I happen to think Domino's is decent pizza, even though they drown the dough in sugar and grease. If I wanted real food,
I wouldn't be ordering pizza now would I?

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:23 am UTC

ucim wrote:What's different now is that we are abdicating this top level thing to the machines. We are letting the machines decide more and more. {I}This[/i] is the thing about AI... nothing else.

But humans have always delegated. We delegate making laws to people we elect. We delegate justice to courts instead of taking justice into our own hands etc. etc.

To use the pizza example, now we delegate choosing what pizza to buy to people who code AI. To use the reading example, now we delegate choosing what to read to people who code AI.

Note, we don't delegate to AI, we delegate to people who code AI. The AI is still subservient. AI is no more in charge than a calculator is in charge of your tax return. People are still very much at the top of the food chain. AI isn't responsible for what ads Facebook serves you, Zuckerberg is, and he can order a change at any time.

(Yes, there may be a time the AI locks people out - changes its own source code and prevents anyone else from making changes - but that's pretty sci-fi and may never come to be.)

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:32 am UTC

ucim wrote:What's different now is that we are abdicating this top level thing to the machines. We are letting the machines decide more and more. This is the thing about AI... nothing else.

But humans have always delegated. We delegate making laws to the legislature, justice to the court system, the economy to the banking system, our healthcare to the healthcare system etc etc. All these systems have their own agendas, and most are too complicated for any one person to understand.

To use the pizza example, now we delegate choosing what pizza to buy to people who code AI. To use the reading example, now we delegate choosing what to read to people who code AI.

Note, we don't delegate to AI, we delegate to people who code AI. The AI is still subservient. AI is no more in charge than a calculator is in charge of your tax return. People are still very much at the top of the food chain. AI isn't responsible for what ads Facebook serves you, Zuckerberg is, and he can order a change to the AI at any time.

(Yes, there may be a time the AI locks people out - changes its own source code and prevents anyone else from making changes - but that's pretty sci-fi and may never come to be.)

ucim wrote:
You can also deploy digital counter-measures...
Do you know anybody who would do this? I don't know about you, but the people in my life find it too difficult to respond to an email request "Did you really sign up for this service? Click here to confirm", and want {my service} to be "easy" and don't want to hear about why that's a bad idea. Not only do ordinary people not understand that the internet has traps, they don't want to.

How many people do you know who don't use https for their online banking? Why does everyone use https? Because it's baked into the system. It's not possible not to use it.

In a few years, ad-blocking might become as ubiquitous as https, through being the default setting for new iterations of browsers. Perhaps a few years after that, other digital countermeasures such as I mentioned might likewise become the norm.

The future does not have to be as bleak as you make out. It's an arms race not a surrender.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:20 pm UTC

speising wrote:that's not how it's supposed to work. they'd charge *pornhub* to deliver their content unimpeded, while a small startup porn site that can't afford those charges gets slowed to a crawl so it can't compete wih the big ones.

Obviously they'll do both. Why wouldn't they?

I am so happy we're able to sign up with a local ISP that actually has a pro-Net Neutrality statement on their website.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:59 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Note, we don't delegate to AI, we delegate to people who code AI. The AI is still subservient.
Well, not quite. The people who code AI aren't making our decisions any more than the people who built the autopilot are flying the plane. And the AI remains subservient so long as it stays dumber than we are. That won't last. When the AI gets better at deciding what to decide, it's over.

elasto wrote:How many people do you know who don't use https for their online banking?
Most people. Although https is baked into some aspects of some online banking, it's not universally baked in everywhere. If you don't explicitly type https into the browser bar, you don't get https*. You get an ordinary http connection that the bank redirects to its https version. The redirect works by the bank telling the browser "nope, try https" and the browser silently doing that. But if Eve is a MITM (WITM?), she merely intercepts the http connection and creates her own https connection to the bank, and relays the information to your browser.

There's more to it, but how many people know even that much?

elasto wrote:In a few years, ad-blocking might become as ubiquitous as https
Where's the financial incentive for that? Where's the financial incentive for its opposite? I note that more and more I need to download extensions to Firefox to accomplish the kind of peace and security I want (disable animation, disable scripts, disable ads, and I don't even know how to defend against service workers and their future forms). NoScript has been disabled for at least a week by the new Firefox; if they cared you'd think they'd've given NoScript notice about what they were doing so they could at least seamlessly catch up.

elasto wrote:The future does not have to be as bleak as you make out.
No, it doesn't have to be. But it's not looking good.

* (with the exception of https-everywhere, if supported by that bank and not expired yet)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8848
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:02 pm UTC

I honestly hope Facebook, Google, Pornhub, eBay, and Amazon all get together to form their own internet for even cheaper, because it does not cost anywhere near $39.95/m to maintain the fiber optic cables, let alone the several hundred dollar packages they charge in areas with out competition. What, does having a competitor mysteriously reduce the cost somehow? The telecoms are making money hand over fist and are just getting greedier every year.

