Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Edited by ingater. I presume you typed that at the same time I posted an inthread warning.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/05 11:31:15
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Yes, the poidcast revolution is supposed to be the new way that the net will enable free speech for millions who have no access to a media empire.
Youtube was supposed to be it, then the demonitization steamroller and copyright infringement hammers got going, with people being called "Youtube heroes!" for helping silence objectionable videos.
Facebook was going to be the new vox populi, until the Zuckerborg collective decided to start censoring it with bots and blanket restrictions.
So now here come podcasts to save free speech, until the people running the ISP monopolies decide to quietly throttle down access to them until they are effectively silenced.
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
Yep, media in the digital age is an example that straddles both sides of the regulatory line that Peregrine is talking about. On one side you have traditional broadcast and print media, which has to conform to many of the same types of regulatory restrictions that ISP's do, and on the other you have web-native media that does not.
Until recently the only real competitive advantage that a cable news network had over any would be pundit or "citizen reporter" was that they had access to public broadcasting frequencies or cable infrastructure. You can't just start your own news channel because you have to license broadcasting rights, comply with FCC regulations etc. Now, however, it isn't difficult for a small group of people or even individual with a YouTube channel to do basically the same thing for a lot less money and reach an even wider audience (especially since so much of reporting these days is citing what someone said on Twitter or in another publication). For all intents and purposes, digital media can and should out compete traditional media because it has the ability to deliver a comparable product much, much more efficiently. Yet, conveniently for traditional media sources, obstacle after obstacle is constantly placed in the way of "smaller" content creators, even when they draw larger audiences than a cable news channel and people willingly fund them through things like crowdfunding.
YouTube was created around the idea that anyone could be their own TV channel, and it was wildly successful, until the adpocalypse happened. Suddenly, channels that were demonstrably and organically out competing traditional media outlets had their revenue stripped away. Then crowdfunding services like Patreon showed up to allow audiences to fund their favorite content directly, and now PayPal, Visa and Mastercard are pressuring Patreon to shut that down in a totally arbitrary manner. Then you have traditional media companies copyright-striking everything that contains a half second of their content even if it's protected under fair use laws and they do the same thing every day. It doesn't matter if the claims are legitimate or not because they are able to game the system through volume of complaints and shut people down without any kind of impartial review or arbitration.
It's not hard to create something that should be competitive against major companies and services; time and time again people have demonstrated a demand for alternatives and even a willingness to pay for them. My issue is that every time a competitor pops up and actually does start putting the pressure on the big fish, it gets smacked down through any number of clearly anti-competitive practices. Most of the time there is no monopolistic smoking gun in a legal sense, but a lot of it is still in a grey area.
Luciferian wrote:Oh, I'm well aware of alternatives such as Duck Duck Go. I use Duck Duck Go instead of Google, and there's a reason I do my hobby posting here instead of Facebook. Still, there's simply no comparison between how much business they get compared to the big fish.
Duck Duck Go gets 30 million queries per day, which sounds like a lot until you hear that Google gets 3.2 billion per day. Likewise, the amount of traffic going through the main social media sites absolutely dwarfs that of all their alternatives combined. Nearly all traffic on the web goes through FANG.
I'm not saying that I like their dominance but they are slightly different than ISPs and the problematic issues are not the same for both types of companies. You can avoid Google (to a degree) if you are willing to put in some work (or pay others who are offering competing services). But if you ISP starts pushing you around the foundation of your internet experience starts wobbling and it doesn't matter how good/bad Google (or any other service) is if you can't even access their site reliably because it's blocked (or the connection is "unreliable") and they want to guide you toward their preferred internet search engine (or ask you to pay an extra fee for the privilege of accessing Google reliably).
What I'm trying to say is that the same is true in reverse, especially if you are a small or independent business or content creator. All of these companies can basically get you kicked off the internet if they want to. It doesn't matter if you have metered access to the independent site you want to go to or if your ISP blocks it if it doesn't even exist on the internet in the first place. Or if you rely on traffic from Google or social media sites and they squelch you in favor of someone else. Net neutrality is only one avenue of attack and it assumes that ISP's and content providers are going to work together to create a tiered Internet, where consumers don't have equal access to whatever they choose. I'm saying that already happens with or without net neutrality.
Luciferian wrote: All of these companies can basically get you kicked off the internet if they want to.
{citation needed}
Remember, "nobody cares about my site and wants to visit it" is not the same as "kicked off the internet". You aren't entitled to an audience or customers, and a large company declining to give you advertising services is not infringing upon your rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Net neutrality is only one avenue of attack and it assumes that ISP's and content providers are going to work together to create a tiered Internet, where consumers don't have equal access to whatever they choose. I'm saying that already happens with or without net neutrality.
Except you're missing the key difference:
If Facebook decides not to sell you advertising space you are still free to advertise elsewhere. Your site and your product/message still exist and people can still get there if they want. And if Facebook is too selective about their content they risk upsetting their own customers and losing market share to a competitor with a wider range of content.
If an ISP decides to block traffic to your site then it genuinely doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what your potential audience/customers want or how clever you are in trying to market it, it is cut off and removed from the internet. And in many cases there's nothing anyone can do about it since there is no alternative ISP available.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Now, however, it isn't difficult for a small group of people or even individual with a YouTube channel to do basically the same thing for a lot less money and reach an even wider audience (especially since so much of reporting these days is citing what someone said on Twitter or in another publication). For all intents and purposes, digital media can and should out compete traditional media because it has the ability to deliver a comparable product much, much more efficiently.
This is a flawed premise. A random individual with a social media channel doesn't have the same budget and resources as a major news company. They're going to be much more limited in the degree of reporting they can do (travel, research, etc, cost a ton of money), have to settle for less-talented employees, etc. The "traditional media" company is probably going to have a superior product overall and much better resources to market it. If you abandon the assumption that a random social media poster is competing with the dominant players in the market then the rest of your argument disappears.
YouTube was created around the idea that anyone could be their own TV channel, and it was wildly successful, until the adpocalypse happened. Suddenly, channels that were demonstrably and organically out competing traditional media outlets had their revenue stripped away. Then crowdfunding services like Patreon showed up to allow audiences to fund their favorite content directly, and now PayPal, Visa and Mastercard are pressuring Patreon to shut that down in a totally arbitrary manner. Then you have traditional media companies copyright-striking everything that contains a half second of their content even if it's protected under fair use laws and they do the same thing every day. It doesn't matter if the claims are legitimate or not because they are able to game the system through volume of complaints and shut people down without any kind of impartial review or arbitration.
Well yes, this is what happens when you have a weak customer base and depend on the support of other companies. The fact that these people were putting up YouTube channels instead of keeping full control over their hosting is a concession that they didn't really have the revenue flow to operate independently. They had to rely on a partnership with YouTube to provide hosting services, arrange contracts with advertisers, etc. And once YouTube declined to continue a business partnership with them, as they have every right to do, they were unable to just say "ok, you I'm hosting my own stuff" and continue operating profitably. That's a sign of weakness, not strength.
(I will, however, grant that payment processors start to get into common carrier territory and there's a much greater case for regulating them as such.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 07:05:52
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It would actually be pretty hard to maliciously block a public IP address by the ISP as hypothesized and get away with it...
DNS servers are the address name-to-IP translators that is ubiquitous across the internent, owned by many manyentities. DNS servers "talk" to each other to maintain valid changes to IP address and to optimize the database list to reduce "hops" between networks.
Just about the only entity who can block (or redirect) IP addresses are Countries. (looking at you China/Cuba/Iran/etc...)
Unless you think its possible for the US (or other western nations) to do this...this hypothetical is nothing more than a Chicken Little exercise that NN wouldn't address anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 15:00:52
An ISP would definitely be allowed to block access to specific IP addresses from their customers. If they can throttle certain sites, they can set the rate to 0.
And if we're talking about new sites that not many people visit. People would assume they would assume something is wrong with the site, not that their ISP is blocking it.
