Net Neutrality Discussion (Moved from Politics thread. Please minimize overtly political commentary).
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:40 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Gatekeeper wrote:
governator wrote:
Starving masses can and prob will accept change if suddenly they have food and ‘freedom’ (albeit Chinese definition) no matter how brainwashed they’ve been.
My whole point is simply that the reason N.Korea has been able to exist is because China and Russia don’t want a US ally unified Korea on their border. So unless China does something, Kim empire not going anywhere


China does (and will continue to do) nothing to change the situation. Political oppression and forced labor assignments to foreign countries (China, Russia, Middle East, Europe) continues to bring in hard currency to the Kim regime. Without enforcing the UN sanctions levied on NK by penalizing the cohorts, it's unlikely to have much of an impact on the status quo. The oppressed will continue to seek refuge in neighboring countries (China, Russia, Japan, SK, and SE Asia) while the elites will manage to keep the ideocracy afloat.

lakersken80 wrote:
Without the Kim's in charge, the entire thing would just collapse.I'm sure the military will probably try to hold onto their power but pretty much the rest of the civilian population will probably be glad to be rid of them.


Modern history has not seen a more ironclad rule by a single ruling family than the Kims. As foreigners, it can be easy to underestimate how pervasive the NK ideology is and the extent to which the socialist manifesto has taken a hold on everyday life. They can tolerate the deplorable living conditions because they are constantly bombarded with propaganda and assigned government labor. Ask defectors how they feel about NK leadership and generally they won't have a negative thing to say. The Kims have carried on by purging scapegoated officials who bear most of the blame for the economic crisis of the nineties up until today.

If there is a potential roadblock to the Kims' stronghold on political power, it lies in modern technology and the growing market economy. Maintaining the grip on power in the North now requires a balancing act between accepting the inevitable social changes while striking fear and respect in the eyes of its denizens.


That's the problem, China/Russia has zero incentive to liberate or unify or whatever objective of N.Korea because of the US ally unified Korea or China's nightmare situation, both unified Korea and millions of N.Korean refugees walking up north.
The question is how to give China incentive to remove Kim's empire (this is not socialism, Kim is the last true emperor on earth), bring some sort of 'freedom' (China style) and have food for the masses but still maintains China's need of buffer zone with US' S.Korea... a North Korean puppet president
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:41 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.


Yes, let's have the uber innovative government make technology decisions. Maybe then they'll upgrade from the Windows 3.1 systems they are STILL using (or at least were as recently as last year).

What a great idea!


I'm sure the telecoms with their pseudo monopolies will all upgrade their networks if you ask them nicely....
As long as suckers like you entrust them with giving them gatekeeper access we will keep dropping further and further down the list of countries in terms of internet speeds. Now you are going to entrust them to determine the scope of the content that the user can access....good luck with that.


My choices are telcos or Trump?

I take telcos. Lesser of two evils IMO and the way it has always been. I trust market forces than I would ever trust Donald Trump. Neither solution is perfect, I will grant you that, but, Trump is far more imperfect.

Hasn't even been 2 years and it's already a mess. Title II, no Title II, FTC wants it, FCC gets it, dems want this, repubs want that. Government ping pong has already begun in roughly the same timeframe that YouTube launched its doors and got acquired for a cool billion+ by Google.

Away with Title II!


And this is where you are clueless about this subject...Trump is on the side of the telcos on this case....He wants to get rid of net neutrality and so does the telcos.


And herein lines the challenge with the net neutrality debate. When you read headlines that say "this is the end of net neutrality as we know it" they are referring to FCC chairman Pai and his desire to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order.

The 2015 Open Internet Order, among several other things, covers two key issues:

1) Prevents Content Blocking/Throttling
2) Regulation of the Internet under the President of the United States via the FCC under Title II

So the problem comes when those two things are tied together. And since as a society we are no longer capable of viewing shades of gray (as evidenced by other discussions on other topics in this same thread), there are only two choices: Prevent ISPs from blocking content AND put the control of the internet in to the hands of the U.S. president and government.

