Advocacy Groups Duped Into Fighting Net Neutrality

sfsuphysics said:
Let me follow your question with a question. Is that what giving "fast lanes" is going to be about? Actually analyzing the data and determining what it is and what priority it should have? Or is it about seeing where the data comes from and determining whether or not they bought a pass to go faster (or slower).
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I'm not discussing fast lanes per se. I'm discussing the concept of equality of data, both in inherent value and as something to be transported. Now, you described two dimensions in which data can be measured in terms of public worth: what it is, and where it comes from. Both can have a huge impact on anyone's perspective as to whether that data should even exist, or if it should be given lower or higher priority over other data. Ultimately, data turns out to be completely relative in worth or value to each person in a given situation. In which case, one cannot claim that such arbitrary worth or value is equal across all possible configurations of data. Hence, you lose the "equality of data", and therein lose the inherent justification behind "treat all data equally".

See in your ideal world, I might agree with you on some level, however those I pay for my access to the internet have shown time and again that is not what they want to do. Why? Because botnets still exist, if it was as easy as saying "oh hey that's a botnet doing malicious stuff coming from 100,000 of our clients, lets just slow that data down to 1kbps and see how it does" then they wouldn't work. Also certain ISPs have shown to cripple services that compete with what they offer. Remember this is about the idea that the internet is an infrastructure, this isn't an argument that "they company should be able to do what they want, it's their lines" and as an infrastructure they should give me access to whatever data that's on the internet without restricting it. So yeah a byte is a byte whether it's the magical cure for AIDS or a video of goats barfing on kids.
Click to expand...

So ISPs are supposed to treat all data equally, but in the meantime they should have been getting rid of botnets by...how, exactly? You seem to be confused with what you want. Either they shouldn't be restricting traffic, or...they should be restricting traffic the way you want.

Additionally, pointing out that some ISPs have throttled services is irrelevant. Some have done that, some haven't. Some have caps, some don't. Some offer fiber, some don't. Some have speeds over 50meg, some don't. While competition in the market is certainly limited and incredibly annoying, there's still enough diversity that what you're talking about does not yet affect everyone, or even most customers.
 
Stiletto said:
I have no idea. I'm not discussing fast lanes per se. I'm discussing the concept of equality of data, both in inherent value and as something to be transported. Now, you described two dimensions in which data can be measured in terms of public worth: what it is, and where it comes from. Both can have a huge impact on anyone's perspective as to whether that data should even exist, or if it should be given lower or higher priority over other data. Ultimately, data turns out to be completely relative in worth or value to each person in a given situation. In which case, one cannot claim that such arbitrary worth or value is equal across all possible configurations of data. Hence, you lose the "equality of data", and therein lose the inherent justification behind "treat all data equally".



So ISPs are supposed to treat all data equally, but in the meantime they should have been getting rid of botnets by...how, exactly? You seem to be confused with what you want. Either they shouldn't be restricting traffic, or...they should be restricting traffic the way you want.

Additionally, pointing out that some ISPs have throttled services is irrelevant. Some have done that, some haven't. Some have caps, some don't. Some offer fiber, some don't. Some have speeds over 50meg, some don't. While competition in the market is certainly limited and incredibly annoying, there's still enough diversity that what you're talking about does not yet affect everyone, or even most customers.
Click to expand...

Why the hell is it the ISPs job to get rid of botnets? Hell the ISPs have tried and succeeded to divest themselves of legal responsibility in court of peer-to-peer file-sharing of their subscribers. They make no claims to being responsible for torrenting on their network, so why are they responsible for botnets? So why the hell do you keep mentioning it?

Why is it the ISP's job to say what data is "important"? You keep dodging this question.
 
Skripka said:
The reason the internet is the wonderful thing it is...is because all data is up for anyone's eyes to look and find and winners are only chosen based on merit of content. Allowing ISPs to willy-nilly traffic shape is akin to turning a blind eye to a mafia shakedown. It serves no one's interest not in the short term or in the long-term.
Click to expand...

You haven't given a single affirmative reason. First of all, no, not all data is up for anyone's eyes to look and find. Lots of it gets taken down for all kinds of reasons both legitimate and illegitimate(both relative). Additionally, some sites have limited bandwidth and take forever to load. If enough people try to access it, they can't. Not the ISP's fault, but exactly what you seem to be fearing ISPs are planning to do.

Secondly, you are obviously shitting me saying that winners are only chosen based on merit of content. So the most-clicked clickbait about the Kardashians that was Google-bombed to the top of the search results is the best stuff you could possibly read? How's the Library of Congress faring against I Can Haz Cheezburger?

