4 ms·

This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. Th

This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. The capability is only in the past decade and in the years to come something where we have to be seriously concerned. Even then, there were serious anticompetitive breaches beforehand. See this article: https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-neutrality-spee-1794717829 https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-...: 'One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix in order to extract a payment deal from the streaming video provider, which it eventually agreed to pay. And in 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones, claiming it was using too much bandwidth. In this case, critics argued it was an attempt to block a service that competed with its own voice services. And as the biggest ISPs keep gobbling up content-producers, like AT&T buying DirectTV and then providing free access to itscontent, the risks that ISPs will start prioritizing traffic only increase.

smsm42 9y ago
> The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
  - smsm42 9y ago
    1. I don't see how increase in bandwidth made it possible to shape traffic. Certainly, demand for more bandwidth made traffic shaping more interesting, but it doesn't mean it was impossible before. Maybe it was unnecessary before, but then if it is necessary now, banning it is not exactly the smart way to go? 2. Again, that makes the case that it only became necessary (or attractive) lately, but the capability always existed. In this case, given that the underlying causes for this still exist (namely, growth of bandwidth and proliferation of streaming) is it smart to ignore it and say that site that pipes out gigabytes of hi-res video is the same thing as site that has kilobytes of text and there can be no difference in handling traffic between them? I don't think it's the smart way to do it, neither technologically nor socially. 3. So not only Netflix is not a small business, it could very well pay what providers asked from it in exchange for the capacity. So where is that "small businesses are hurt" part again? I only see "large businesses figuring out pay structure and doing it just fine" part. That's the point I am trying to make - Netflix is not an example of "small business" that would be - or has been - hurt by absence of (strong) neutrality. It is true that in presence of strong neutrality Netflix could probably be more profitable (at the expense of other users of the same infrastructure and end consumers, which would then have to pay for increased infrastructure costs and capital investments needed to support it) but why would I want it to happen?
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      Honestly, I'm realizing that this is just becoming debate club. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of point/counterpoint with you any longer. Maybe you enjoy that kind of debate and maybe you are better at it, but that doesn't make you right and whether or not you can pull apart every point and try to find contradictions in them doesn't invalidate the need for net neutrality. I prefer substantive debates that aren't zero sum (and will likely result in a draw). I think NN is important for now and for the future and I think there are valid reasons for that that don't depend on debating the history of internet protocols. Given the scary level of media consolidation, and the investment that ISPs have come to have in media companies its not a stretch to consider that with the capability to prioritize different types of traffic and sources of traffic that they will choose to encourage the consumption of media from their own sources. Corporations are increasingly focused on shareholder value and this is a clear case where to not prioritize their own products and services would be to essentially throw away money. One thing I think we can count on is that corporations are smart when it comes to making money and it would give any ISP that owns media companies or stakes in media companies a competitive advantage if they choose to push those to customers by making their media cheaper and more available or making others media more expensive or less available. Aside from just being contrarian (which I think a lot of people get a kick out of), I honestly can't see how anyone who is a consumer and doesn't own stake in a telecom company will think that removing NN is going to be good for them just because it wasn't abused back when it wouldn't have been as easy or profitable. I don't think you will be convinced by any of this, I suspect you are enjoying being a non-conformist (much like the author of the article if I had to guess) but this is a high level view of where I, and probably many others are. I don't have the time or energy to write a 100 page essay proving beyond a reasonable doubt every single step with extensive history of how I got to where I am and honestly I don't think it is necessary. In general I'm pretty much exhausted with constantly having to prove things that it shouldn't be up to me to prove. I'm not a biologist but I'm constantly having to convince a intelligent-design proponent on evolution, I'm not a physicist or geologist but I'm expected to have to explain why I don't think the planet is 6000 years old. I'm not saying that you are into ID or are a young earth creationist, but your argument style reminds me of arguments I've had with people like that. Draw people out into debates over minor facts that non-expert will eventually fail to be able to explain, causing literally any conversation to become a draw (even if it started as a conversation, it is turned into a debate). Of course this is the total point - to kill the conversation and end discussion, casting just enough doubt to delay any kind of decision on the issue. If every issue is confusing enough, any action is as good as any other action and you can assure that enough people will just tune out and allow people to get away with anything. I'm not saying this is your intent or that you consciously are doing it, but it works extremely well so its hard to expect people to not do it. I hope that we (people that care about issues and try to support positive changes) can come up with effective counters to this tactic.

