Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[The Human Q-Tip]

As @spydy13 and @NasstyNate have stated, it doesn't seem as though you understand what Net Neutrality actually is. Are you confident in your understanding of the topic?

Yes.

 

[gourimoko]

Yes.

Then can you articulate your grievance? I'm not sure what you feel the ISPs lost that they should have the right to do in your view?

 

[NasstyNate]

The bottom line is that I don't believe the primary motive for these regulations had anything to do with a concern that competition might be stifled. Throttling a competitor would likely be considered an antitrust violation even without these regs. I think the real concern was more of a populist thing that evil big business shouldn't be able to get higher speeds than some guy who wants to stream movies from Netflix, or online game.

shows

Yes.

to be untrue.

 

[FiveThous]

So if anyone wants to pick up a good book, I'd highly recommend Future Crimes by Marc Goodman.

I read about 30% of it in one sitting yesterday.

 

[FiveThous]

Please start. I'm honestly curious to see where I'm so wrong.

EDIT: To clarify, the "world" that I am describing here, the one that would bring about my demise, is the one where I am worried all the time about what the government is doing.

Post all your email addresses and passwords for us to check out what you're doing if you have nothing to worry about.

I guarantee you lock all your cars, desk, cabinets, house/apartment or wherever else you hide your personal things. Just make every RCF member that's posted in this thread a spare key to all these things. You have nothing to worry about, right?

It's the same exact thing.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Then can you articulate your grievance? I'm not sure what you feel the ISPs lost that they should have the right to do in your view?

I've already stated this, but fine. Here are two things the FCC has said its new regs will accomplish with which I disagree.

No Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non- harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes.”

I believe they should be permitted to do both. It's not that complicated.

 

[gourimoko]

I've already stated this, but fine. Here are two things the FCC has said its new regs will accomplish with which I disagree.

No Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non- harmful devices.

Have you ever thought how ISPs achieve this level of throttling? Did you read the quote?

On the basis of "content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices."

Again, you do not understand how the Internet works at a fundamental level.

The only way to ascertain the content is to packet sniff.
The only way to ascertain the application is to packet sniff.
The only way to ascertain the service, if it's bound to common ports, is to packet sniff.
The only way to ascertain the device is to packet sniff.

That means opening up private communications, peering into them, making judgements about the content therein, and then choosing whether or not this content should move at full speed without interruption or be stalled in a wait queue in a QoS-based routing system.

If the end-user encrypts their traffic, then it must be throttled. This disincentivizes and virtually disables in many cases end-to-end encryption like SSL/TLS and VPN networking.

No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes.”

This is no different than the previous issue, they have the same means, packet sniffing. Tiered access is fine, always has been.

I believe they should be permitted to do both. It's not that complicated.

Again, I really don't think you understand the issue enough.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Have you ever thought how ISPs achieve this level of throttling?

I know how it is done, and why it is done. And I don't want to microanalyze each specific concern about packet-sniffing to explain why I'm not personally concerned, or why I think such concerns are largely overblown right now. After all, packet-sniffing already exists, and has been in place for a long time. And the world has not ended, at least for me.

In short, I understand the privacy arguments, and believe they are largely overblown, and don't find them convincing. You, on the other hand, have posted on multiple occasions about your desire to remain as anonymous as possible on the net, so I understand why you may weigh that differently.

ETA: And just to add....

As far as I can tell, the reg does not bar all packet-sniffing. It would only prevent an ISP from using packet-sniffing to throttle lawful traffic. There are a lot of other reasons for packet-sniffing, and presumably, that would continue. With most of the same potential concerns for abuse (other than throttling lawful users), I might add.

 

[gourimoko]

I know how it is done, and why it is done. And I don't want to microanalyze each specific concern about packet-sniffing to explain why I'm not personally concerned, or why I think such concerns are largely overblown right now. After all, packet-sniffing already exists, and has been in place for a long time. And the world has not ended, at least for me.

The world needs to be at a possible end for us to have FCC regulations?

And no, ISPs have not historically scanned packets for content information. This level of filtering is costly from a routing standpoint for large amounts of traffic moving at near line speed.

Comcast and others determined that they could and would try to oversell their pipelines by downthrottling customers paying for service; and they would do so by analyzing the content of those packets to determine their content, application, service, and destination.

This is an unwarranted interference with the end-user.

In short, I understand the privacy arguments, and believe they are largely overblown, and don't find them convincing.

Why?

Why does Comcast have the right to slow down my traffic because they cannot read it's contents?

Again, does UPS have the right to open my packages and determine the speed and cost after the point of shipment?