You've cooked up a handful of scenarios...and I could cook up just as many. I need to do a roof repair, why is my YouTube video on roof repair ipso facto less important than you dicking around on HardForum?
Click to expand...

Does that really need to be explained? I can only assume you don't disagree that it is more important. You're pointing out what I've already stated and nobody has the balls to admit - that all data is not equal. The question remains then, why should unequal data be treated equally? Why should your access to that video be kept as slow as my access to HardForum?

Moreover why the hell should the ISP decide which is "more important".
Click to expand...

I don't know that they should. If we could get the simple answer of why data should be treated equally, we could move forward from there. However, nobody wants to answer this question, because it's a keystone of the debate. Take away the meaningless boilerplate about data equality, and you have to face the question of why anyone, ISPs or otherwise, should have to treat data all the same?
 
Stiletto said:
I'm waiting for someone to answer the question "why should all data be treated equally?" Already I've shown that obviously some data is more valued by society and other data, so all data is not equal. Therefore, if all data is not inherently equal, then what is the basis for throughputting it equally? People are upset that ISPs MIGHT not put it through equally, but why should they? What's the imperative that is violated when this bit over here gets priority over another?
Click to expand...

Ok, all data should be treated equally because the value any individual puts on data is specific to their own situation, values, etc. Who's to say SETI@Home data is more important than botnet data? People who run the botnet would probably argue their data is more important. Let's replace SETI with, what to do if your kid swallowed rat poison data, while some of those botnet people might say "ok let the kid live" others might say "why should his needs be important than mine?".

That's one of the great things about the internet, it's not a democracy, it's not a society where majority rules what's important or not. It's simply a way to remotely connect to data from a distant location, any data. And baring breaking laws, there should be no entity that states what data I use the internet for is valued less (or more) than any other data, otherwise we get ourselves into a slippery slope type of argument.

So yeah, I'm sorry your kid swallowed poison and the 1080p video you're downloading that shows you what to do is going a smidge slower than normal, but how do you know me watching the latest <Insert TV show here> via Netflix doesn't relax me enough so that I don't snap and kill everyone at work the next day?
 
Skripka said:
The reason the internet is the wonderful thing it is...is because all data is up for anyone's eyes to look and find and winners are only chosen based on merit of content. Allowing ISPs to willy-nilly traffic shape is akin to turning a blind eye to a mafia shakedown. It serves no one's interest not in the short term or in the long-term.

You've cooked up a handful of scenarios...and I could cook up just as many. I need to do a roof repair, why is my YouTube video on roof repair ipso facto less important than you dicking around on HardForum? Moreover why the hell should the ISP decide which is "more important".
Click to expand...

Precisely. The argument goes something like this: In order for ISPs to prioritize traffic, they need to know what it is. If they do not prioritize traffic based upon type, they do not need to know what it is. If we accept the former, then we have to have a way of valuing the traffic based upon its type, which may be inherently unfair from the consumer's standpoint because no business can accurately determine the traffic's value to the consumer (it is a value judgement that is entirely up to the consumer). If we operate under the latter, the potential exists for some user to hog the bandwidth by watching fail videos on YouTube while the next customer can't check his e-mail for work in a timely manner.

The current system has two tiers already: business class and residential class. I have a residential class package at home that offers speeds up to 50-Mbit and we have a business class package at work that guarantees 30-Mbit. The ISP has obviously done the math and taken an inventory of their infrastructure before setting up these plans.

In effect, there is already a fast lane and a slow lane for the Internet, with commensurate pricing, but the thing is that at work or at home, the ISP is currently not telling me what I can or cannot access, they are only regulating the rate at which I access everything based upon the service agreement. Allowing the ISP to nitpick traffic (individual data packets, for example) in either scenario is not something I am in favor of.
 
Skripka said:
Why the hell is it the ISPs job to get rid of botnets? ... So why the hell do you keep mentioning it?
Click to expand...

You really need to learn to read better. It wasn't I that suggested they do. I was responding to someone implying that they should have. Seriously, I know some people here love to hate me, but at least read more than a handful of words out of a single post.

Why is it the ISP's job to say what data is "important"? You keep dodging this question.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging anything, because I never said it was the job of the ISP. You and others keep changing "why should all data be treated equally?" to "ISPs SHOULD RULE ALL DATA TELL ME WHY THEY SHOULDN'T". Again...learn to read. I don't think most of the people I've argued with have actually read a full post I've made, nor understood my point.