And considering that most ISP's have a monopoly (Or close to it) on certain areas...It's even harder to detect.
skyth wrote: An ISP would definitely be allowed to block access to specific IP addresses from their customers. If they can throttle certain sites, they can set the rate to 0.
And if we're talking about new sites that not many people visit. People would assume they would assume something is wrong with the site, not that their ISP is blocking it.
And considering that most ISP's have a monopoly (Or close to it) on certain areas...It's even harder to detect.
They won't be able to get away with it, if maliciously done. That's my point.
ISPs are in the business to maximize their subscriber numbers, so it's in their inherent interest to keep it free flowing w/o the bad throttling business.
The the bigger concern, imo, are the entities that are both ISP and content providers.
Such as, Comcast (who owns Hulu): it would be bad for them to restrict/throttle/bad-monopolistic-actions to Netflix traffic to force their customers to use Hulu instead. That's the bigger worry IMO.
skyth wrote: An ISP would definitely be allowed to block access to specific IP addresses from their customers. If they can throttle certain sites, they can set the rate to 0.
And if we're talking about new sites that not many people visit. People would assume they would assume something is wrong with the site, not that their ISP is blocking it.
And considering that most ISP's have a monopoly (Or close to it) on certain areas...It's even harder to detect.
They won't be able to get away with it, if maliciously done. That's my point.
ISPs are in the business to maximize their subscriber numbers, so it's in their inherent interest to keep it free flowing w/o the bad throttling business.
The the bigger concern, imo, are the entities that are both ISP and content providers.
Such as, Comcast (who owns Hulu): it would be bad for them to restrict/throttle/bad-monopolistic-actions to Netflix traffic to force their customers to use Hulu instead. That's the bigger worry IMO.
ISPs already do this. Here in the UK some ISPs are very proactive in blocking access to sites offering streams of video content. Sky blocks a lot because people are watching content which Sky has the UK distribution rights to, for example.
And these ISPs are doing this in the UK, where there is a lot less of a monopolistic grip on many areas of the UK compared to the US.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 16:39:06
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: It would actually be pretty hard to maliciously block a public IP address by the ISP as hypothesized and get away with it...
DNS servers are the address name-to-IP translators that is ubiquitous across the internent, owned by many manyentities. DNS servers "talk" to each other to maintain valid changes to IP address and to optimize the database list to reduce "hops" between networks.
Just about the only entity who can block (or redirect) IP addresses are Countries. (looking at you China/Cuba/Iran/etc...)
Unless you think its possible for the US (or other western nations) to do this...this hypothetical is nothing more than a Chicken Little exercise that NN wouldn't address anyways.
China has tried to ban VPNs with only limited effect. Even a nation with overt and heavy handed net policing can only go so far. It requires actual police footwork to close the door properly, which China is only beginning to do on a larger scale. That of itself cant happen in the US.
The major issue facing those whose content is 'shutdown' is that opposed content might still be readily available. If say YouTube/Patreon/Facebook blocks content for being infringing, those who dislike it can continue to call the work infringing without the original content creator being able to defend themselves. This is where group advocacy comes into play. Net neutrality is relevant as its a broader scale problem. Content bans are a scalpel, bandwidth throttling is a hammer. It would be possible to use a large scale approach do deal with a social/political problem.
However doing so would be evident and obvious and thus counter productive because it would trigger a larger backlash.
Personally I am concerned about corporations doing social engineering and selectively empowering and disempowering messages according to their own political agendas or dogmas. But such actions also come at a price. When a content provider bans a content maker there is a backlash from their fans and also from those who might not agree with the content but will defend the right to do so. This is also always a problem for corporations and a price to pay. The backlash on Patreon is a current topical example. Throttling would be the same but cruder more indiscriminate and muted in its effect. i.e not an effective tool of social control.
Consequently while I am seeing a theoretical political free speech threat from net neutrality repeal, but I am not seeing or any longer expecting to see an actual one.