smsm42 9y ago

> The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?

okreallywtf 9y ago
Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
- smsm42 9y ago
  1. I don't see how increase in bandwidth made it possible to shape traffic. Certainly, demand for more bandwidth made traffic shaping more interesting, but it doesn't mean it was impossible before. Maybe it was unnecessary before, but then if it is necessary now, banning it is not exactly the smart way to go? 2. Again, that makes the case that it only became necessary (or attractive) lately, but the capability always existed. In this case, given that the underlying causes for this still exist (namely, growth of bandwidth and proliferation of streaming) is it smart to ignore it and say that site that pipes out gigabytes of hi-res video is the same thing as site that has kilobytes of text and there can be no difference in handling traffic between them? I don't think it's the smart way to do it, neither technologically nor socially. 3. So not only Netflix is not a small business, it could very well pay what providers asked from it in exchange for the capacity. So where is that "small businesses are hurt" part again? I only see "large businesses figuring out pay structure and doing it just fine" part. That's the point I am trying to make - Netflix is not an example of "small business" that would be - or has been - hurt by absence of (strong) neutrality. It is true that in presence of strong neutrality Netflix could probably be more profitable (at the expense of other users of the same infrastructure and end consumers, which would then have to pay for increased infrastructure costs and capital investments needed to support it) but why would I want it to happen?
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    Honestly, I'm realizing that this is just becoming debate club. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of point/counterpoint with you any longer. Maybe you enjoy that kind of debate and maybe you are better at it, but that doesn't make you right and whether or not you can pull apart every point and try to find contradictions in them doesn't invalidate the need for net neutrality. I prefer substantive debates that aren't zero sum (and will likely result in a draw). I think NN is important for now and for the future and I think there are valid reasons for that that don't depend on debating the history of internet protocols. Given the scary level of media consolidation, and the investment that ISPs have come to have in media companies its not a stretch to consider that with the capability to prioritize different types of traffic and sources of traffic that they will choose to encourage the consumption of media from their own sources. Corporations are increasingly focused on shareholder value and this is a clear case where to not prioritize their own products and services would be to essentially throw away money. One thing I think we can count on is that corporations are smart when it comes to making money and it would give any ISP that owns media companies or stakes in media companies a competitive advantage if they choose to push those to customers by making their media cheaper and more available or making others media more expensive or less available. Aside from just being contrarian (which I think a lot of people get a kick out of), I honestly can't see how anyone who is a consumer and doesn't own stake in a telecom company will think that removing NN is going to be good for them just because it wasn't abused back when it wouldn't have been as easy or profitable. I don't think you will be convinced by any of this, I suspect you are enjoying being a non-conformist (much like the author of the article if I had to guess) but this is a high level view of where I, and probably many others are. I don't have the time or energy to write a 100 page essay proving beyond a reasonable doubt every single step with extensive history of how I got to where I am and honestly I don't think it is necessary. In general I'm pretty much exhausted with constantly having to prove things that it shouldn't be up to me to prove. I'm not a biologist but I'm constantly having to convince a intelligent-design proponent on evolution, I'm not a physicist or geologist but I'm expected to have to explain why I don't think the planet is 6000 years old. I'm not saying that you are into ID or are a young earth creationist, but your argument style reminds me of arguments I've had with people like that. Draw people out into debates over minor facts that non-expert will eventually fail to be able to explain, causing literally any conversation to become a draw (even if it started as a conversation, it is turned into a debate). Of course this is the total point - to kill the conversation and end discussion, casting just enough doubt to delay any kind of decision on the issue. If every issue is confusing enough, any action is as good as any other action and you can assure that enough people will just tune out and allow people to get away with anything. I'm not saying this is your intent or that you consciously are doing it, but it works extremely well so its hard to expect people to not do it. I hope that we (people that care about issues and try to support positive changes) can come up with effective counters to this tactic.