I am not defending ISPs or suggesting anything about them. I'm asking why data should be treated equally by them or anyone else. Nobody has yet given a reason. The consensus seems to be "because it should", which is not a reason, but all too often the empty, mindless justification for things.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Ok, all data should be treated equally because the value any individual puts on data is specific to their own situation, values, etc. Who's to say SETI@Home data is more important than botnet data? People who run the botnet would probably argue their data is more important. Let's replace SETI with, what to do if your kid swallowed rat poison data, while some of those botnet people might say "ok let the kid live" others might say "why should his needs be important than mine?".
Click to expand...

So, to your mind, all data is relative in worth, so...it should be treated equally because nobody is correct in that assumption? So there's no objective morality with regards to data? If not, how can you apply nonexistent morality to the actions of ISPs or anyone else who picks and chooses how data should flow? To them, it's perfectly fine. You seem to apply relativity as a valid excuse for everyone but the people who handle the data.
 
Why should ISPs be charged with deciding what is and what is not important? They have been forced to do so by the government. Six strike rule, illegal images, terrorism related websites. So yea, they already do this.
 
m heisty said:
Why should ISPs be charged with deciding what is and what is not important? They have been forced to do so by the government. Six strike rule, illegal images, terrorism related websites. So yea, they already do this.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should know what you're talking about before opening your keyboard:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ee-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan/

6 strikes was not a law nor was it the government "forcing" anyone. It was the ISPs appeasing the RIAA/MPAA to not have them blackmailing/extorting the ISPs that agreed to it.

Illegal images are just that. Illegal. They break the law. The courts (P as in People) decide and the websites or their hosts follow suit....it really doesn't effect the ISPs delivering content at all. And it most certainly has nothing to do with the ISP deciding what is and is not legitimate.


Do you have anything sensible to post...or would you care to just keep making things up, and hope that no one else feels like continuing to call your BS out?
 
Skripka said:
Maybe you should know what you're talking about before opening your keyboard:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ee-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan/

6 strikes was not a law nor was it the government "forcing" anyone. It was the ISPs appeasing the RIAA/MPAA to not have them blackmailing/extorting the ISPs that agreed to it.

Illegal images are just that. Illegal. They break the law. The courts (P as in People) decide and the websites or their hosts follow suit....it really doesn't effect the ISPs delivering content at all. And it most certainly has nothing to do with the ISP deciding what is and is not legitimate.


Do you have anything sensible to post...or would you care to just keep making things up, and hope that no one else feels like continuing to call your BS out?
Click to expand...

The six strike rule was a compromise that was achieved in court. Therefore it is legally binding, by the force of government and civil damages.
 
Stiletto said:
So, to your mind, all data is relative in worth, so...it should be treated equally because nobody is correct in that assumption? So there's no objective morality with regards to data? If not, how can you apply nonexistent morality to the actions of ISPs or anyone else who picks and chooses how data should flow? To them, it's perfectly fine. You seem to apply relativity as a valid excuse for everyone but the people who handle the data.
Click to expand...

In my mind yes the relative worth of data is relative, and that's why all of it should be treated equal because there is no actual worth to it, data is simply data period. Yes the ISPs worth of data different, but I'm not stating that those people who think data is important are right and should be treated as such whether it's the end user or not.

Me: Data has no worth, all worth is artificial and relative to any user, hence my ISP should allow me to get the data without being biased towards any of it for any reason either in my advantage or against it.

Seriously, not sure why we're trying to go all philosophy 101 here with the logic arguments. Your premise was you showed that society views data worth differently, I countered what society views as "worth" is irrelevant because every micro-society will have a different value of worth, so the reality is there is no "value" to any of it. The idea there is no center of the Universe, however from any vantage point you are the center of the Universe.

The end.
 
Reading some of the responses, I see the Cable companies are getting out the sock puppets is try to influency threads.

Right now, I pay to have bits delivered to me. Charging Netflix to deliver those bits is double dipping (I will be paying Netflix for them anyway).

In Netflix case, they are angling to get a way to make them non-competitive which is a darker purpose. Time to dissolve TV. Its obsolete. Think of all the equipment to encode and decode ancient protocols. Heck, Comcast uses set top boxes and some alternate protocol anyway. It should be all IP. Suddenly Comcast will find the means to deliver those bits.
 
sfsuphysics said:
In my mind yes the relative worth of data is relative, and that's why all of it should be treated equal because there is no actual worth to it, data is simply data period. Yes the ISPs worth of data different, but I'm not stating that those people who think data is important are right and should be treated as such whether it's the end user or not.