The real issue to me has always been about monopolization and carteling of internet services. That to me is a much bigger problem, companies not in 'the club' could face real restrictions or even be forced out of business is needs be. There is no open evidence of this, but if major corporations do cartel, there won't be, so the lack is not indicative, and the window of opportunity may be tempting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 16:51:23
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: China has tried to ban VPNs with only limited effect. Even a nation with overt and heavy handed net policing can only go so far. It requires actual police footwork to close the door properly, which China is only beginning to do on a larger scale. That of itself cant happen in the US.
But the goal of ending net neutrality isn't China-style censorship of dissent, it's profit. Most people don't know how to set up a VPN and aren't going to learn, so who cares if it is technically possible? The goal, which can easily be successful, is to make accessing the content inconvenient enough that people get out their wallets and pay for premium service and/or just go to the preferred content provider (depending on the particular business model). It's purely a gift to large corporations at the expense of the rest of us, who pay more without getting an improved product in return.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: ISPs are in the business to maximize their subscriber numbers, so it's in their inherent interest to keep it free flowing w/o the bad throttling business.
Not really true. Internet at this point is an essential service, like electricity or water. And just like other utilities you have little or no choice in the market. No matter how unhappy you are with the service you have to keep buying. That's what makes ending net neutrality so dangerous. If they tell you that Netflix costs $5.99/month you either pay or stop watching that show you love. Or they tell Netflix to hand over $$$$$$$/month or get blocked, and Netflix passes on the cost to you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 21:14:27
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Damn, this board must have some glitches. A good post of mine seems to ave just disappeared while similiar posts haven't...
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
whembly wrote: ISPs are in the business to maximize their subscriber numbers, so it's in their inherent interest to keep it free flowing w/o the bad throttling business.
Not really true. Internet at this point is an essential service, like electricity or water. And just like other utilities you have little or no choice in the market.
Yes and no.
Yes, it's an essential service.
No, in that it's like electricity and water. That in many areas, you can get competing ISPs (namely cable vs telephony vs sat vs cellular)... whereas electricity/water you *only* get them from one company.
No matter how unhappy you are with the service you have to keep buying.
Only if you don't want the other available products. Some rural areas are "stuck" with telephony or satellites. I use airquotes in 'stuck' because you still have options, even if your preferred ISP, like cable, isn't available.
That's what makes ending net neutrality so dangerous.
I'm going to ask everyone to define what you mean by Net Neutrality.
For many, it's treating each internet transactions equally, no matter who's the sender and who's the consumer. Which is a drawback as things like 'zero-rating' offers from celluar companies would run afoul to this concept. Zero-rating means that a particular service does not count against a data cap. (ie, Verizon offer HBO streaming on their plans, or T-mobile offering MLB for their users... all not counting to data cap)
From context, Peregrine... I think you're referring to the fact that FCC recently removed the Obama FCC regulation era that reclassified ISPs as common-carriers. IF that's the case, its really an asinine to consider ISPs as common-carriers as this isn't like Ma Bell as the industry is so diverse, that old regulation doesn't really "fit" with what they were trying to do.
If they tell you that Netflix costs $5.99/month you either pay or stop watching that show you love. Or they tell Netflix to hand over $$$$$$$/month or get blocked, and Netflix passes on the cost to you.
Here's the thing... there's no guarantee that the Obama era FCC regulation, under title II, would've prevented your supposed scenario as it would still has to be adjudicated by the FCC for approval.
Rescinding this rule, ISP under title II regulated by the FCC, reverts it back to be regulated by the FTC under title I. The FTC has found bad actors and sanctioned them appropriately.
Furthermore, any regulatory decision is about tradeoffs. To choose one course of action is to gain certain benefits and incur certain costs, and it is to forgo the benefits (and costs!) of alternative courses of action. Here's the important point I'd like to emphasize: that makes evaluating regulations so difficult is that the benefits are usually readily apparent, mainly in hat the bad behavior or outcome would, hopefully, be eliminated. But the costs are much more difficult to quantify. Short-term implementation costs may be relatively straightforward, but future innovations and market entries that don’t happen by virtue of the regulation being in place are far more difficult to calculate. You'd literally be asking the 8-ball in trying to ascertain hypothetical impacts. Equally difficult to measure is the inevitable rent-seeking that accompanies regulation, as incumbents such as FANG would find it easier to lobby regulators to foreclose competition instead of winning customers in an open market.
Yes, we need to recognize that the Internet has been the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare for... since created by Al Gore ( ). Such impacts and future sustainability should be protected of course... also, given that all of that advances that has been achieved with minimal regulatory oversight under title I, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth ought to be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential.
The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that harm exists in the sort of systematic way that justifies heavily regulating ISPs, ie using title II that was designed for different technologies in a different era... additionally the evidence that does exist... suggests that current regulatory structures handle bad actors perfectly well. Especially since industry watchdogs and insiders are so prevalent. The only future to fear is the one we never discover because we gave up on the approach that has already brought us so far. KnowWhatIMean??
I argued that Commissioner Pai was right to return regulation to the same light touch under which the Internet exploded in our lifetime. Please note, that I am amenable to Congress passing laws specifically banning ISPs from throttling/blocking content, especially in the light of massive vertical integrations we've seen (ie, Comcast, Google, Facebook). But, for the most part, I believe we are better off in taking a “wait-and-see” approach, especially since new services and innovation is still going at rapid progress. And, again let me reiterate, if bad actors/event happens such that a "heavier touch" is required, it should absolutely be debated.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 22:07:31
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alternatively, your post was actually not very good and it got deleted by the mods and you're just mad at the mods.
They can get on people's nerves.
One thing that needs to die is this mentality that somehow it's ok for a business to do whatever makes it profit. The free market fanatics seem to think that "profit" is a magical word of power that makes everything right.
By that metric the kid selling crack in a school is ok because he's just making a profit.
We had anti monopoly laws and regulations on banks after the great depression for a reason. Since this deregulation craze started in the 80's wecve had one economic disaster after another, starting with the SnL bailouts of the late 80's.
Eliminating net neutrality is just anotber form of deregulation, and is pretty much guaranteed to create another disaster for most people while profiting a few.
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
2) ISPs should not be allowed to block any legal content from their services. At the same time, services should have discretion in monetization and their algorithms.
3) Finally...and this is controversial, this is solution if we can't break the monopolies: ISP/CDNs should not be allowed to zero-rate their own content, and platforms should not be allowed to prioritize their own content in their algorithms. IE, Comcast customer shouldn't get Hulu for free, or ATT customer shouldn't get the TimEWarner library for free. Otherwise, there need to be specific rules and transparency around transfer pricing and a guarantee that the same rates are allowed to competitive services and content...which gets complicated in a hurry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 23:03:08
whembly wrote: Can we agree with the following principles?
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
2) ISPs should not be allowed to block any legal content from their services. At the same time, services should have discretion in monetization and their algorithms.
3) Finally...and this is controversial, this is solution if we can't break the monopolies: ISP/CDNs should not be allowed to zero-rate their own content, and platforms should not be allowed to prioritize their own content in their algorithms. IE, Comcast customer shouldn't get Hulu for free, or ATT customer shouldn't get the TimEWarner library for free. Otherwise, there need to be specific rules and transparency around transfer pricing and a guarantee that the same rates are allowed to competitive services and content...which gets complicated in a hurry.
.
This would be a good start!
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
whembly wrote: Can we agree with the following principles?
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
2) ISPs should not be allowed to block any legal content from their services. At the same time, services should have discretion in monetization and their algorithms.
3) Finally...and this is controversial, this is solution if we can't break the monopolies: ISP/CDNs should not be allowed to zero-rate their own content, and platforms should not be allowed to prioritize their own content in their algorithms. IE, Comcast customer shouldn't get Hulu for free, or ATT customer shouldn't get the TimEWarner library for free. Otherwise, there need to be specific rules and transparency around transfer pricing and a guarantee that the same rates are allowed to competitive services and content...which gets complicated in a hurry.
.
That's literally net neutrality in a nutshell. You ask "what is net neutrality" and then list off exactly what net neutrality is like it's some controversial thing we all need to agree on.