Me? I prefer the shades of gray approach. I want people to be able to consume all the lawful content they want but I also want the internet out of the president's hands.

So we don't need to quibble on content blocking or restrictive access. We're aligned there. Where we seem to not be aligned, is on Title II regulation.

Why are you in favor of putting the regulation of the internet under Donald J. Trump?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject:

Thank you ChefLinda! Sorry, I know it was getting a bit chaotic in there with random discussions overlapping each other. Understood there is a lot of overlap, but, we'll do our best to keep the conversation limited to Net Neutrality only.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Once again, you fail at understanding how the internet works.
Your ISP doesn't control the data on the internet. It only has access to it on the last mile. Think of them as being in control of the on/off ramps on the freeway. There is no such thing as "toll roads" on the internet. All data is treated equally. This paid prioritization thing is BS and is just a way for them to jack up their rates not to mention doing their best to stifle their competitors.


I understand the ISP doesn't control the data. I think you're missing my point.

Who is responsible for ensuring that Netflix data flows through to Netflix customers at an acceptable rate of quality? And, who should determine what is acceptable?

Netflix? Or the ISP?

If you say Netflix, and I would, then the only way Netflix can ensure that is by paying for it themselves. That is, Netflix has to accept the financial burden of whatever investments are necessary to ensure their product is delivered to their standard. And that creates an uneven playing field because the smaller guys who might offer a similar video service can't afford to do that.


I hope you enjoy your future internet....
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

Looks eerily like a cable package....hmm wonder why.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

I'm pro-net neutrality as long as there are monopolies or duopolies in place, but I was reading this article... it's good to see the other side.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/07/12/bringing-economics-back-into-the-net-neutrality-debate/#42dd579b69da

My biggest issue with this article is that the free market solution shouldn't be charging extra to resource hog edge providers like Netflix. It should be charging users by the bandwidth consumed (where bandwidth during peak hours is more expensive than during off-peak hours). It's always weird to me that two households that both need, say, 30 mbps to stream 4K Netflix pay the same... even if one household is watching 8 hours/ day and the other watches 1 hour/ day. I'm sure people have problems with this approach as well, but it sure beats differing rates for edge providers. (I also hate the tier system as well.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:49 am    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
ringfinger, did you look at the obstructionist list that I posted a while back?
Also, Google is an ISP in certain cities. So they have to follow the same rules there.

I'm worried about things like when they tried to block things like VoIP so they could use their own. No real QoS is needed unless you run a really ***** ISP. Voice takes 3,000 bytes a second or less for usable audio. EVRC can run on less than 1K btw.

So things like that concern me. It's true blocking that they tried to pull. The network really should be just send the data as it's requested.


(tlim, copied your post from the Political Thread as they opened up a Net Neutrality thread).

Google does not have to follow the same rules under the 2015 Open Internet Order. They only have to follow it in so far as their capacity as an ISP. However, in their capacity as an edge provider, they can content block or restrict access all they wish because the Open Internet Order only applies to ISPs and the FCC has no jurisdiction over edge providers, only the FTC does. I know, weird and annoying governmental red tape (another reason I want less of their involvement).

In short, under current Open Internet Order rules, Google as an ISP would have to allow Spotify data to pass through its network, but could just block the app entirely from the Android ecosystem. That's a practice that is happening today with platforms like Apple TV by the way (no Amazon Prime Video).

Should it make us feel a lot better that the networks have to pass Amazon Prime video in, but the edge provider doesn't have to offer it to you at all and favor their own video service (in this case iTunes)? That's been allowed to happen even in our "neutral" world. Doesn't seem to so neutral to me.

I share your concerns around content/application blocking. And I *think* you're referring to the Madison River case? I'm opposed to this. Even that case was resolved 12 years ago without Title II. Even Republicans have been opposed to this. The 2005 Policy Statement written by the then Republican FCC chairman outlined these key principles:

Quote:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.