Me: Data has no worth, all worth is artificial and relative to any user, hence my ISP should allow me to get the data without being biased towards any of it for any reason either in my advantage or against it.

Seriously, not sure why we're trying to go all philosophy 101 here with the logic arguments. Your premise was you showed that society views data worth differently, I countered what society views as "worth" is irrelevant because every micro-society will have a different value of worth, so the reality is there is no "value" to any of it. The idea there is no center of the Universe, however from any vantage point you are the center of the Universe.

The end.
Click to expand...

My premise is challenging the "data should be treated equally" catchphrase that is so common. The most basic justification for such a belief would, theoretically, be the belief that all data is inherently equal in the eyes of society. I demonstrated otherwise by pointing out that in any given situation, a thinking human being can easily apply weight to one over another. Now, you claim that due to relative value, all data is essentially valueless. However, this is fundamentally flawed because, quite obviously, some data has value to other people(in that you can sell it or distribute it freely and they will demand it) as opposed to other data. Your focus on the relativity to all individuals doesn't take into account the relationships that give certain data value.

Hence, if data is not all of equal value, then what is the basis for treating it differently? I'm not saying that there isn't one. I'm saying it hasn't yet been explained. Nobody can distill it down to a simple principle. Instead, they apply situational conditions and get outraged. When I apply situational conditions to demonstrate that data isn't equal I'm dismissed. Interesting double standard. If you can't boil down something to a simple principle, how can you get so irate over it?
 
jpm100 said:
Reading some of the responses, I see the Cable companies are getting out the sock puppets is try to influency threads.
Click to expand...

I personally get my checks from Comcast through the mail, because for some reason they don't accept direct deposit. It's a real pain in the ass, because the nearest branch of the First Bank of Mean Evil is 45 minutes away. Wish they'd put an ATM in my town.
 
We all pay the same fee to ride a cab whether we're rich or poor or no matter the destination Unless you're stuck with no other means to get to our destination (monopoly) . That's the extra charges come out.

Time to wield the Anti-Trust Bat.
 
m heisty said:
Google. community fiber, small upstart ISPs. There is actual competition, just not in the areas where TWC and Comcast operate because they have deals with local government to have a monopoly in their operation areas.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you consider dial-up competition.
 
jpm100 said:
We all pay the same fee to ride a cab whether we're rich or poor or no matter the destination Unless you're stuck with no other means to get to our destination (monopoly) . That's the extra charges come out.

Time to wield the Anti-Trust Bat.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a company break up since ma-bell. I planning on seeing just the the one company owning all these other ISPs just to show fake competition. As long as our government is (legal bribed) controlled by these corporations. I don't see it happening.
 
Stiletto said:
First of all, I'm not defending net neutrality. Secondly, I don't like Comcast any more than you. Third, you're missing the point, like so many others. Like so many other unspoken truths that we are shamed from speaking, the plain fact is that nobody in their right mind feels that all data is equal. Certain data can get you arrested just for downloading or possessing, or for sharing. Certain data can get other people arrested because it's your private data. We always want certain types of data treated certain ways at the expense of treating other data that way. The whole "all data is equal" line is bullshit.
Click to expand...

It is not up to the ISP's to determine what data is important and what data isn't for end users - they should be treating it all as equal. That is what you pay them to do.

m heisty said:
That isn't the reality of the situation. Netflix wants cut out bandwidth movement by putting their servers into ISP data centers. They want the ISPs to shoulder all of the costs of this move. So what Netflix wants is to reduce their costs by moving their servers and then make someone else pay for it.

Lets make a image you might understand. I want to renovate my bathroom because the plumbing isn't up to snuff. I go ahead and do it and then send you a bill for the whole thing with the justification that your water pressure will be slightly better now because of the work I did.
Click to expand...

You are aware that even with servers in data centers, you still pay for the bandwidth you use? Netflix will always be paying for the bandwidth they use, period, to which goes to their providers which in turn they pay fee's to use other backbones, which Comcast and others get. Comcast and others are already getting paid for the bandwidth they provider to businesses.
 
Stiletto said:
The consensus seems to be "because it should", which is not a reason, but all too often the empty, mindless justification for things.
Click to expand...

It's a perfectly valid reason. It should be because we, the people/consumers, say it should be. We want it to be. Also you keep trying to get out of arguments by adding more and more qualifiers to your question over time. This is dodgy.