Everyone already agrees, except you, who seems to agree but will spend pages telling us all the reasons you disagree despite from all your ramblings seemingly have no disagreement. It's like you can't live without arguing with someone even when there's nothing to actually argue over.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 06:30:49
whembly wrote: Can we agree with the following principles?
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
I have a big problem with this, even though I would like to agree with the principle.
Corporations are past masters of using marketing to reverse the meaning of a price differential. It is common to synchronise a discount offer with a general price rise so a product is temporarily cheaper, or even the same price yet 'reverting' to a higher price later.
in context here a company can generate slow lanes while claiming to generate fast lanes, its just a matter of labelling. "Fast lanes" become (what was) standard service at premium price, normal service become throttled service at regular price. Thus technically there are no "slow lanes".
Orlanth wrote: China has tried to ban VPNs with only limited effect. Even a nation with overt and heavy handed net policing can only go so far. It requires actual police footwork to close the door properly, which China is only beginning to do on a larger scale. That of itself cant happen in the US.
But the goal of ending net neutrality isn't China-style censorship of dissent, it's profit. Most people don't know how to set up a VPN and aren't going to learn, so who cares if it is technically possible? The goal, which can easily be successful, is to make accessing the content inconvenient enough that people get out their wallets and pay for premium service and/or just go to the preferred content provider (depending on the particular business model). It's purely a gift to large corporations at the expense of the rest of us, who pay more without getting an improved product in return.
This wasn't the point I was making. Many advocates of Net Neutrality used censorship as an argument. I made the point that repealing net neutrality doesn't lead to censorship because it doesn't have the tooling of censorship. Though it can make fringe websites harder to reach and is detrimental to them, but it would be difficult to shut down a message this way. As China has vested interests and internal control structures for shutting down the internet, and has yet to successfully do so, it is hard to fathom circumstances where a successful shutdown can occur in the US on a large scale.
This is not to say that intelligence agencies cannot interfere, but this doesn't require or rely on net neutrality laws or their repeal.
Beyond this i agree with you. The benefits are for corporate gain at public expense, and while free speech can suffer to some extent that is simply in a form of corporate 'pollution' of the internet caused by movement on the road to quicker profits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 06:56:41
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: This wasn't the point I was making. Many advocates of Net Neutrality used censorship as an argument. I made the point that repealing net neutrality doesn't lead to censorship because it doesn't have the tooling of censorship. Though it can make fringe websites harder to reach and is detrimental to them, but it would be difficult to shut down a message this way. As China has vested interests and internal control structures for shutting down the internet, and has yet to successfully do so, it is hard to fathom circumstances where a successful shutdown can occur in the US on a large scale.
This is not to say that intelligence agencies cannot interfere, but this doesn't require or rely on net neutrality laws or their repeal.
Oh, sorry, my misunderstanding. I haven't really seen anyone trying to argue for repealing net neutrality as a means of censorship, so I didn't catch that you were trying to refute it. As you say, it's a really ineffective censorship tool and all of the discussion I've seen has been about repealing it to enable abusive business practices.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ok, let me try to cast a little oil on troubled waters here, some people actually like some laws and programs when they are explained to them in objective, label free terms.
Let's take net neutrality here. In america at least a lot of people have been conditioned by corporate controlled media to rgard any form of government control or regulation od big business as "SOCIALISM!!!" and "BIG GUBMINT CONTROL!"" and have been conditioned to see such as pure evil.
But!
If you explain what these things mean to them part by part, they tend to like the individual parts. Like say "Do you think you should have a real choice about who you get your Internet from?"
"Well, yeah."
"Do you think you should be able to choose what parts of the net you access and not your internet provider?"
"Hell yeah!"
"Do you think your net provider should have to provide you with reliable service equal to what your paying for?"
"of course!"
"Do you think he should be able to be a local monopoly and charge you all he wants, give you sh-tty service and control where you can go on the net?"
"XXXX NO!"
"OK, that's what internet neutrality helps make happen."
"THAT'S SOCIALISM!"