You, on the other hand, have posted on multiple occasions about your desire to remain as anonymous as possible on the net, so I understand why you may weigh that differently.

Indeed. My career goals in politics and lobbying would pretty much come to an end, overnight, if someone could tie just my private personal views on things that I might voice on RCF with my name and face.

For my software business, many of my clients (most?) are right-wing Republicans; for this reason, I do not have a Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or any form of social media presence linking back to me personally.

It's not just an issue of pure anonymity, but simply of privacy. I disclose what I want to disclose, and nothing more. When I go to purchase internet service, from an internet service provider, that should not come with the implied caveat that I will have a perpetual wiretap on my line.

Look at what Lenovo was just caught doing? Breaking TLS and SSL encryption on the laptops it sells and data mining it's users private information? It's functionally no different than what Comcast is doing; especially since we know that Comcast is already listening.

ETA: And just to add....

As far as I can tell, the reg does not bar all packet-sniffing. It would only prevent an ISP from using packet-sniffing to throttle lawful traffic.

This removes the incentive to do it, which requires a fairly large network topology infrastructure in both software and even just the hardware cycles from the network routers.

There are a lot of other reasons for packet-sniffing, and presumably, that would continue.

Can you give me one legitimate reason my ISP needs to packet sniff?

With most of the same potential concerns for abuse (other than throttling lawful users), I might add.

ISPs can still sniff packets, yes, but they have little reason to actually invest the significant capital in doing so.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This level of filtering is costly from a routing standpoint for large amounts of traffic moving at near line speed.

Right. Which is a built-in limit on doing as much of it as some fear.

Comcast and others determined that they could and would try to oversell their pipelines by downthrottling customers paying for service; and they would do so by analyzing the content of those packets to determine their content, application, service, and destination.

If you can't see how this impacts the economics of the entire system, I have no interest in explaining it. It's exactly what I was trying to avoid. But again, I don't have a problem with throttling certain packets at peak times to avoid penalizing others. Slow down Youtube? P2P? File-sharing? Streaming? Yeah, I'm fine with that because I barely use any of that, and it takes a lot of bandwidth.

This is an unwarranted interference with the end-user.[/quote]

Funny. I think that is warranted.

Of course, I also think someone should be able to pay a bit extra if they're a heavy user of that stuff and want to be sure they're not being throttled. Pay for the premium of not being throttled.

Why does Comcast have the right to slow down my traffic because they cannot read it's contents?

Because they're trying to manage the line efficiently for everyone, and different users have different interests and priorities.

Again, does UPS have the right to open my packages and determine the speed and cost after the point of shipment?

How would opening up the package determine the speed and cost after point of shipment? Weight and size can be determined without opening the package.

Indeed. My career goals in politics and lobbying would pretty much come to an end, overnight, if someone could tie just my private personal views on things that I might voice on RCF with my name and face.

That's your problem, not mine.

t's not just an issue of pure anonymity, but simply of privacy. I disclose what I want to disclose, and nothing more. When I go to purchase internet service, from an internet service provider, that should not come with the implied caveat that I will have a perpetual wiretap on my line.

This is the type of privacy complaint I think is wildly exaggerated. As you pointed out, that level of filtering would dramatically slow things down.

 

[The Oi]

So your argument is that the provider should be able to intentionally worsen the service already in existence? LOL

There is no chance in fuck you believe that.

 

[Tornicade]

ISp's can tier traffic speed by the ip. there is no need to packet speed to provide tiered speed.
Throttling people with the same access is done to increase a companies margin by not having to properly equip the level of usage being paid for.

Companies and the government primarily use encrypted communication. so do priate self contracters etc. These companies are forced to purchase higher tiered bandwith because otherwise they will get throttle artifically creating the need for the higher tiered package. Business like Hulu, Netflix may have their customers profiled and throttled leading to inferior service and loss of funds. something the cable companies benefit from as their content doesnt experience such artificial constraints.

While I am wary of anything related to the fcc and having any oversight over the internet. Net neutrality seems to ensure a level playing field.

Like some others im not all into the technical aspects of it but the effect seems rather clear

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to maintain speed and have no throttling, it is going to cost all of us more to pay for Internet service.

I would prefer throttling of services that are much less likely to impact me.

 

[The Oi]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to maintain speed and have no throttling, it is going to cost all of us more to pay for Internet service.

I would prefer throttling of services that are much less likely to impact me.

Lol. Bullshit.

Horrible opinion and I have no doubt that's a troll.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Lol. Bullshit.

Horrible opinion and I have no doubt that's a troll.

So you think that speed can be maintained without throttling, and without any additional investment in the system?

Good luck with that.