In terms of data being "equal" or not, the only priority should be "this is what I want to receive on my end, this is what matters to me". Obviously I should not be getting data I never asked for, and I should only get data that I do ask for... but data should not get prioritized anywhere else. That is what the people are saying. We don't care what they need to do to make it happen.

So, to your mind, all data is relative in worth, so...it should be treated equally because nobody is correct in that assumption? So there's no objective morality with regards to data? If not, how can you apply nonexistent morality to the actions of ISPs or anyone else who picks and chooses how data should flow? To them, it's perfectly fine. You seem to apply relativity as a valid excuse for everyone but the people who handle the data.
Click to expand...

There is no objective morality period, but I don't see how this is related; you're digging up a can of worms. A lot of worms. Going down that train of thought to its end you might as well say "there is no objective morality, so why should there be laws at all?" Time for anarchy, right? You're probably going to also start up another "lol dude that's not what I was actually saying" load of crap in response to that. At which point you should just be ignored because you apparently cannot properly express yourself, and discussing anything with you is a waste of time.

Stiletto said:
My premise is challenging the "data should be treated equally" catchphrase that is so common. The most basic justification for such a belief would, theoretically, be the belief that all data is inherently equal in the eyes of society. I demonstrated otherwise by pointing out that in any given situation, a thinking human being can easily apply weight to one over another. Now, you claim that due to relative value, all data is essentially valueless. However, this is fundamentally flawed because, quite obviously, some data has value to other people(in that you can sell it or distribute it freely and they will demand it) as opposed to other data. Your focus on the relativity to all individuals doesn't take into account the relationships that give certain data value.

Hence, if data is not all of equal value, then what is the basis for treating it differently? I'm not saying that there isn't one. I'm saying it hasn't yet been explained. Nobody can distill it down to a simple principle. Instead, they apply situational conditions and get outraged. When I apply situational conditions to demonstrate that data isn't equal I'm dismissed. Interesting double standard. If you can't boil down something to a simple principle, how can you get so irate over it?
Click to expand...

Yeah no crap some people value some data more than others. We're arguing that this should be ignored everywhere but the very end customer side. The only real way that data prioritization would make sense anyway is if it's done via averaging customer demands over time. No other standard. That would be prioritization via something that kind of makes sense: end user demand. But on the other hand this would cause anyone trying to access something besides what the average user accesses to get shafted. And everyone pays the same amount, so why should any data get prioritized over other data when going to the consumer, considering each consumer pays the same? Because the majority of customers want this? No, it should not work that way.

You've still yet to answer this: why is there justification for some data getting prioritized? Because some people want it more than others? That's not going to fly as justification. You're effectively saying you don't know what the valid widely agreeable (and it has to be, after all people are paying for this service in what is supposed to be a democratic system) basis is for treating some data differently than other data is, yet you're saying there should be one and it should be enforced.
 
The worth of data is on the individual, and how the providers treat the data is also on the individual. Don't like how your provider treats the data your requesting, then fight them :)
 
Fight them and lose because there are too many customers who don't care or don't know better.

the ISP's in North America do not want to spend money to upgrade the backend tubessss. They are cheap and all about money money money to the point they over sell (like airlines) and tell people to suck it up, too bad, sorry you can only get X speed while we promised X speed, but only to your nearest node!
 
MrGuvernment said:
Fight them and lose because there are too many customers who don't care or don't know better.

the ISP's in North America do not want to spend money to upgrade the backend tubessss. They are cheap and all about money money money to the point they over sell (like airlines) and tell people to suck it up, too bad, sorry you can only get X speed while we promised X speed, but only to your nearest node!
Click to expand...

Tubes? Really? We are still on the whole "lets call it the information superhighway" meme
 
m heisty said:
Fast lanes are GOOD. I'm sick of people saying "All packets are equal." That isn't true and never has been. Ask any network engineer they will tell you that packets aren't equal now nor have they ever been.
Click to expand...

m heisty, how does this shill gig work? I am interested in getting it to it.

Do we get paid for every post, or do we have to prove that we are persuasive?

Do I contact Comcast directly to apply or is there a secondary company I should try to hook up with? What worked best for you?
 
MrGuvernment said:
Fight them and lose because there are too many customers who don't care or don't know better.

the ISP's in North America do not want to spend money to upgrade the backend tubessss. They are cheap and all about money money money to the point they over sell (like airlines) and tell people to suck it up, too bad, sorry you can only get X speed while we promised X speed, but only to your nearest node!
Click to expand...