Yeah, that's kinda how it goes here....
I mean it;'s like people want rate controls, quality control, freedom of access, etc. They just don't want "Duh gubmint!" doing it.
SIGH
So yeah, people here may seem to be advocating for something, but also rejecting habing the only agewncy that can do it, the government, do it and not see the cognitive disconnection there do to years of subtle brainwashing. We need to wake people up to that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 01:09:10
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
whembly wrote: Can we agree with the following principles?
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
2) ISPs should not be allowed to block any legal content from their services. At the same time, services should have discretion in monetization and their algorithms.
3) Finally...and this is controversial, this is solution if we can't break the monopolies: ISP/CDNs should not be allowed to zero-rate their own content, and platforms should not be allowed to prioritize their own content in their algorithms. IE, Comcast customer shouldn't get Hulu for free, or ATT customer shouldn't get the TimEWarner library for free. Otherwise, there need to be specific rules and transparency around transfer pricing and a guarantee that the same rates are allowed to competitive services and content...which gets complicated in a hurry.
.
That's literally net neutrality in a nutshell. You ask "what is net neutrality" and then list off exactly what net neutrality is like it's some controversial thing we all need to agree on.
Everyone already agrees, except you, who seems to agree but will spend pages telling us all the reasons you disagree despite from all your ramblings seemingly have no disagreement. It's like you can't live without arguing with someone even when there's nothing to actually argue over.
But none of those was codified under the previous' administration reclassification of ISP Title II as its absolutely the wrong tool to address these concerns. What is clearly needed is new legislation, not an attempt to misapply ancient regulation in a way that is trivially reversible.
Even if one disagrees with reclassification of ISP's as the wrong tool (which is strongly arguable), the problem with reversing that decision is that it was indeed addressing some of those net neutrality issues, and when that decision was reversed, literally nothing was done on the legislative end, and no hint of intention of ever doing so ever appeared.
The reversal of the title II decision didn't come because the wrong regulatory tool was selected, the reversal came because those who made the decision are actively opposed to the fundamental concept of net neutrality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 16:14:13
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: Even if one disagrees with reclassification of ISP's as the wrong tool (which is strongly arguable), the problem with reversing that decision is that it was indeed addressing some of those net neutrality issues, and when that decision was reversed, literally nothing was done on the legislative end, and no hint of intention of ever doing so ever appeared.
The reversal of the title II decision didn't come because the wrong regulatory tool was selected, the reversal came because those who made the decision are actively opposed to the fundamental concept of net neutrality.
Whembly is correct in point out that our previous attempts at internet regulation were suboptimal at best and you are correct in pointing out that a lack of regulation is worse than having decent if imperfect regulation. I think you're wrong in dismissing the importance of the lack of proper regulatory legislation as not being the key problem.
Since 2005 we've had a SCOTUS decision and two Federal Appeals Circuit Court decisions that dealt with the problem of trying to apply outdated laws to current situations. Nobody was attempting to address the classification of ISPs in the Communications Act of 1934 so we'll never find a clear justification in it to classify ISPs as common carriers. Likewise, 60 years later the Telecommunications Act of 1996 isn't as helpful as it should be because it deliberately created the "Information Services" classification for broadband internet providers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Spoiler:
The Act makes a significant distinction between providers of telecommunications services and information services. The term 'telecommunications service' means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.' On the other hand, the term 'information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service. The distinction comes into play when a carrier provides information services. A carrier providing information services is not a 'telecommunications carrier' under the act. For example, a carrier is not a 'telecommunications carrier' when it is selling broadband Internet access. This distinction becomes particularly important because the act enforces specific regulations against 'telecommunications carriers' but not against carriers providing information services. With the convergence of telephone, cable, and internet providers, this distinction has created much controversy.
Which is why in 2014 the Federal Appeals Circuit Court ruled in favor of the telecom corporations against the FCC's Open Internet Rules regulations of 2010. That led to the FCC passing the Title II Net Neutrality regulations in 2015 that were upheld by the Federal Appeals Circuit Court in 2016. However, because the FCC regulations were only based on FCC interpretations of the congressional Acts governing communications the FCC regulations could be set aside with simple change in majority opinion on the FCC board. which occurred in 2017. Subsequently Congress still wasn't able to pass any legislation to specifically address to current problems with ISPs. Congressional inaction is the problem here.