To me, this sounds like exactly what we should want.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:17 am    Post subject:

Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.


You are so right on that. And man, do I remember those IE days. And what a cluster that was. Crazy that they actually ruled to break up Microsoft in to an O/S company and a web browser company! Wonder how different, if any, the world would be had a federal appeals court not shot that down.

Looking back, and I may not recall this entirely accurately, but I remember the judge ordering them to sell a version of Windows without IE and so I think Microsoft came back and said ok here they can buy the previous (obsolete) version of Windows which doesn't have it. Then the judge said no it has to have your newest version of Windows. So Microsoft came back ok and said ok here is our latest operating system with no IE -- note though it doesn't work as the court had failed to define that a) it must work and b) to what extent "works" means. LOL!

That one dispute took 3-4 years of governmental back and forth and in the end, accomplished nothing other than getting a lot of high priced attorneys paid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 10620

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.

Sure, you may turn out to be correct. But if it turns out that it doesn't make any difference in the long run, what is the point in doing it? I think most people agree that a free and open internet that isn't controlled by large corporations is a good thing, so why change it?

The only people arguing for repealing NN are the large communications companies, Pai (former Verizon lawyer), and a bunch of Russian bots.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:56 pm    Post subject:

AY2043 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.

Sure, you may turn out to be correct. But if it turns out that it doesn't make any difference in the long run, what is the point in doing it? I think most people agree that a free and open internet that isn't controlled by large corporations is a good thing, so why change it?

The only people arguing for repealing NN are the large communications companies, Pai (former Verizon lawyer), and a bunch of Russian bots.


It doesn't make a different in the long run assuming that in the future, there will be alternative to internet but when and how is unknown so this 'short term' net neutrality might be for years or decades. It's a fight worth having
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 10620

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
AY2043 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.

Sure, you may turn out to be correct. But if it turns out that it doesn't make any difference in the long run, what is the point in doing it? I think most people agree that a free and open internet that isn't controlled by large corporations is a good thing, so why change it?

The only people arguing for repealing NN are the large communications companies, Pai (former Verizon lawyer), and a bunch of Russian bots.


It doesn't make a different in the long run assuming that in the future, there will be alternative to internet but when and how is unknown so this 'short term' net neutrality might be for years or decades. It's a fight worth having

I absolutely agree that its a fight worth having.

But my question is: if the counter argument to keeping NN is "there's a chance nothing changes in the long run", why would we get rid of it if we're just hoping that best case scenario, things stay the same? I've yet to see an argument for getting rid of NN that isn't some form of "it won't actually change anything" (even though I don't believe that to be true).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject:

AY2043 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.

Sure, you may turn out to be correct. But if it turns out that it doesn't make any difference in the long run, what is the point in doing it? I think most people agree that a free and open internet that isn't controlled by large corporations is a good thing, so why change it?

The only people arguing for repealing NN are the large communications companies, Pai (former Verizon lawyer), and a bunch of Russian bots.


I’m not going to get into the nuances of the net neutrality debate because, quite honestly, I don’t understand them. I’m just skeptical whenever I hear someone act like this stuff is apocalyptic. Don’t take that the wrong way. You seem rational about the issue. I’ve run into other people who are plain shrill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:05 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Google does not have to follow the same rules under the 2015 Open Internet Order.

Never said they did and agree about the part of their ISPs in those cities.

Quote:

In short, under current Open Internet Order rules, Google as an ISP would have to allow Spotify data to pass through its network, but could just block the app entirely from the Android ecosystem. That's a practice that is happening today with platforms like Apple TV by the way (no Amazon Prime Video).

That is true, but it is also 100% disparate from NN. Google can't block Spotify as it's on iOS. It can't block Spotify if it runs on Ubuntu. Android is a disparate conversation.

Quote:

Should it make us feel a lot better that the networks have to pass Amazon Prime video in, but the edge provider doesn't have to offer it to you at all and favor their own video service (in this case iTunes)? That's been allowed to happen even in our "neutral" world. Doesn't seem to so neutral to me.