Hey, we chose a democratic/capitalist society, can hardly complain when the people choose not to vote and corporations go for the most profit :p
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
It's a perfectly valid reason. It should be because we, the people/consumers, say it should be. We want it to be.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. "Just because" is a valid reason when a parent is scolding a child and doesn't want to discuss the matter anymore. It's not a position based upon either logic or reason. When neither of those are involved, the outcome is not something upon which to base policy prescriptions, and anyone who thinks it is should not be involved in the decision-making process.

Try something more advanced than "I WANT IT!". That's for children.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Fight them and lose because there are too many customers who don't care or don't know better.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you should try to convince them.

Oh, that's right. Net neutrality advocates tend to be extraordinarily high and mighty about their position, condescending towards those who don't understand technology, and absolutely hostile to anyone who questions the basis upon which they hold their position.

Hm. Problem.
 
Stiletto said:
First of all, I'm not defending net neutrality. Secondly, I don't like Comcast any more than you. Third, you're missing the point, like so many others. Like so many other unspoken truths that we are shamed from speaking, the plain fact is that nobody in their right mind feels that all data is equal. Certain data can get you arrested just for downloading or possessing, or for sharing. Certain data can get other people arrested because it's your private data. We always want certain types of data treated certain ways at the expense of treating other data that way. The whole "all data is equal" line is bullshit.
Click to expand...

All data is equal, in the sense that all digital data has the same basis: 0's and 1's. So, sans for logistics (data in package distribution, and other shit that i won't comment since I'm sorta ignorant on the subject at a technical level), your 01010101 and my 0101010101 should get priority based solely on the time they reached the server: nor after, not before.

Why? Because its the only method of not getting into arbitrary problems. The only thing in common by everyone on the internet is that we all send, and receive 0's and 1's. And thus, what I send/receive and what you send/receive should have precisely the same value to the ISP (well, we know its none :D lets imagine he cares about his customers).

Also, the problem when you allow the ISP's to discriminate (which happens the very same moment you admit that "all data ain't equal) is very easy to predict. In an ideal world they would offer a fast and a normal lane. People who wouldn't want to upgrade would have the very same speed and price that he has now... but those who wanted more speed, could pay extra. What will happen, in real life, is that all lines will be downgraded... except if you pay, and then you will have the same shit you have now.


Stiletto said:
Why? Why shouldn't certain data be prioritized over other data? If you had the ultimate power to choose, would you not give even minor preference to Scientific American over The Superficial?
Click to expand...

Nope. No preference. First come, first serve.


m heisty said:
1 It is to solve the bandwith problem companies like Netflix and Youtube are causing
2 It was.

Did Comcast throttle? It is likely they did. That doesn't change the problem. There isn't unlimited bandwidth, no mater how much you would like to believe there is.
Click to expand...

Those companies aren't causing any problems... the ISP's are. This is exactly the same that happens with power, or gas, or water.

What do you think that happens in any neighborhood, both in summer AND winter? Well... power usage peaks. So, if you have contracted 5kw as the max you can load your power lines without tripping the fuses.... how the heck is the consumers fault when you can't get more than 3kw of juice off of it?!?!?!?!

If the system can't handle 50mbps... THEN DON'T FUCKING ALLOW IT. This is the same shitty excuse that those that offer overbooking services say: "hey, we know all the seats for the plane are booked and paid for... BUT, we know that 1% of the passengers will miss out their flight and, thus, we have 2 extra seats to sell.

Guess what happens when everybody wants to board the plane they paid for? Yes, shit for everyone.

Greed, greed is here the very problem. If Netlixf has 10GBps of outgoing connections (yes, I'm certain is much, much higher than that), and it requires... 1000GBps.. then no wonder it will throttle their clients experiences. But if they have contracted what they require... then its clearly the ISP at fault here. And I'm sure Netflix and companies like that one aren't stupid enough not to do things properly.

Heck, Steam almost 99% of the time downloads as much as my connection allows it (1MBps). And Its almost maxed any of the connections I've ever tried it on.
 
So much sheisty shit going on. I almost forgot what the original post was about after reading through all six pages of internet moshing. ISP advocacy group got caught pulling an acorn.
 
