5 ms·

Okay, but I'm still not following the initial comment on "they won't throttle", when you just described a situation in which they throttle? What I'm missing is

by csydas 9y ago

Okay, but I'm still not following the initial comment on "they won't throttle", when you just described a situation in which they throttle? What I'm missing is how the initial comment relates to the first, specifically they won't throttle or make any QOS changes because too many people use it. We've seen that Comcast in particular is more than happy to throttle services just because they can or want to, and in the case of Netflix, consumers didn't even have an option to pay more to make it work properly; Netflix just would be terrible for them no matter what. What I'm saying was a response to the idea that people can somehow just use a VPN to circumvent any restrictions, which makes no sense to me. Usage reports will clearly show a high level of traffic going over VPN, and the response will just be to make this part of a new tier of service as well; to recoup the value lost by people bypassing tier/package service with a VPN, the price will be adjusted accordingly. So I'm sorry, I guess I'm just being dense, but I'm not sure exactly why VPN services wouldn't be affected if VPNs became a means of circumventing the intended Tiering/Package offers.

Jach 9y ago
I may have just misinterpreted your statement, "So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s" to mean they would throttle all VPNs no matter what, which is what I was saying wouldn't happen because in the worst case you have to pay extra for unthrottled VPN use but it's still available. It's not a great outcome, nobody likes having to pay for things they used to get for free, but it's not an existential threat to the internet. If you didn't mean that, probably my fault for not reading carefully enough this late.
- csydas 9y ago
  Ah, I see. Yes, this was more just me extrapolating that even if VPN access were to circumvent the package/tier deals initially, such behavior would eventually just result in VPN usage being added as a tier/package, which is not ideal regardless. I guess I make a logical leap with the extrapolation there, but more or less I feel that the downplaying of these changes is bad, especially with the expectation that we can easily circumvent the last mile somehow here. Even if they can't see what the traffic is, it can still be determined how much bandwidth is being used and the traffic itself can still be shaped/altered at will. Edit: Also, I'm sorry that someone is voting you down for a misunderstanding. I think that's inappropriate.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  What would in your eyes make something an existential threat to the internet?
  - Jach 9y ago
    Cutting the international underwater cables would be a good start. A lot of infrastructure isn't EM shielded. A ton of hobbyist and expert know-how will need to be eliminated and disincentivized. Equipment destroyed or confiscated. Hard to do these things without government approval or action of some sort, so I'd expect more government interest in being hands-on to be a convergent source of trouble. Honestly it's hard to picture an effective set of attacks that could end the internet which aren't a bigger threat to something more valuable.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discount. Would you agree that that is not an existential threat to the country?
      - Jach 9y ago
        Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
        Jach 9y ago
        Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.
davrosthedalek 9y ago
Yes, the answer, on a broad scale, will not be: let the customer pay more to comcast [1]. Because if they could raise the prices, they would already have done so. No, the additional value the want to extract comes from the other side, eating into their earnings. How would that play out with VPNs? Well, if netflix users would be forced to a) pay for a vpn and b) pay for comcast to allow the vpn to be fast, or not to any of that and just go with comcasts video service. So netflix will want to pay comcast so that their users don't jump ship. Comcast might let them, but even that is not a given. The real problem is not so much the lack of NN, it's the monopoly for the last mile. But without NN and no competition in the last mile service, we will have a problem. [1] Or any other ISP who has a monopoly in a large enough segment of the market.

by csydas 9y ago

Jach 9y ago

I may have just misinterpreted your statement, "So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s" to mean they would throttle all VPNs no matter what, which is what I was saying wouldn't happen because in the worst case you have to pay extra for unthrottled VPN use but it's still available. It's not a great outcome, nobody likes having to pay for things they used to get for free, but it's not an existential threat to the internet. If you didn't mean that, probably my fault for not reading carefully enough this late.

csydas 9y ago
Ah, I see. Yes, this was more just me extrapolating that even if VPN access were to circumvent the package/tier deals initially, such behavior would eventually just result in VPN usage being added as a tier/package, which is not ideal regardless. I guess I make a logical leap with the extrapolation there, but more or less I feel that the downplaying of these changes is bad, especially with the expectation that we can easily circumvent the last mile somehow here. Even if they can't see what the traffic is, it can still be determined how much bandwidth is being used and the traffic itself can still be shaped/altered at will. Edit: Also, I'm sorry that someone is voting you down for a misunderstanding. I think that's inappropriate.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
What would in your eyes make something an existential threat to the internet?
- Jach 9y ago
  Cutting the international underwater cables would be a good start. A lot of infrastructure isn't EM shielded. A ton of hobbyist and expert know-how will need to be eliminated and disincentivized. Equipment destroyed or confiscated. Hard to do these things without government approval or action of some sort, so I'd expect more government interest in being hands-on to be a convergent source of trouble. Honestly it's hard to picture an effective set of attacks that could end the internet which aren't a bigger threat to something more valuable.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discount. Would you agree that that is not an existential threat to the country?
    - Jach 9y ago
      Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
        Jach 9y ago
        Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.

davrosthedalek 9y ago

Yes, the answer, on a broad scale, will not be: let the customer pay more to comcast [1]. Because if they could raise the prices, they would already have done so. No, the additional value the want to extract comes from the other side, eating into their earnings. How would that play out with VPNs? Well, if netflix users would be forced to a) pay for a vpn and b) pay for comcast to allow the vpn to be fast, or not to any of that and just go with comcasts video service. So netflix will want to pay comcast so that their users don't jump ship. Comcast might let them, but even that is not a given. The real problem is not so much the lack of NN, it's the monopoly for the last mile. But without NN and no competition in the last mile service, we will have a problem. [1] Or any other ISP who has a monopoly in a large enough segment of the market.