It is neutral in terms of an ISP. If some other phone provider, say, Samsung, with their own app store, and Android build, has extra apps, it's still neutral. It's their app and their phone. I could take a _laptop_ and there's basically NOTHING that prevents me. It's your CTE that has the app or not. And thus, unblockable.

Quote:

I share your concerns around content/application blocking. And I *think* you're referring to the Madison River case? I'm opposed to this. Even that case was resolved 12 years ago without Title II. Even Republicans have been opposed to this. The 2005 Policy Statement written by the then Republican FCC chairman outlined these key principles:

Grinding through Title II takes a while, and by that time, you're stuck. If you're a lowly company or an individual, jumping through those hoops would prove difficult.

So again, let's no confuse CTE apps vs. NN. If I'm on a laptop, I have access to any application I want. Nothing can get blocked with NN, and the CDN is orthogonal to the topic of NN.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:05 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.


Except Microsoft losing its monopoly over the computer industry was neither of those. They lost it because they were overly reliant on legacy products like Office and even though their R&D labs had the edge over Apple when it came to developing tablet computing prior to the introduction of the Iphone and Ipad. The problem was that they shelved those ideas and Steve Jobs heard of what they were doing and ending up developing a product without a stylus. There was a well documented article about this and the lost Microsoft decade.Theres a reason why Steve Ballmer is running the Clippers and not Microsoft anymore. The ISP's that are the gatekeepers to internet access do not have any foreseeable competition in the future. Even a giant like Google tried to challenge them with Fiber but decided they didn't want to bother and focus on their core products. This is why net neutrality is very important and worth saving.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:05 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.


You are so right on that. And man, do I remember those IE days. And what a cluster that was. Crazy that they actually ruled to break up Microsoft in to an O/S company and a web browser company! Wonder how different, if any, the world would be had a federal appeals court not shot that down.

Looking back, and I may not recall this entirely accurately, but I remember the judge ordering them to sell a version of Windows without IE and so I think Microsoft came back and said ok here they can buy the previous (obsolete) version of Windows which doesn't have it. Then the judge said no it has to have your newest version of Windows. So Microsoft came back ok and said ok here is our latest operating system with no IE -- note though it doesn't work as the court had failed to define that a) it must work and b) to what extent "works" means. LOL!

That one dispute took 3-4 years of governmental back and forth and in the end, accomplished nothing other than getting a lot of high priced attorneys paid.


There was a lot of comedy in that case. I still use it as an example of the importance of training employees about how to write emails. Some of the Microsoft internal emails were just brutal.

About the time that the government filed the lawsuit, a new company called Google was being formed. Shortly before the provisions of the lawsuit settlement expired, Apple introduced a new product called an iPhone. Maybe the lawsuit produced some benefit, but in the end technological change and market forces made it mostly irrelevant. I’m writing this post on my iPad using Safari.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject:

Here is the Vanity Fair article I was referring to.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:08 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.


The last mile is still the king. You own the last mile, you own the road.
It still hasn't changed in 20 years. The laws are still the same.
Cable providers have monopolies/duopolies at the last mile. Why do you think it's $70/month just for internet service from Spectrum?

Cable has basically won the broadband race. _Maybe_ in 20-30 years, wireless carriers would be good setups for the last mile.

Again though, there are so few choices (and near impossible to add extra) at the last mile. That's where the market goes to hell in a handbasket.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:14 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

I’m not going to get into the nuances of the net neutrality debate because, quite honestly, I don’t understand them. I’m just skeptical whenever I hear someone act like this stuff is apocalyptic. Don’t take that the wrong way. You seem rational about the issue. I’ve run into other people who are plain shrill.


Think about is this way. Exactly what would having NN destroy in terms of businesses? What possible feature could they have to help customers improve their overall quality of internet usage? That answer is zero.

We know how the networks work, and how data gets sent back and forth, and from where. Having NN in place doesn't deprive anyone of a single app.