Stiletto, if all data is not equal then who decides the importance of the data? What if your cell provider degraded your call quality because they thought the person you were calling didn't have anything important to say?
 
prava said:
Greed, greed is here the very problem. If Netlixf has 10GBps of outgoing connections (yes, I'm certain is much, much higher than that), and it requires... 1000GBps.. then no wonder it will throttle their clients experiences. But if they have contracted what they require...
Click to expand...
That appears to be the problem, Netflix or its transit providers did not secure enough bandwidth (through legally binding agreements) into the large networks like Verizon and Comcast beforehand. Otherwise, one would expect Netflix to go to court and easily win, rather than signing new agreements where it does get the guaranteed SLA that it needs.

then its clearly the ISP at fault here. And I'm sure Netflix and companies like that one aren't stupid enough not to do things properly.
Click to expand...
Then there is the possibility that Netflix deliberately did something like that, in order to use the court of public opinion to force the ISPs into settlement-free or cheaper peering, something that a smaller company could never get.

Heck, Steam almost 99% of the time downloads as much as my connection allows it (1MBps). And Its almost maxed any of the connections I've ever tried it on.
Click to expand...
That would suggest that your ISP's infrastructure is generally capable of delivering what you paid for and that Steam beforehand had the agreements in place to ensure that it had enough bandwidth to meet its needs.
 
Stiletto said:
Moreover why the hell should the ISP decide which is "more important".
Click to expand...
I don't know that they should. If we could get the simple answer of why data should be treated equally, we could move forward from there. However, nobody wants to answer this question, because it's a keystone of the debate. Take away the meaningless boilerplate about data equality, and you have to face the question of why anyone, ISPs or otherwise, should have to treat data all the same?
Click to expand...
For data to be prioritized, it involves packet snooping. This is fine at the endpoint of a network where your connection speed is limited. To do this at an ISP however, would involve slowing down all of the data that you don't like. This actually costs more money and puts off a lot more heat than to simply deliver the packets uninterrupted.

Connection speeds in the USA are limits configured at the modem in your home. This is an artificial limit and has nothing to do with the infrastructure, and everything to do with getting paid. The ISP's want to create a slow lane to force businesses to pay them more money, which will be handed down to the consumer in subscription fees (like Netflix).

No one wants the ISP snooping their internet traffic. ISPs will use this to degrade competition just like Comcast did to Netflix to get them to sign a deal. And that price is now being handed down to the consumer through increased subscription fees, with no increase in speed vs uninterrupted traffic.
 
I'm I just cynical in thinking that any new members in favor of the cable companies are probably being paid by the cable companies?
 
Stiletto said:
No, it's not. "Just because" is a valid reason when a parent is scolding a child and doesn't want to discuss the matter anymore. It's not a position based upon either logic or reason. When neither of those are involved, the outcome is not something upon which to base policy prescriptions, and anyone who thinks it is should not be involved in the decision-making process.

Try something more advanced than "I WANT IT!". That's for children.
Click to expand...

No, your argument is for children because you don't have any clear policy or reason defined. You're just saying "it should be otherwise" without any clear reason or rhyme for it. Read the rest of my post and stop being ignorant just for the sake of arguing further. Strike two.

I'm saying that the grounds upon which people want data to be equal for, are based on very simple foundations. They don't involve anything complicated with regards to the infrastructure at the moment, or its practicality concerns. It's just a matter that doesn't involve technicality or reasoning (and does not need to). What the ISP's have to do to make it work is up to them. We pay them, and they're practically sponsored by the government. Enough public opinion can tear them down and rebuild them.

If this is not possible, then the ISPs themselves should come out, tell the people how the network operates on a high level, and sway public opinion themselves.
 
prava said:
All data is equal, in the sense that all digital data has the same basis: 0's and 1's. So, sans for logistics (data in package distribution, and other shit that i won't comment since I'm sorta ignorant on the subject at a technical level), your 01010101 and my 0101010101 should get priority based solely on the time they reached the server: nor after, not before.

Why? Because its the only method of not getting into arbitrary problems. The only thing in common by everyone on the internet is that we all send, and receive 0's and 1's. And thus, what I send/receive and what you send/receive should have precisely the same value to the ISP (well, we know its none :D lets imagine he cares about his customers).

Also, the problem when you allow the ISP's to discriminate (which happens the very same moment you admit that "all data ain't equal) is very easy to predict. In an ideal world they would offer a fast and a normal lane. People who wouldn't want to upgrade would have the very same speed and price that he has now... but those who wanted more speed, could pay extra. What will happen, in real life, is that all lines will be downgraded... except if you pay, and then you will have the same shit you have now.
Click to expand...

Thank you for supplying the first substantial answer to my question. I genuinely appreciate it.

