4 ms·

This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China. When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully sl

This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China. When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully slow. On the other hand, if you go to any major Chinese site, it would be lightning fast. By doing this, those foreign sites are rendered almost useless.

jquery 9y ago
China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > China has net neutrality. China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. > I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. > You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.
  - jquery 9y ago
    > The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. > China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. So you realize that a good name doesn't make a good policy. That's a good step. > I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with. You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. Far more critical to censorship is YouTube demonetization and SEO shinanigans, but I don't see the front-page of reddit giving a damn about subreddits being blocked from the "Hot" feed.
    - aerotwelve 9y ago
      The FCC is absolutely equipped to regulate the internet (or, interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable). Believe it or not, that's exactly its congressional mandate!
      - jquery 9y ago
        An increasing amount of trade is happening over the internet. It's disingenuous to suggest the FCC's internet mandate is at all similar to radio or tv. I also think the FCC has done a particularly poor job of managing those resources, as well. (This comment is subject to an obscenity fine, thank you for reporting)
      - jachee 9y ago
        @jquery: Trade happens over the highway system, too. That doesn't take away from the NHTSA's authority to regulate it. Just because trade happens over the Internet doesn't somehow make it magically not-communication. Y'know... the first C in FCC?
    - charleslmunger 9y ago
      > You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. This already happened. Comcast was injecting forged RST packets into BitTorrent connections - and after lying about it for a while they were stopped by the FCC, who cited network neutrality rules in their decision. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/comcast-disclos-2/ https://www.wired.com/2008/09/comcast-disclos-2/
      - jquery 9y ago
        Your link didn't claim what you claimed, and what Comcast did sounds eminently reasonable (coming from someone who hates them so much as to use Sonic.net as reduced speeds just to avoid Comcast).
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. The FCC is both equipped and specifically Congressionally authorized to regulate broadband, and has been doing so for years even outside of the ”network freedom”/“open internet” regs. The FTC, on the other hand, is not equipped to handle it, and (at least per the recent FTC v. AT&T ruling) is statutorily barred from regulating it to the extent that major ISPs happen to also be common carrier telcos, as the prohibition on FTC regulating common carriers applies to the whole org, not just its common carrier operations. > You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. No, it wouldn't. There is neither evidence nor reasoning supporting this suggestion, just wishful thinking. In fact we know it is false, because (aside from the recent case suggesting that they are barred from acting in this area) they have in fact not done so (instantly or otherwise) in any of the instances of blocking which have occurred.
- dengnan 9y ago
  I am a Chinese and I am curious starting when we had net neutrality? Every major sites has to pay all major ISPs to connect into their network so that all ISPs' customers can access the site. When you rent a server, you need to make sure that the server is connected to at least two of the major networks otherwise ISPs will throttle traffic from other competitors. It is also true that connecting servers outside the country is terribly slow if it even accessible
  - jquery 9y ago
    Wow so a nicely named govt policy has the opposite effects it’s intended to have? I’m shocked!
    - jankiel 9y ago
      But it's not result of Net Neutrality, but the lack thereof... What makes you think that China has NN?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC covers nothing in this domain, and there is recent appellate case law which suggests that they could not act in it without significant change to the statutes governing their authority.
  - jquery 9y ago
    In what domain? The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors. The FTC does not cover voluntary capitalist behavior that benefits the consumer, such as ISPs preferring to reduce gaming latency over website or email latency. Good.
    - afuchs 9y ago
      > The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors. I thought the FTC tried to, but a SCOTUS ruling gave the sole responsibility for this to the FCC?

jquery 9y ago

China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> China has net neutrality. China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. > I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. > You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.
- jquery 9y ago
  > The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. > China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. So you realize that a good name doesn't make a good policy. That's a good step. > I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with. You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. Far more critical to censorship is YouTube demonetization and SEO shinanigans, but I don't see the front-page of reddit giving a damn about subreddits being blocked from the "Hot" feed.
  - aerotwelve 9y ago
    The FCC is absolutely equipped to regulate the internet (or, interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable). Believe it or not, that's exactly its congressional mandate!
    - jquery 9y ago
      An increasing amount of trade is happening over the internet. It's disingenuous to suggest the FCC's internet mandate is at all similar to radio or tv. I also think the FCC has done a particularly poor job of managing those resources, as well. (This comment is subject to an obscenity fine, thank you for reporting)
    - jachee 9y ago
      @jquery: Trade happens over the highway system, too. That doesn't take away from the NHTSA's authority to regulate it. Just because trade happens over the Internet doesn't somehow make it magically not-communication. Y'know... the first C in FCC?
  - charleslmunger 9y ago
    > You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. This already happened. Comcast was injecting forged RST packets into BitTorrent connections - and after lying about it for a while they were stopped by the FCC, who cited network neutrality rules in their decision. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/comcast-disclos-2/ https://www.wired.com/2008/09/comcast-disclos-2/
    - jquery 9y ago
      Your link didn't claim what you claimed, and what Comcast did sounds eminently reasonable (coming from someone who hates them so much as to use Sonic.net as reduced speeds just to avoid Comcast).
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. The FCC is both equipped and specifically Congressionally authorized to regulate broadband, and has been doing so for years even outside of the ”network freedom”/“open internet” regs. The FTC, on the other hand, is not equipped to handle it, and (at least per the recent FTC v. AT&T ruling) is statutorily barred from regulating it to the extent that major ISPs happen to also be common carrier telcos, as the prohibition on FTC regulating common carriers applies to the whole org, not just its common carrier operations. > You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. No, it wouldn't. There is neither evidence nor reasoning supporting this suggestion, just wishful thinking. In fact we know it is false, because (aside from the recent case suggesting that they are barred from acting in this area) they have in fact not done so (instantly or otherwise) in any of the instances of blocking which have occurred.
dengnan 9y ago
I am a Chinese and I am curious starting when we had net neutrality? Every major sites has to pay all major ISPs to connect into their network so that all ISPs' customers can access the site. When you rent a server, you need to make sure that the server is connected to at least two of the major networks otherwise ISPs will throttle traffic from other competitors. It is also true that connecting servers outside the country is terribly slow if it even accessible
- jquery 9y ago
  Wow so a nicely named govt policy has the opposite effects it’s intended to have? I’m shocked!
  - jankiel 9y ago
    But it's not result of Net Neutrality, but the lack thereof... What makes you think that China has NN?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC covers nothing in this domain, and there is recent appellate case law which suggests that they could not act in it without significant change to the statutes governing their authority.
- jquery 9y ago
  In what domain? The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors. The FTC does not cover voluntary capitalist behavior that benefits the consumer, such as ISPs preferring to reduce gaming latency over website or email latency. Good.
  - afuchs 9y ago
    > The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors. I thought the FTC tried to, but a SCOTUS ruling gave the sole responsibility for this to the FCC?