So why not have it? Ajit says, "there is some realm of possibility." Yes, a meteorite can hit me as it's possible. But seriously, it's ridiculously low.

The other way around allows for a lot of monkeying around before you can stop it (if you're a big enough company).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject:

Not to mention if the ISP senses their monopoly might be in danger they can use their vast lobbying power to shut down projects. Its happened when cities have tried to develop their own municipal broadband projects....so those people screaming free market really have no clue what goes on in the industry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:20 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:

I’m not going to get into the nuances of the net neutrality debate because, quite honestly, I don’t understand them. I’m just skeptical whenever I hear someone act like this stuff is apocalyptic. Don’t take that the wrong way. You seem rational about the issue. I’ve run into other people who are plain shrill.


Think about is this way. Exactly what would having NN destroy in terms of businesses? What possible feature could they have to help customers improve their overall quality of internet usage? That answer is zero.

We know how the networks work, and how data gets sent back and forth, and from where. Having NN in place doesn't deprive anyone of a single app.

So why not have it? Ajit says, "there is some realm of possibility." Yes, a meteorite can hit me as it's possible. But seriously, it's ridiculously low.

The other way around allows for a lot of monkeying around before you can stop it (if you're a big enough company).


Why do we think that what was in place (that Pai is working to repeal) was in any way net neutrality when it doesn't even encompass the entire "net"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:51 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

In short, under current Open Internet Order rules, Google as an ISP would have to allow Spotify data to pass through its network, but could just block the app entirely from the Android ecosystem. That's a practice that is happening today with platforms like Apple TV by the way (no Amazon Prime Video).

That is true, but it is also 100% disparate from NN. Google can't block Spotify as it's on iOS. It can't block Spotify if it runs on Ubuntu. Android is a disparate conversation.


I agree it is disparate from a technical perspective since I suppose Android is not an internet application. No argument there. But how is it disparate from a colloquial perspective?

In other words, do you think people would be satisfied in a world where Google search would fail to work unless you were a Google Fiber customer?

That would technically be allowable under 2015 OIO since the gate is on the edge provider side, and not on the ISP side where data flows freely. But if it's ONLY about where the gate is located, then people would be happy? I doubt it.

I think the debate is inherently non-technical and more about the end user experience. So whether it is an OS, an application, a website, may be disparate from a technical perspective, but not from a colloquial one. I don't think anyone will say, I don't mind that Google is forcing me to use Google Fiber in order to use Gmail or Google Search because there is no gate at Comcast.

tlim wrote:
So again, let's no confuse CTE apps vs. NN. If I'm on a laptop, I have access to any application I want. Nothing can get blocked with NN, and the CDN is orthogonal to the topic of NN.


Look, I don't disagree that there is a difference. In fact, while I don't like the practice, I think it should be allowed. The reason I bring it up is because there are net neutrality advocates who want to apply the same standards to edge providers as well.

Al Franken being one of them: http://www.multichannel.com/news/congress/franken-edge-providers-need-net-neutrality-rules/416497

Quote:
"Net neutrality should apply here," he said. "No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn't, and Facebook, Google, and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms."


Based on that quote, while you and I might want to separate applications (what's CTE by the way?) from information flow, Franken's position is that under "net neutrality" NO company should be able to block the free flow of information. Doesn't seem like he'd say "well except CTE apps, then it's ok".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:53 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Why do we think that what was in place (that Pai is working to repeal) was in any way net neutrality when it doesn't even encompass the entire "net"?


OK. That's where the confusion is. NN is purely for ISPs and how they handle packets, nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 5140

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:54 pm    Post subject:

Against Net Neutrality

https://youtu.be/0cLWgTIsMLM

For Net Neutrality

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

They both having compelling arguments I'm still in favor of net neutrality but I don't know enough about this to have a very strong opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


I agree it is disparate from a technical perspective since I suppose Android is not an internet application. No argument there. But how is it disparate from a colloquial perspective?