I think the issue in claiming that all data is equal is claiming that on the basis of all data ultimately breaking down to 1s and 0s. True, but human beings share much of the same DNA with all kinds of species to which we have little to no linkage or resemblance, and we don't suggest that the fruit fly is our equal. And again, is there no inherent value to society of some data over others? We can all argue our personal opinions of what is of worth, but as we're discussing net neutrality as a plan for the common good, it seems ironic to then dismiss the fact that certain data would be considered, by society, as worth more than other data.

What problems do you foresee in filtering data? We already have things like firewalls that prevent certain traffic from getting through. Sure, they don't let it through at all, but don't you think the technology could be adapted to turn a block into a speed bump?

And I'm not clear on your last point. Why would all lines be downgraded? I mean, if you were to announce suddenly that everyone's bandwidth would be cut, regardless of what they pay, I'd say those customers would lose their shit pretty quick.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Stiletto, if all data is not equal then who decides the importance of the data? What if your cell provider degraded your call quality because they thought the person you were calling didn't have anything important to say?
Click to expand...

Well, that is the question. Who decides? Apparently the only idea that has struck many people here is that ISPs decide. These people view ISPs as Satan Incarnate which I think is kind of shallow and stupid, but there it is. Let's say that internet goes utility - common carrier, stricter FCC regs, the whole nine yards. Then I'll tell you who decides - the US government. Hey, with the recent Snowden revelations, we know they've got the technology and resources, so I'm sure they could root through data on a constant basis. With a nicely named bill to fund it all via more foreign debt, the FCC would grow even larger and more powerful.

...is this something that's considered a better alternative?

Government or ISPs are the only entities I can really foresee having the weight to push this stuff. Personally, I think all of this is ridiculous "the sky is falling" hysteria. As I pointed out earlier, the original net neutrality debate was about the coming "tiered" system that would limit access to certain content. This debate started back around 2003, and ten years later, those tiers have yet to come into existence. Now the debate has been fired back up around two things: Comcast-TW merger, and the Netflix shenanigans. I'm no more comfortable than anyone else with the former. I'd personally like to see that fail. To the latter, and the implication that this is just the beginning of similar escapades, I'd like to point something out.

Currently, Netflix occupies just under 60% of the streaming market. They're actually up 5% over this time last year. Meanwhile, the next biggest competitor is Youtube. They dropped from 28% to about 16%. Amazon and Hulu? Both managed to grow over the last year to a whopping...3% each. In other words, Netflix dominates video streaming. Hands down. The competition is rising, but right now it's nothing.

Now, has Comcast or Verizon been saber-rattling with the little fish? Or the shrinking fish known as Youtube? Nope. Just the big dog. The one holding all the cards. Why? Well, it's a safe bet to assume that Hulu and Amazon don't yet have a lot of operating profit, as they're still up and coming. YouTube still has plenty to go around, but they also have a big brother looking over their shoulder: Google. Comcast and Verizon don't want to mess with that mother. Instead, they're going after Netflix. Still a fairly upstartish company with no real big backers or allies, but their success is quite evident.

In other words, a couple of major players are pressuring a new major player in the hood to give them a piece of the action. Now, is this shady and slimy and sleazy and pretty normal business for large corporations? Why, yes. Yes, it is. Is this single example proof of a coming trend? No, it's not. I know a few people might read that and lose their goddamned minds, but it's true. ISPs are going after Netflix because Netflix has what they want: money. Nearly 80% of internet data is streaming video, and Netflix has the death grip on that segment.

I'm not trying to paint Netflix as a bad guy or anything. I like them. However, they have become a big corporation. Whether you like them or not, they are now in the big leagues. They're going to have to play with the other heavy hitters in order to stay in the big leagues. Personally, I hope they continue to tell Comcast and Verizon to fuck themselves with a broken-glass-laced cactus. However, if Netflix, for whatever reason, falls by the wayside...there will be another to take the lead. And then Comcast or Verizon might(or might not) try this crap again, because that's how big business is done these days - basically they're robber barons with higher profiles.

There's no profit in limiting access to all the obscure stuff people want to see, so it's ludicrous to suggest that profit-hungry baby-eating corporate CEOs want to take away your steampunk sociopolitical midget porn. They're looking to go toe-to-toe with peers, and I think that's what they're doing with Netflix. It's not some grand plan to create a whole new payment system any more than it was 10-12 years ago when it was first said to be that.
 
I still find it inconceivable that people would want to hand the government more control over the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top