Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2017, 07:35 AM   #1
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 86
Default The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality





Damn,I guess I going to have to find a new hobby?
__________________

__________________
alucard10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 08:11 PM   #2
Fully Optimized
 
crazyman143's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,963
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

It's incredible to me how much people can't seem to understand or care about this. It came up yesterday and I explained the issue in what I thought were pretty simple terms to some friends and family. I just get blank stares every time. One guy said "whats the big deal doesn't Google already decide what we see online?" Umm, first of all no they don't, and secondly do you not realize that "Google" and the internet aren't the same thing? I give up. Facebook and Netflix will still work fine so nobody cares anyway.
__________________

__________________
crazyman143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 05:24 PM   #3
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,107
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

wow... what a bunch of clumsy examples that really seem to miss the point, or logic of how this can be done!

it seems that neither of these actually understand how ISPs work, OR their kind of tiers of ISP that would even be able to setup this stuff.

both talk about small content creators whilst ignoring the fact that they are not service providers. net neutrality does not affect the small content creators, they are not small service providers or startups. - content creators aren't paying for the service! there is no difference between your you tube channel and pewdiepies, or whoever else,


it's actually kind of painful to hear both these guys misrepresent what net neutrality actually is, and what it means, what the possible affects are, and how it could affect different people.

for what it is worth, their argument that everyone is equal at the moment is clearly flawed, as a small business I may run from home, (with a super slow 10mbps upload.) I may get a business connection to my premise, (much more expensive, but still relatively poor upload, (say 100 - 300mbps up), I may go for datacenter hosting and get a 1000mbps upload, (where I either need to pay for a peering agreement with an ISP directly, or host with a company that already has that...) - but I'm still a lot of money, and hence a lot of speed away from what Netflix has, - probably 10 - 40G stright into tier 1 providers at multiple locations throughout the world. (wahhh, why can't I can that? - no seriously, please can I have 40G straight into GTT or something) the small content provider is already disadvantaged by being unable to afford a "fast" connection.
sure after that initial connection both mine and netflix traffic are "equal", (and that MAY change without net neutrality depending on the service provider) but I've got a long way to spend before I'm actually equal, if I wanted to start a new streaming service today... these guys either willfully misrepresent that, or just don't understand it.

and that is half the actual problem.
understanding net neutrality is not a trivial issue, you need to understand how the internet works, how ISPs work, and how people are connected to each other with service providers and peering agreements. - these guys clearly don't understand the technical meat of the matter, and so cannot actually explain it, therefore instead seem to misrepresent it as though people are not going to be able to get to their you tube channel.


the last guys really annoys me, mostly because he's SO US centric, he seems to believe that the US established the world wide web, that they own all the equipment and that they are clearly best placed to create a constitution to control it.
he ignores the fact that there is literally no part of the US constitution applies inside private service.

I was going to say he's a fuck wit and leave it there, but the more I heard him talk, the more frustrated I got!

it's like he doesn't understand how private property works. - like here, the servers are private, nobody denies your right to free speech, BUT by the same token, nobody can force the server owners to host your speech. just like if I walked into his house and started preaching at him, his asking me to leave, or calling the police to stop my trespass is not a denial of my free speech, it's just him saying "go somewhere else to say that shit"
he CLEARLY doesn't understand how service providers work, and rolls this into some sort of rant about how he's personally butt hurt because he can't get all the alt-right shit he wants on youtube. (yes, Sargon of Akadd can be funny, but mostly he's a man baby who makes bad arguments, he's been responsible, [or rather his videos have been responsible for sowing a seed] for people harassing and doxing people, [harassing both online and offline] even the man from Swindon cannot possibly believe that a lot of his videos "deserve" to stay online.) - anyway, getting all of whatever youtube content you want has bugger all to do with net neutrality, that has to do with youtube NOT being forced to host your content. frankly it's their service, their servers and they can put whatever AUP they like on it, they can remove - either hiding or deleting individual videos, or whole accounts as they see fit, because it is their server and their service! (just like with the me going into your house and telling you stuff you don't want to hear.)

he goes on a rant against domain name registras saying that there are too few! - he's such an idiot, there are so few top level domain controlling authorities since SOMEONE has to control the TLD name space. I mean you literally can't have two independent people granting .com names, serving out two different databases, - what if two people try to register the same name with two providers? there is ICANN controlling .com, nominet control .uk names etc) - but ICANN, has never taken a domain off of a person because it was too edgy, they only have arbitration for trade mark, (though look up the history of atunes, btunes and itunes and you;ll see that is sometimes "missused")

but you know what, just like how ANYONE can buy a server and host content, anyone can register as a registra. - in fact I AM a registra, I can register domain names on other people behalf using a 3rd party reseller service, (it's the cheapest way to register domain names.) if I grew my registra service substantially enough, I'd just go straight to ICAN or Nominet, and get an even better deal on site registration.

you *could* register a domain name with me, but you know what, if I wanted to be a commercial registra as soon as I started getting people boycotting my service, affecting my bottom line, taking up my time with correspondence about the shitty stuff that you publish on a site that I registered, and MY details are attached to on a whois search. I'm dropping your arse rather than putting up with the headache!

and that's where his argument falls down, if he wants "nazis4tehwin.com" he can have that, but don't expect domain monster to register it for you, because they are listed as the registration contact, they get shit for it, and they have no legal obligation to let you use their service, especially in the razor thin registra market where you are operating on a few cents per domain profit over a year.
when you get to register the domain for $10 a year, how many emails to tech support should they have to open before to complain about nazis4tehwin.com before you're satisfied that they should cancel your friends service? you know before they go under, can everyones service and go bust. as they have to employ more people to open an increasing about of mail!

you want edgy sites, near hate speech or whatever, go register with the proper domain authority, be a registra, register and host your own websites. list your own details as registration contact etc. do what your like and spend your own time opening and responding to hate mail.

(I registered as a registra, (despite the hassle of doing so.) via a reseller account to save money, because I've a handful of domains registered, and at a difference of £8 a year each, or £7 a year each, there is an appreciable amount of beer token saved.

he suggests that blogs are owned by wordpress, completely ignoring the fact that wordpress is blog hosting (site and software) word press don't run blogs (they don;t write them), blogs are run on wordpress.
same for google. - I have a blogger blog, that's hosted using google, not run by or controlled, or content filled by them!


the internet was NOT built by freaks and weirdos posting creepy shit.
the internet was built by the military for communication purposes
the world wide web was built by scientists, for research purposes.


I don't understand why his argument keeps coming back to what is criminal, criminal according to who? he touched on it half way through about how, why is the internet not censored in accordance with strict religious regime laws, but by the end says that the internet should be policed to US laws. - but why US laws? - why not a place with more lapse laws?
in fact why not no laws on content, except the local "hosting" laws. (i.e if you want to host Nazi shit don't do it in Germany where that is illegal.)

lets just end by saying the guy is a dick of the highest order, he clearly doesn't understand in a technical sense what he talks about, his moral argument is full of holes, his analogies make no sense and are factually inaccurate and he must rely on audience ignorance to look like he has a good point.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2017, 05:14 AM   #4
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 86
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

I post this video for informational and comparative purposes
__________________
alucard10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2017, 01:15 PM   #5
Fully Optimized
 
Wallaby Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Lets see if i have a handle on this.. Things stay the same as always.
__________________
Then the train was gone,and there was nothing but rails, the earth, the moon, the river and strong silence-and the haunting and immortal visage of America by night
Thomas Wolfe
Wallaby Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2017, 03:07 PM   #6
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 498
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Yeah, basically things stay the same. at least until the ISPs think that everything has died down, then they'll try taking things away, one at a time. Like boiling a frog, just turn up the heat a little at a time and they'll never notice it killing them...

The funniest thing i've seen today, was someone asking why people cared so much, and that the internet in 2015 was just fine. I guess they weren't a comcast customer back in 2015. I was, and i remember how they used to throttle netflix until it looked like a pixelated piece of crap...

Edit: also, i was a customer of at&t when they blocked skype in 2009, and unfortunately still with them (because only at&t had the iphone) when they blocked Facetime in 2011-2012.
__________________
CPU: Ryzen 1700 GPU: MSI R9 480 4GB
RAM: 16gb DDR4 Disk: 128SSD + 2x1TB
Power: 750w asus prime b350m-a uatx mobo
Cortb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2017, 03:53 PM   #7
Fully Optimized
 
Wallaby Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Where was i during all this??? asleep at the switch i was....

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

I guess as long as america online don't try and make a comeback by charging you for internet service we will survive
__________________
Then the train was gone,and there was nothing but rails, the earth, the moon, the river and strong silence-and the haunting and immortal visage of America by night
Thomas Wolfe
Wallaby Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2017, 12:38 AM   #8
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 496
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Could always cancel internet service.
__________________
OneMarcilV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2017, 03:23 AM   #9
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 86
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Man I hope things stay the same or get better I don't want it to be like the people's republic of china!

(I post this video for informational and comparative purposes)

__________________
alucard10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2017, 08:49 PM   #10
Golden Master
 
Celery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,786
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

The WWW (World Wide Web) link countries together. The countries each have their laws. What's legal there is not legal here and vice versa.

If Net Neutrality is about legal aspects then we cannot keep it.
__________________
I came on a Celeron and now my PC has Ryzen!
Celery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 03:22 PM   #11
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,107
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaby Dan View Post
Where was i during all this??? asleep at the switch i was....
That's what started the whole net neutrality thing.
trying to condense lots of information.

there are pretty much 3 types of providers to the internet.
Tier 1, these reach "most" places, they are people like GTT, NTT, cogent, Layer 3 etc, they have networks across the world.
these are the kind of players that will own the under sea cables. that connect continents.

Tier 2, these providers are like super regional providers, they may supply to a country, but not to the world, they will need to peer with tier 1 providers in order to "reach" everywhere in the world. these are guys like BT, Telus, Verizon, Comcast, and they will usually peer with multiple tier 1 providers.

Tier 3, these are regional providers, people like Kcom in the UK, or Cleveland one in the US. these guys serve only small areas, (i.e they don't personally have global reach.) they must peer to reach places outside their service area. they usually peer with a single higher tier ISP, basically just having the last mile, operating customer services etc.


Everybody has an expense in setting up and sorting out those connections, and obviously the more traffic you carry, the more (newer and faster) equipment you need.

Hence why at a residential model we have a situation where if you want a faster connection you pay more.

the same is true for Tier 3 providers, when they want to offer a better service to their customers, they pay more to their upstream providers.

the people in the middle, (large tier 1 Say GTT and Level3) they both sell services in datacenters, and both sell to tier 2 providers.
so A BT (T2) customer in the UK, may request data from a website hosted in the states on GTT, then connection path may go like this:

BT (t2) -> layer3 (T1) -> GTT (T1) -> servrer

but at the same time there is pobably a person in the US requesting something from a Layer 3 hosted server in the UK.
Comcast -> GTT -> Layer3

Rather than working out the exact billing between then ISPs of the same tier, usually have a gentlemans agreement to carry each others traffic fairly, in the incoming/outgoing byte counts are roughly the same, so this make sense.

GTT don't bill Layer 3 for 100Tb of traffic for November, and then also pay a bill for 100Tb of traffic in December.

And yes, that is actually a little dodgy, for the rest of use exchange of services and bartering is legally the same as being paid to trade, and therefore is mostly used as a for of tax evasion.


This became a problem in 2014/15 for Comcast and the other provider where netflix hosted their services.

the trouble is that because so many want to watch netflix the "balance of traffic" became very unbalanced.
now rather that ISP saying to comcast I guess we both owe each other the same. now if they were exchanging invoices at the end of the month it'd look more like 100Tb invoice one way, 10,000tb invoice the other way.

the service providers didn't want to break their agreements to not actually bill each other and exchange money, so instead one ISP too steps to redress the balance by slowing down traffic to the other provider.

in many cases actually making the netflix service unusable to the customer.
and that was crappy, because netflix were providing the service, their servers and networks were good enough, it wasn't their fault that the service was bad, so they wouldn't release people from contracts or give refunds or compensation.

AND the ISP could happily say that the traffic shaping was inside their network policy, they were still providing connectivity of "upto" whatever speed they sold. (and you could see that with online speed checks,

it was ONLY netflix that was affected.

the net neutrality law had meant that the service provider could not favour one provider over another, -stopping specific throttling of netflix.


Of course the "REAL" solution to the problem wasn't to throttle the traffic, it should be to introduce billing metrics, rather than assume symmetric peering. the real problem is that these peering agreements were setup way before video streaming, when residential ISPs setup a good enough network to serve proper fast broadband, but ignored that upstream they would need to request more traffic, the assumptions of the past no longer hold true today, and they should have been changed.


the other trouble (in the US) is that you have defacto regional monopolies,
if you have a provider that won't pay their upstream provider for a decent amount of bandwidth, and want to keep assuming symetrical peering, and they get throttled because of that, you cannot move to a different provider, because there likely is not one in your region.

this net neutrality basically isn't an issue in places with real competition.
If I don't like my BT service, I can change is to sky, or talk talk, Bee, or any other provider I like,

Quote:

I guess as long as america online don't try and make a comeback by charging you for internet service we will survive
I believe that AOL still exist, charging old people with broadband for dialup, even though they have broadband as they don't known that they can cancel dialup and still get the internet.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2017, 07:46 AM   #12
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,107
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by alucard10 View Post
Man I hope things stay the same or get better I don't want it to be like the people's republic of china!

(I post this video for informational and comparative purposes)

again the guy in the video is an idiot.

Yes, people protest if ISPs throttle connections. they did in the past. - when the ISPs throttled connections.

Getting gone after by the government and sued didn't worry the ISPs before, both Comcast and Verizon lied to their customers about their activities to throttle the connections, then they lied to the FCC about their activities to throttle connections.


The idea that social media firms are not playing nice is this guys stupidity again.
he is AGAIN conflating the idea of the ISP not slowing access to legal services and his express wish to disseminate his view on the internet using other peoples services,
he wants to write whatever he wants on twitter, he wants to be able to say whatever he likes on YouTube, AND he wants to force google/YouTube to host that for him, not only that, using their bandwidth, HDD CPU and memory, but he then wants to force them to show his videos in searches, and put adverts onto those videos, so that he can make money from that someone else's service...

Here is a more balanced view,
he can record whatever he likes, he can upoad whatever he likes in line with the terms of service.
If YouTube don't like it, and it falls into what they have said that they don't want on the site, they are free to remove it from their site.
If you tube allow it to stay, but decide that it's in some way edgy, so they want to balance enabling a platform for his view, so he can direct link himself to it, but not return it in search results, that is their right, they can manage their service how they like.
If advertisers wish to associate their product with certain people, or disassociate their product with certain people and views, he may find that his videos don't attract quality advertisers, or any advertisers...

That is not censorship. it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

If services failing to air your content is censorship, then why does he not view it as censorship that his videos are not played in local theaters?


Are we censoring views on this forum when moderators close threads, or remove posts? or are we just managing the service so that most people can get something out of it?


after this rant he says that ISPs hardly abused their power before, but they did! since the mid nineties there is case after case of carries blocking high traffic applications, Comcast blocked all P2P traffic (even legal uses like downloading free software (linux distros etc) because it interfered with their other business interest (stakes in Hulu etc). AT&T blocked skype on the iphone, and google chat, consumers took them to court and they said they weren't blocking applications, google were, - then google said, "yes, because AT&T asked us to!" AT&T requested apple block facetime unless connected to Wifi, so that people couldn't get free calls using a data allowance, it was a requirement before they would even add the iphone to their line up.
-basically, he's just flat out wrong again.

He then says:
"The internet at this point is basically google Amazon, ebay, youtube facebook and twitter."
Which actually helps to understand a lot of his stupitity, he sees the internet as a bunch of high profile content hosts.
ignores any smaller hosting provider, seems to completely ignore actual service providers, (you know the one who actually make up the network.) When he sayd that it does at least help why he keeps confusing the idea of an open network (i.e the ability to reach content hosts,) with content hosts not wanting to have certain view aired on their sites.

He says, that he's a Comcast customer and they don't throttle him... the problem is they (Comcast in particular) DID throttle access to services.

lastly, he states that facebook and you tube are worried about ISP sensoring their opinions,
He knows that the ISP cannot selectivly filter certain tweets or certain videos, just as he said earilier that they could not selectivly ban /pol as it was just a page.


not only does he seem selectivly clueless about the technical capability, he also seems genuinly clueless about the motivation of youtube.
Youtube aren't woried about censorship of their opinion, they are worried about a slow speed being unable to delivery adverts effectivly.



Those of you who have been around here a while know that I work for a company that provides outsourced support to other companies, and I used to work on call.

We once had a customer, that was a commercial broadcaster (funded by advertisements), one day in the middle of a Saturday evening, the system they use for scheduling adverts failed, so they called our service desk, the service desk duly logged a ticket and put it on hold until 8am Monday morning, as this company, when they negotiated their contract decided that they did not need and out of hours on call service.

The long and the short of the conversation with their most senior person that they could muster, is that they just didn't care about the cost, they recognized not having on call support was probably a bad move, and they would put in writing that they were happy for any staff, any number of staff at any level to work for any amount of time at any overtime rate until it was fixed.


Youtube, just like the commercial broadcast company that I was providing support for, are not in the business of showing your home movies or political views, they are in the business of selling advertising space. and just like that commercial broadcaster, anything that might interfere with the scheduling, cuing and delivery of those adverts is a problem, that if unresolved would be the end of their business.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2017, 11:57 AM   #13
Fully Optimized
 
AMD_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Argentina
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: The Consequences of Losing #NetNeutrality

That guy is insane. I think people just take everything for granted nowadays. They think they "deserve" to have a place that is free, where they can make public their concerns or dislikes or whatever, but the truth is, they don't. This places exist just because someone wants them to exist, and can dissapear at any moment. If they don't want to be censored, then they can create their own server, get their own website, pay for everything that needs to be paid for, and post their crap there. But that's not good enough. It has to be seen and heard by the entire world, and for free, or it's useless. What an annoying person...
__________________

__________________
"I so enjoy watching history warp as words pass
from the lips of one to the ears of another.
Imperfectly formed, half understood, poorly remembered."
AMD_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
×