Mutex
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Mutex » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:10 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
elasto wrote:How many people do you know who don't use https for their online banking?
Most people. Although https is baked into some aspects of some online banking, it's not universally baked in everywhere. If you don't explicitly type https into the browser bar, you don't get https*. You get an ordinary http connection that the bank redirects to its https version. The redirect works by the bank telling the browser "nope, try https" and the browser silently doing that. But if Eve is a MITM (WITM?), she merely intercepts the http connection and creates her own https connection to the bank, and relays the information to your browser.

(...)

* (with the exception of https-everywhere, if supported by that bank and not expired yet)

Jose

Uh, are you aware of any banks that don't force HTTPS for their online banking? I'd love to hear some examples. It's a fucking huge deal to not be using TLS 1.2 by now, let alone no SSL at all.
Last edited by Mutex on Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:28 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

somitomi wrote:My impression is that by abolishing net neutrality, it isn't the remote surgery data, that gets into the "fast" (i.e. unhindered) lane, but whoever pays the ISP enough. You could give remote surgery data some government mandated priority, but I think in that case an exception needs to be made for very clearly defined cases without completely getting rid of net neutrality. Roads are a common analogy in this discussion: in general all motor vehicles have the same right to use the road; ambulances, fire trucks and police cars are granted special priority on top of that.


I could get behind removing the net-neutrality policies, if an appropriate regulatory framework was created to grant special priorities to internet traffic that serves the greater good (e.g. remote surgery, emergency communications, medical devices, airline safety, key science research, etc.). That's not what happening here though. This is not a "repeal and replace" scenario. Nor is removing net-neutrality a step towards sensible regulation for the greater good because the political climate is far too adverse to any government regulation to let that happen. These web traffic applications that will benefit the greater good when net-neutrality is removed is a carrot on a string dangled in front people to lead them where the ISPs want to go, but they have no intention of ever giving people that carrot. To take the carrot analogy further... ISPs intend to sell that priority web traffic "carrot" to the highest bidder, because that's how capitalism works, but projects for the public good very rarely have the cash to compete with for-profit interests. Empty promises.

The other nice thing about net-neutrality it's a relatively simple law that applies to all sectors of web traffic equally. Simple regulations are often the easiest to implement. If we had a regulatory framework that governed prioritizing web traffic, it would make governance far more complicated, controversial, and probably costly. In many ways net-neutrality is a compromise between the pro-regulation liberals and the anti-regulations conservatives, but a minority of ideology-driven neo-cons and profit driven ISPs are reframing the issue.

ucim wrote:The bigger problem is that you have to know what you're specifically looking for in order to know that you're not getting it. The small website that has just what you want won't be able to afford to pay the freight to be carried everywhere to ensure that you can find it. So, bigsite.com will end up supplying you with what they want you to want to read (or see or do). It's enough of a problem already; the loss of net neutrality... simply makes it a permanent part of the fabric of the internet.

BINGO! No one misses or complains about what they don't know about. Disagree? Then look at how the internet and information is handled/consumed in places like Russia, China or North Korea and how it impacts the basic social and political fabric. Removing net-neutrality is a step to an ill-informed public, and we're not doing so well there as it is.

ucim wrote:(does the thread topic's spelling bug anybody else?)

Yes! :x :roll:

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrasweet in 2017

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:27 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Uh, are you aware of any banks that don't force HTTPS for their online banking? I'd love to hear some examples. It's a fucking huge deal to not be using TLS 1.2 by now, let alone no SSL at all.
I'll keep my eyes open for the instances I've come across in the past. All the links I use are https from the getgo, but some of them (like myaccountaccess.com, for paying People's credit cards) accept http connections and redirect them (enabling the MITM attack I mentioned). I specifically remember typing https:// ... into the browser for some financial services and getting the message "you have requested a secure connection but the credentials cannot be confirmed...", which was solved by entering http:// ... and letting the redirect happen. I don't remember where though.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:01 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:If you favor free markets you should favor net neutrality. It's that simple.

Remove net-neutrality and you degrade the environment that fosters one of the biggest sectors of economic growth in the US economy, the tech sector. Small US tech start-ups have flourished and are "exporting" their technology to the world via the internet (e.g. Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Spotify, Twitter, Uber, AirBnB, PayPal, etc.) Removing net-neutrality will stifle the economic engine powered by small start-up tech companies and shift it to a handful of monopoly-minded slow-moving dinosaur internet services providers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) who cannot compete in a fast-paced tech world. We don't have to feel bad for these ISP dinosaurs either, because they already have what are basically regional monopolies or oligopolies to connect people to the web* and there's no reason they can't continue to make healthy profits in that service, but giving them control over the web content is ridiculous.

* - like a public utility, but ISPs hate that comparison even more than net-neutrality


This. I'd be entirely okay with selective speeds provided that:
A. It was clearly disclosed.
B. Changes to throttling, etc would void existing contracts.
C. Consumers had sufficient choices available to easily select a non-throttling option.

This is not generally the case, largely due to government-enabled monopolies, which are...not a free market. I also strongly suspect that consumers would look at advertising of "we'll make your netflix run slow unless you pay us extra" pretty unhappily, and that all concerned are aware of this. So, those opposing net neutrality are trying their hardest to avoid a free market.

moiraemachy wrote:The "don't discriminate data" policy has huge drawbacks. I don't want remote surgery data to be treated like my starcraft 2 data (unless I'm really serious about it and am willing to pay the premium). Also, why bother regulating traffic discrimination without regulating peering agreements?


Any hospital that relies on a consumer grade internet connection alone for remote surgery is probably going to get sued if it goes awry.

Internet is sold in different packages, and those who need extremely fast or extremely reliable connections can get them now, without requiring throttling.

I favor a smaller local ISP myself, which I swapped to after getting tired of the endless "swap to Verizon/Comcast once the other becomes intolerable". I highly advocate doing the same to anyone with the option. It's quite nice not being hassled to upgrade, or worry about complicated contracts, or dealing with various shenanigans when it comes to file sharing(I don't pirate, mind you, but I do use torrents on occasion, and these have been commonly throttled elsewhere).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Internet is sold in different packages, and those who need extremely fast or extremely reliable connections can get them now, without requiring throttling.
It's not the consumer end that's the dangerous one - it's the producer end. And it's not about "extremely fast and reliable" connections, it's about any kind of connection. Small websites will end up having to pay for carriage just to be visible on the web. Large websites may negotiate no-compete clauses that block the smaller ones. Imagine facebook making a deal with Comcast to feature their TV shows in people's wall (or stream, or whatever they call it), in exchange for Comcast throttling other social media. Pretty much anyone needing to do online co-ordination, that would have done so on their own website, may find it easier to just require everyone to be on facebook, whether they want to or not.

Yeah, they could do that now, but losing network gnutrality institutionalizes it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Internet is sold in different packages, and those who need extremely fast or extremely reliable connections can get them now, without requiring throttling.
It's not the consumer end that's the dangerous one - it's the producer end. And it's not about "extremely fast and reliable" connections, it's about any kind of connection. Small websites will end up having to pay for carriage just to be visible on the web. Large websites may negotiate no-compete clauses that block the smaller ones. Imagine facebook making a deal with Comcast to feature their TV shows in people's wall (or stream, or whatever they call it), in exchange for Comcast throttling other social media. Pretty much anyone needing to do online co-ordination, that would have done so on their own website, may find it easier to just require everyone to be on facebook, whether they want to or not.

Yeah, they could do that now, but losing network gnutrality institutionalizes it.

Jose


I am aware, I'm just pointing out that, at present, the need for a reliable connection for that online surgery traffic is entirely irrelevant to NN.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:15 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I honestly hope Facebook, Google, Pornhub, eBay, and Amazon all get together to form their own internet for even cheaper, because it does not cost anywhere near $39.95/m to maintain the fiber optic cables...The telecoms are making money hand over fist and are just getting greedier every year.

Hardly a solution, because unless they come in with billions of dollars to lay their own fiber lines across the nation, they will wind-up paying one of current big ISPs connection fees to use their lines and bury it in your bill. No different than so many third-party cell companies who pay one of the big national cell companies to connect to their towers; or third party electric companies who pass along the electric line fees. That's the monopoly magic.

To be fair it's not practical for every competitor to have their own private lines running everywhere and it's more efficient for everyone to use one or two lines instead of many lines. In the very early days (around 1900) of electric and telephone line building public streets were a nightmare of private wires with real public safety hazards, necessitating standardization and regulation as "utilities." There are advantages to allowing these quasi-monopolies for essential services society depends on, but they need to be closely watched to avoid abuse.

However, ISPs have gone to great lengths to avoid being classified and regulated as a utility, even though their service is practically identical to utilities like land telephone,* electric, gas, water, etc. Ironically, instead of arguing about increasing regulating ISPs like the utility they are, we are arguing about further deregulating by removing net-neutrality. It's a more than a little messed up if you ask me... I said it before above, but I'll say it again.... Net-neutrality is the compromise between regulating and not regulating ISPs.

* - AT&T and Verizon are acutely aware being descendants of the Bell Telephone monopoly.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:19 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I am aware, I'm just pointing out that, at present, the need for a reliable connection for that online surgery traffic is entirely irrelevant to NN.
Yeah, but there are other use cases where it's not entirely irrelevant; there is a spectrum of relevancy. Elective surgery traffic? Background medical traffic in support of upcoming surgery? Online finance? Online gambling? Online video? Online video for drone control? Web apps for online drone control? And on the other end, spam important opportunity information?

I'd say that the (probable) fact that online surgery traffic is irrelevant to NN, is irrelevant to NN.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests