3 ms·

FCC's Pai, addressing net neutrality rules, calls Twitter biased

13 points by joeyespo 9y ago

mc32 9y ago
>“When it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.” I think the implication that while net neutrality to some degree[1] ensured neutrality in carrying much data indiscriminately, it did very little to ensure neutrality at the edge (that is, Twitter could decide it wanted to silence any minority or majority with impunity). So if an edge provider can discriminate what is allowed, does that undermine the ideal of net neutrality? With Goog-Twitt-Face being the triumvirate of gatekeepers I think this concern deserves some consideration. [1]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-that-could-undermine-net-neutrality/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-tha...
- AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  There are two different concepts, internet neutrality, and network neutrality. Network neutrality is "treat bits agnosticly" Internet neutrality is "treat opinions agnosticly" Which one "net" neutrality refers to is anyone's guess.
  - doctorless 9y ago
    Both are also independently contentious battles, too. We can’t treat bits agnostically; otherwise we have to accept DDoS attacks and do nothing to route around them/block bad nodes. We can treat opinions agnostically, until said opinions/speech start to infringe on the freedom of others. But we’ve always had a struggle in drawing that line. Likewise, what constitutes a bad node, ultimately? From the perspective of an ISP, that opinion ranges from the aforementioned DDoS, to Netflix for consuming the majority of their bandwidth. What about end users? Their opinions can differ too. A heavy torrent user can weigh down a local hub. Should an ISP just let them? The internet is far more a finite resource than some people are willing to accept.
    - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
      I agree with what you say, except "opinions/speech start to infringe on the freedom of others" Speech can't infringe on someone else's freedom.
    - chucky_z 9y ago
      I'd be totally fine if we were charged like datacenters. e.g.: pay for a minimum of 10mbps, but burstable to 100mbps, and if you average over 10mbps/mo, pay some fee. It's typically different, but it ends up being a few TB/mo of traffic at the most absolute 'base' plan. Then you can pay more for "unmetered" 10mbps, 100mbps, 1000mbps, 10000mbps, etc... There's also plans for "minimum + burst" e.g.: 20mbps->200mbps, 50mbps->300mbps, 100mbps->1000mbps, so on and so forth. I think this is a perfectly acceptable method of billing and I really wish we could just use this. As, in effect, if you pay for the '100mbps->1000mbps,' this translates too... you get 1000mbps at all times you use the internet, but you get 100mbps/mo worth of bandwidth. That translates to ~8.75TB/mo of bandwidth or, ((100*24*30)/1024)/8 (someone please correct me if I'm very wrong here. I worked at a webhost several years ago and this was basically our pricing model.)
westurner 9y ago
No. Censoring hate speech by banning people who are verbally assaulting others (in violation of Terms of Service that they agreed to) is a very different concern than requiring common carriers to equally prioritize bits. If we extend "you must allow people to verbally assault others (because free speech applies to the government)" to TV and radio, what do we end up with? Note that the FCC fines non-cable TV (broadcast radio and TV) for cursing on air. See "Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts" https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... How can you ask social media companies to do something about fake news (the vast majority of which served to elect the current administration (which nominated this FCC chairman)) while also lambasting them for upholding their commitment to providing a hate-free experience for net citizens and paying advertisers? "Open Internet": No blocking. No throttling. No paid prioritization. It would be easier for us to understand the "Open Internet" rules if the proposed "Restoring Internet Freedom" page wasn't crudely pasted over (redirected to from) the page describing the current Open Internet rules. www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet (current policy) now redirects to www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (proposed policy). ISPs blocking, throttling, or paid-prioritizing Twitter, Netflix, Fox, or CNN for everyone is a different concern than responding to individuals who are threatening others with hate speech. The current policy ("Open Internet") means that you can use the bandwidth cap that you pay for for whatever legal content you please. The proposed policy ("Restoring Internet Freedom") means that internet businesses will need to pay every ISP in order to not be slower than the big guys who can afford to pay-to-play (~"payola"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

13 points by joeyespo 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

>“When it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.” I think the implication that while net neutrality to some degree[1] ensured neutrality in carrying much data indiscriminately, it did very little to ensure neutrality at the edge (that is, Twitter could decide it wanted to silence any minority or majority with impunity). So if an edge provider can discriminate what is allowed, does that undermine the ideal of net neutrality? With Goog-Twitt-Face being the triumvirate of gatekeepers I think this concern deserves some consideration. [1]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-that-could-undermine-net-neutrality/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-tha...

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
There are two different concepts, internet neutrality, and network neutrality. Network neutrality is "treat bits agnosticly" Internet neutrality is "treat opinions agnosticly" Which one "net" neutrality refers to is anyone's guess.
- doctorless 9y ago
  Both are also independently contentious battles, too. We can’t treat bits agnostically; otherwise we have to accept DDoS attacks and do nothing to route around them/block bad nodes. We can treat opinions agnostically, until said opinions/speech start to infringe on the freedom of others. But we’ve always had a struggle in drawing that line. Likewise, what constitutes a bad node, ultimately? From the perspective of an ISP, that opinion ranges from the aforementioned DDoS, to Netflix for consuming the majority of their bandwidth. What about end users? Their opinions can differ too. A heavy torrent user can weigh down a local hub. Should an ISP just let them? The internet is far more a finite resource than some people are willing to accept.
  - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
    I agree with what you say, except "opinions/speech start to infringe on the freedom of others" Speech can't infringe on someone else's freedom.
  - chucky_z 9y ago
    I'd be totally fine if we were charged like datacenters. e.g.: pay for a minimum of 10mbps, but burstable to 100mbps, and if you average over 10mbps/mo, pay some fee. It's typically different, but it ends up being a few TB/mo of traffic at the most absolute 'base' plan. Then you can pay more for "unmetered" 10mbps, 100mbps, 1000mbps, 10000mbps, etc... There's also plans for "minimum + burst" e.g.: 20mbps->200mbps, 50mbps->300mbps, 100mbps->1000mbps, so on and so forth. I think this is a perfectly acceptable method of billing and I really wish we could just use this. As, in effect, if you pay for the '100mbps->1000mbps,' this translates too... you get 1000mbps at all times you use the internet, but you get 100mbps/mo worth of bandwidth. That translates to ~8.75TB/mo of bandwidth or, ((100*24*30)/1024)/8 (someone please correct me if I'm very wrong here. I worked at a webhost several years ago and this was basically our pricing model.)

westurner 9y ago

No. Censoring hate speech by banning people who are verbally assaulting others (in violation of Terms of Service that they agreed to) is a very different concern than requiring common carriers to equally prioritize bits. If we extend "you must allow people to verbally assault others (because free speech applies to the government)" to TV and radio, what do we end up with? Note that the FCC fines non-cable TV (broadcast radio and TV) for cursing on air. See "Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts" https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... How can you ask social media companies to do something about fake news (the vast majority of which served to elect the current administration (which nominated this FCC chairman)) while also lambasting them for upholding their commitment to providing a hate-free experience for net citizens and paying advertisers? "Open Internet": No blocking. No throttling. No paid prioritization. It would be easier for us to understand the "Open Internet" rules if the proposed "Restoring Internet Freedom" page wasn't crudely pasted over (redirected to from) the page describing the current Open Internet rules. www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet (current policy) now redirects to www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (proposed policy). ISPs blocking, throttling, or paid-prioritizing Twitter, Netflix, Fox, or CNN for everyone is a different concern than responding to individuals who are threatening others with hate speech. The current policy ("Open Internet") means that you can use the bandwidth cap that you pay for for whatever legal content you please. The proposed policy ("Restoring Internet Freedom") means that internet businesses will need to pay every ISP in order to not be slower than the big guys who can afford to pay-to-play (~"payola"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola