2010-08-14, 11:45 | Link #1 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Net neutrality
I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about it, what with the Google/Verizon proposal.
From what I understood of the debate, there seems to be some kind of incompatibility between net neutrality and differentiated services. Which is too bad - different usages (eg VoIP, video streaming, file transfer...) have different requirements. It'd make sense to treat them differently. OTOH, I can understand the fear of big companies stifling small ones. Not to mention the fear of the consumer getting billed for stuff he neither asked nor needs. Thoughts? |
2010-08-14, 12:46 | Link #2 |
Frandle & Nightbag
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=ht...1010.pdf&pli=1
The above is a link to the proposal mentioned, for those interested. I'll come back with some feedback on the statement itself later today. It's also worth clarifying that this is in no way effective law yet, it's just Google and Verizon making a statement about what they feel should be done, and which they will attempt to act on to give the notion some momentum.
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 13:19 | Link #4 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
The main goal of pushing net neutrality is to keep ISPs and content providers from turning the Internet into a cable TV model. I agree with this endeavor and do not wish the Internet to be set up in a tiered service where websites are treated like cable channels.
However, the very nature of the Internet would reject such a model. Even if the ISPs and content providers all united behind the lofty goal of fucking the consumer in the ass, the Internet would find a way around it. Through proxies in other countries or even an entirely-wireless "pirate Internet..." The internet becoming restricted by private companies is not what worries me. We can find ways around that. What worries me is some of the verbiage stuck into the net neutrality laws that could give the government power over the Internet in certain ways.
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 14:21 | Link #5 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I'm... unclear on what problem you expect proxies or pirating your neighbor's wifi is going to solve.
I mean, the big issue of differentiated services is that they provide an edge to those who can afford them. It allows them to provide faster service. But commercial sites can't pirate their neighbor's wireless, if only because it lacks the bandwidth to allow them to make it big, and if they can't do that, what's the point? (Also, legal actions... It's harder for them to get away with that sort of thing.) As for proxies, they actually lengthen the trip down the internet metaphorical tubes and introduce more delay and load on the network. What's the point? Or did you mean our capacities to use the internet to download stuff illegally? Well, yeah, it's not really threatened. But that's not the point, is it? |
2010-08-14, 14:41 | Link #6 |
Senior Member
|
um...what exactly does that article want to say "in plain language"? i read only "blah blah blah". i mean, really, you expect ISP's to just invent smth to differentiate between legal and nonlegal content in a consistent bug free manner in the near future???
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 14:44 | Link #7 | |
blinded by blood
Author
|
No, I'm talking about a "second Internet," created through point-to-point wireless connections. It's been brought up in theoretical discussions about totalitarian government restrictions on the "true" Internet. Not talking about stealing software or the neighbor's wifi.
Quote:
The fear is that with "differentiation of services" they could potentially charge you the same way cable companies do--if you want sites that stress their bandwidth more (i.e. streaming video) you'd have to pay more. Like adding on the movie channel package to your cable TV. This is bad for freedom on the Internet because it'd give certain sites--and thus certain viewpoints and opinions and socio-political leanings--greater priority and visibility than others. Net neutrality in America is focused on making sure all data is treated equally, so that all speech is treated equally and in accordance to the First Amendment. ISPs and content providers don't like this because they consider the Internet to be their property and they should be able to do with it what they want. When it actually belongs to everyone. While ISPs would likely restrict/charge more for sites that put greater stresses on their networks (to increase profits and reduce costs) the fear is that access could easily be denied to, say, an independent Internet blogger who posts about the ISP's shady business practices. The ISP could use this system to prevent anyone from ever seeing it. That's the dangerous part, especially if a company with a lot of clout and a mania for secrecy (*coughapple*) just so happened to release a product with a number of fundamental design flaws... and then decided to "convince" ISPs to block negative reviews or investigative reports on that particular product... this is the sort of dangers that a non-neutral Internet can bring. tl;dr version: The Internet is "open" now, but if the opponents of net neutrality have their way, we can expect the entire Internet to become a "walled garden."
__________________
|
|
2010-08-14, 15:03 | Link #8 |
Senior Member
|
thanks for clearing that up, synaesthetic.
but wouldnt it be nearly impossible to control information on the internet, considering its vastness and light speed dynamics? and how would this effect for example downloading content through torrents? would they block tokyotosho or have ppl pay for it?
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 15:10 | Link #9 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
It's not as hard as you think. ISPs can block traffic to certain sites already; this is how the "Great Firewall of China" is maintained.
There are all sorts of ways around it, of course--the Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it. But if ISPs were able to take punitive measures against people who circumvent their restrictions, it could get pretty ugly.