In other words, do you think people would be satisfied in a world where Google search would fail to work unless you were a Google Fiber customer?

Google is one of many ways to search for content. You aren't locked down due to last mile constraints. If cable is your only mechanism, and your provider says no google for you, because it wants you to use Spectrum Search(tm), what happens then? Or some other service?

Quote:

Al Franken being one of them: http://www.multichannel.com/news/congress/franken-edge-providers-need-net-neutrality-rules/416497

Quote:
"Net neutrality should apply here," he said. "No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn't, and Facebook, Google, and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms."



Based on that quote, while you and I might want to separate applications (what's CTE by the way?) from information flow, Franken's position is that under "net neutrality" NO company should be able to block the free flow of information. Doesn't seem like he'd say "well except CTE apps, then it's ok".


CTE - old term that we used in telecomm. Customer Termination Equipment. Could be a phone, a terminal, laptop, or desktop, etc. Its basically whatever the customer has at the terminaating end of a phone line (or internet).

Facebook is filtering out Russian stuff, Google filters out porn, etc. It already happens on the edge providers and NN doesn't affect it at all. Forcing an edge provider to be like NN on content of the Google search isn't what NN is currently doing. Franken might be for it, but that's a bit of an overreach and trying to take on NN rules to edge providers is doesn't fit.

So here's what I can see that we agree with:
1) ISP must treat all packets equally. Without NN they could treat them differently based upon their own business rules.
2) Content blocking by ISPs should be prohibited but has been poked and proded at. NN explicitly says no.
3) Edge providers currently are NOT part of NN, but some want to add to that. It's their product, why should Facebook be forced to show all the Russian election ads to you? Folks like FB already have terms for users that allow them to nack bad stuff as well. Now they can't? That would be bad for its product.

What we disagree with is the solution. Current NN laws don't deal with #3 which neither of us want. So why is it good to get rid of NN?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:39 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
So here's what I can see that we agree with:
1) ISP must treat all packets equally. Without NN they could treat them differently based upon their own business rules.
2) Content blocking by ISPs should be prohibited but has been poked and proded at. NN explicitly says no.
3) Edge providers currently are NOT part of NN, but some want to add to that. It's their product, why should Facebook be forced to show all the Russian election ads to you? Folks like FB already have terms for users that allow them to nack bad stuff as well. Now they can't? That would be bad for its product.

What we disagree with is the solution. Current NN laws don't deal with #3 which neither of us want. So why is it good to get rid of NN?


Wait. On #1 are you talking about treating them equally from a data perspective? Or from any perspective? Because with zero rating, which I'm perfectly fine with, the packets themselves are treated differently from a technical perspective, but the cost hit to the user is treated differently. Many, many NN advocates are against zero rating because it creates an unfair competitive advantage for bigger companies who can afford to participate.

Fine on #2 of course.

#3 -- The reason edge providers should be included in the discussion is because of #2. Are people who are in favor of stopping content blocking only in favor of it so long as it doesn't occur at the ISP level? I don't think they are aware that under net neutrality, their content can still be blocked and lawfully so as long as it doesn't occur at one point within the network. I'm pretty sure most people opposed to content blocking are opposed to it on ANY level, not just at the ISP level.

Long story short, when I said I wasn't in favor of the current net neutrality rules, I was specifically referring to the 2015 Open Internet Order which is the one Pai is looking to repeal. I'm hugely opposed to classifying broadband service as a public utility under Title II and would prefer only to do that as a last resort. And IMO, we're not there yet given the very limited number of net neutrality violations all of which were resolved without the classification in place.

I'm also fine with other things that net neutrality advocates typically oppose such as zero rating. I'm also not opposed to fast lanes via paid peering, etc.

Obviously, and I have said this multiple times, content blocking is a terrible idea but I do think there is a difference between that, and, an ISP incentivizing its own product or service via improved performance over the standard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject:

Can any of you tell me if other countries do or do not have Net Neutrality?

What is Tokyo like
London?
etc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB