5 ms·

" They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the

" They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.

austincheney 10y ago
> They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the original net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    I think you are talking about this: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful content and blocking of lawful applications. The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in each public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality." It was made after the Bittorrent blocking that dragonwriter referenced. The next thing they did was start throttling it and other high-bandwidth users. They were secretive about it, too. This was a problem in and of itself since there were content distribution businesses using BitTorrent. Having everything but their product running smoothly on a network makes them look incompetent. People might switch to vendors with steady performance that weren't being throttled. Consumer advocates argued it was bad since they sold us on a specific speed we could use as much as we like. If they wanted tiered access, they should be public about it and/or straight charge for it in their marketing materials. The debate continued. EDIT to Add: I think the reset packets should probably be mentioned as they're an active attack on users' connections. https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-af... "They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. " Ok. Change the word to distributor and my point stands. They control what content you can get if they can arbitrarily block things, inject stuff into your traffic, or seek rent from content suppliers. ISP's have done all these things. It's still puts them in control what content you can receive through a pipe no matter what word you call them.

austincheney 10y ago

> They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the original net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.
- austincheney 10y ago
  I think you are talking about this: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful content and blocking of lawful applications. The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in each public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality." It was made after the Bittorrent blocking that dragonwriter referenced. The next thing they did was start throttling it and other high-bandwidth users. They were secretive about it, too. This was a problem in and of itself since there were content distribution businesses using BitTorrent. Having everything but their product running smoothly on a network makes them look incompetent. People might switch to vendors with steady performance that weren't being throttled. Consumer advocates argued it was bad since they sold us on a specific speed we could use as much as we like. If they wanted tiered access, they should be public about it and/or straight charge for it in their marketing materials. The debate continued. EDIT to Add: I think the reset packets should probably be mentioned as they're an active attack on users' connections. https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-af... "They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. " Ok. Change the word to distributor and my point stands. They control what content you can get if they can arbitrarily block things, inject stuff into your traffic, or seek rent from content suppliers. ISP's have done all these things. It's still puts them in control what content you can receive through a pipe no matter what word you call them.