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 15:25 | Link #10 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The corporate domination and "their right to squeeze every cent out of us" of many service providers have been the bane of consumers - we have to pay for something that isn't physical and maybe not even needed Besides, I believe that there will be no need pay for it for the high speed access, since it only applies to surfing. Also, technology sales follows something called price depreciation - otherwise there wouldn't be anything written called "cash flow statements". A GTS 250 graphics card costs $200 last year I bought it. Now it is only worth within the $90-140 price range. Similarly, since technology improves exponentially over time, price depreciation applies; all we need to do as a consumer is to assess our need and spend appropriately. Quote:
Besides, I think the US providers are catching onto Singapore's ISP corporate styles - provide a shitty plan with half-past-six 2wire modems or cable, market the hell out of it, then when people complain, pretend that it is the consumers' fault. Followed by staffing their call-in helpdesks with halfwits who know little or nothing about Internet connections and technical systems, then passing the parcel to the understaffed on-site technical department filled with underpaid, overworked technicians running gauntlets everyday. And the customers, unwilling to pay the $120 termination of contract fee, have no choice but to suck their thumbs till the contract ends. And over the period of the 36 month contract, with each month pricing at $92 for the services and excluding depreciation, the provider earns $3312 per customer over a period of 3 years, taking into account at least 2 disconnections per month, serious lag when playing games with people even in the SEA region and a restricted capability firewall so hard to configure. I guess the World Cup corporate fiasco last month blew some dirty ideas overseas.
__________________
|
||
2010-08-14, 15:36 | Link #11 | |
Director
Join Date: Feb 2010
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-08-14, 15:57 | Link #13 | ||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
No, I think they put those there to leave themselves some wiggle room if the government or copyright holders want them to blacklist certain sites. They want to be able to say yes, which would technically be some kind of net neutrality violation. As for how - easy, just drop whatever datagram carries the blacklisted addresses (like reading the address on the envelop and deciding whether to deliver the letter or trash it). Quote:
The truth of the matter is that we don't build and maintain expensive infrastructure for the fun of it. We do it because we need them. The technology for wireless broadband exists, but the initial investments being what they are, it'd be prohibitively expensive for the first adopters. Oh, I doubt they government would let you pull something like that on a big scale - not without paying for the frequency range. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think it much more likely that it's going to be about money a lot more than about politics. For example, Google and Verizon will sign an agreement, and Youtube will always be much faster than its competition. They won't be blocked, just... slower. As for your blog about how your ISP sucks... nobody will care. |
||||||
2010-08-14, 16:02 | Link #14 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote: ISPs and content providers don't like this because they consider the Internet to be their property and they should be able to do with it what they want. When it actually belongs to everyone. No, it really doesn't. A lot of people own bits of it, but most people don't own any of it. The internet is made of a series of tubes, or rather, lots of cables, routers, and servers. All of which have to be paid for and maintained. It's also made of more intangible things (like websites. It just code and data, but it doesn't fall from the sky. Except maybe in the case of sites on the weather.) Quote: end. (sorry, i'm not that good with quotes on forums) but that doesnt mean that ISP's get to decide what shall be payed for. the ISP of your region doesnt necesserally own the the tubes and servers used to make a certain site they blocked or made available by paying only. they'd have to sign thousands of contracts to get total control, following your logic.
__________________
Last edited by idiffer; 2010-08-14 at 16:16. |
|
2010-08-14, 16:17 | Link #15 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
Actually, in America, everyone does own it.
The US government gave the major telecoms a hell of a lot of money, taxpayer funds, to expand their broadband infrastructures. And guess what? Those telecoms took the money. That makes it ours. You take taxpayer money, you take bailouts, you take government funding or subsidies, you can no longer claim to be a private entity. I'm so sick to death of the "privatize the profits, subsidize the losses" stratagem most corporate entities in this country seem to gravitate to. It's a bunch of horseshit. If your corporation accepts public funds at all, ever, at any time, you should no longer be considered a private company.
__________________
|
2010-08-14, 16:23 | Link #16 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
i'd say that objectively its about time to start paying. subjectively...i want the internet to be open, free and so on.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-14, 16:54 | Link #17 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Besides, it really isn't about your worldview. Legally speaking, you don't own the networks. |
|
2010-08-14, 17:10 | Link #18 | ||
Director
Join Date: Feb 2010
|
Quote:
Sound silly? Here's another excerpt from earlier: Quote:
This needs improvements before I even come close to considering it. |
||
2010-08-14, 17:22 | Link #19 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
I agree, that bit is problematic. OTOH, if it wasn't there, wouldn't that mean you can't appeal to your ISP to help you deal with a DOS attack? Or, for that matter, that they can't defend themselves either? There's got to be a sane middle ground, but it's probably a pain to define properly. Quote:
|
||
2010-08-14, 17:30 | Link #20 | ||
Director
Join Date: Feb 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with this is more tied into that previous excerpt I put in bold in that if they determine that they need to lessen congestion (even if there is none), they can then take actions to reduce your priority, possibly even eliminate your connection temporarily. And again, thanks to lack of definitions and text, it's impossible to know how they're going to utilize this. |
||
|
|