We're handling ISPs in an insanely stupid manner. This is akin to trying to play 40K with all the current factions and models but only using the 2nd Edition BRB and 6th edition codices. That would be a mess. Even if you managed to find a small group of gamers to play with that were willing to house rule everything for the new factions/models based on the old rulebooks you'd have to start over again if/when new members joined the group who had different opinions on how to house rule things.
For some reason we've decided that we're ok with Congress deliberately refusing to do their job and running on their respective Party affiliation and ideology instead of running on their actual job performance. If the government isn't going to pass legislation to clearly identify how something will be regulated by the government then we'll always be subject to dealing with interpretations and opinions of courts and bureaucrats of outdated laws that weren't written to address the points of contention.
whembly wrote:Can we agree with the following principles?
1) ISPs should not purposely slow or block data on a discriminatory basis. I am not necessarily opposed to the concept of “fast lanes”, as I believe that offers significant potential for innovative services (ie, remote medical services), although I recognize the arguments against them... I just don't think the public has really weighed in that concept. HOwever it should be non-negotiable, that ISPs cannot purposely disfavor certain types of content.
2) ISPs should not be allowed to block any legal content from their services. At the same time, services should have discretion in monetization and their algorithms.
3) Finally...and this is controversial, this is solution if we can't break the monopolies: ISP/CDNs should not be allowed to zero-rate their own content, and platforms should not be allowed to prioritize their own content in their algorithms. IE, Comcast customer shouldn't get Hulu for free, or ATT customer shouldn't get the TimEWarner library for free. Otherwise, there need to be specific rules and transparency around transfer pricing and a guarantee that the same rates are allowed to competitive services and content...which gets complicated in a hurry.
Having fast lanes automatically means you also have bandwidth throttling/disfavouring of content they don't like. You just need to switch your starting position. Instead of throttling they'll just offer a really slow basic service (that is more like constant throttling of everything) at a lower price and you end up needing to pay an additional fee for all the "fast lanes" (and end up paying the same as before, but with fewer fast lanes probably). And if they really want to make some service unusable (or "censor" it) they won't offer "fast lanes" for exactly that one. And they can sell you really cheap fast lanes for their preferred services (more or less: zero-rate their own content).
Essentially: Allowing the idea of fast lanes (bandwidth, latency,…) will allow them to feth with the service to their benefits and against your interests and bulldoze its way over any other points you tried to make up there. If you want something like remote medical services then you lay down internet pipes everywhere (government), maybe offer cheap municipal ISP for regions that need it (I know "government, boo! Hiss!!" ), and subsidise the people who can't afford it. If you hope that the idea of fast lanes would make remote healthcare magically cheap(er) then you'll at best end up with a solution that barely works and is marginally cheaper (or even more expensive if they can find a way for the government to pay for it) because every middleman will try to extract as much profit as possible from this arrangement while not really caring about those medical services.
I wonder what would happen if citizens in a state took up enough petitions to get enough signatures to put a law on the ballot that required ISP providers in that state to adhere to net neutrality laws i that state?
If it were a big enough state like california it wouild have a real effect.
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I wonder what would happen if citizens in a state took up enough petitions to get enough signatures to put a law on the ballot that required ISP providers in that state to adhere to net neutrality laws i that state?
If it were a big enough state like california it wouild have a real effect.
The DoJ has filed suit to strike down the law on the grounds that states don’t have the authority or jurisdiction to legislate regulation of the internet. We’ll see how the courts rule. Seems to me that the internet would likely fall under the interstate commerce clause.
you I'm hosting my own stuff" and continue operating profitably. That's a sign of weakness, not strength.
). Such impacts and future sustainability should be protected of course... also, given that all of that advances that has been achieved with minimal regulatory oversight under title I, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth ought to be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential.
