3 ms·

Depends on who you talk to. The EFF seems to have changed its definition of NN and now includes throttling in it as their press release for the recent Verizon

Depends on who you talk to. The EFF seems to have changed its definition of NN and now includes throttling in it as their press release for the recent Verizon tiff when they throttled a fire department. They are being really inconsistent in their definition, saying that the repeal of NN allowed the throttling to happen. I guess that isn't technically saying it falls under NN if you twist your head enough, but is certainly is conflating the two issues.

burkaman 8y ago
The EFF's press release was not referring to net neutrality as a general concept, it was specifically talking about concrete language in the 2015 Open Internet Order. There's too much to quote here, but you can search for throttling to see what the rule would have banned: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-orde...
- pdonis 8y ago
  > you can search for throttling to see what the rule would have banned I did. It bans throttling based on content. It does not ban throttling based on going over the usage cap in the plan you paid for, which is what Verizon did to the Santa Clara fire department.
  - burkaman 8y ago
    You're right, I thought "on the basis of Internet service" meant your ISP service, but it actually means some other service that you're using the internet to access. On page 52: 122. Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user’s connection to the Internet based on a choice made by the end user. For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier. If the Commission were concerned about the particulars of a data plan, it could review it under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard. In contrast, if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application (e.g., a disfavored VoIP service) or class of application (e.g., all VoIP applications), it would violate the bright-line no-throttling rule. We note that user-selected data plans with reduced speeds must comply with our transparency rule, such that the limitations of the plan are clearly and accurately communicated to the subscriber. Sorry.
pdonis 8y ago
I read the EFF's post here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/verizons-throttling-fire-fighters-could-go-unpunished-because-fcc-repealed-open https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/verizons-throttling-fi... I assume that's the one you are commenting on, if not, feel free to post a link as the EFF has been putting out a lot of communications lately. :-) I agree with you that the EFF's communication here is muddled. The point I would focus on in the actual incident (the Santa Clara fire department being throttled) is this one: "Within the documents submitted by Santa Clara, it appears to be some confusion as to what exactly was Verizon selling to the fire department. Twice the public safety officials asserted they thought they were buying an unlimited plan and twice they discovered during the emergency they did not." In other words, to me the key issue here is not throttling, but whether customers understand what they are buying. (As the article notes, it might not be Verizon's fault if there was a misunderstanding; that would need to be investigated.) If you buy a plan that says you get throttled after a certain usage point, that's what you bought; I don't see how that is inconsistent with NN since the throttling doesn't depend on what sites you go to. But the EFF then argues this: "The FCC, however, could have proactively addressed this problem in the future and establish a federal rule applicable in all fifty states that ISPs are not allowed to throttle public safety services during emergencies. The FCC under its Title II authority could even go so far and categorically say it is illegal to try to upsell public safety agencies, or anyone, wireless plans during official emergencies as a matter of public safety. The agency would have good arguments as to why to set these rules, and thanks to Verizon, the evidence to demonstrate that threats to health and life are at stake in the absence of such rules. But the Restoring Internet Freedom Order abandoned those powers, so right now in America, firefighters don’t have a government agency they can turn to for help." To me this is a different issue from NN, since the whole basis of the argument is that public safety agencies should be treated differently from other customers. I don't disagree with that argument, but I don't think it falls under NN either.
lightbyte 8y ago
Having speed tiers isn't what people typically refer to when saying throttling. Throttling is "you used 100gb so we're halving the speed you purchased"
dragonwriter 8y ago
I believe in the Verizon case at issue, one of the issues was whether the apparent confusion was a result of a failure of transparency, which was an element of both the 2015 and 2010 Open Internet (aka, “net neutrality”) orders from the FCC, though a separate issue from net neutrality as that is usually understood.

burkaman 8y ago

The EFF's press release was not referring to net neutrality as a general concept, it was specifically talking about concrete language in the 2015 Open Internet Order. There's too much to quote here, but you can search for throttling to see what the rule would have banned: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-orde...

pdonis 8y ago
> you can search for throttling to see what the rule would have banned I did. It bans throttling based on content. It does not ban throttling based on going over the usage cap in the plan you paid for, which is what Verizon did to the Santa Clara fire department.
- burkaman 8y ago
  You're right, I thought "on the basis of Internet service" meant your ISP service, but it actually means some other service that you're using the internet to access. On page 52: 122. Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user’s connection to the Internet based on a choice made by the end user. For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier. If the Commission were concerned about the particulars of a data plan, it could review it under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard. In contrast, if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application (e.g., a disfavored VoIP service) or class of application (e.g., all VoIP applications), it would violate the bright-line no-throttling rule. We note that user-selected data plans with reduced speeds must comply with our transparency rule, such that the limitations of the plan are clearly and accurately communicated to the subscriber. Sorry.

pdonis 8y ago

I read the EFF's post here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/verizons-throttling-fire-fighters-could-go-unpunished-because-fcc-repealed-open https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/verizons-throttling-fi... I assume that's the one you are commenting on, if not, feel free to post a link as the EFF has been putting out a lot of communications lately. :-) I agree with you that the EFF's communication here is muddled. The point I would focus on in the actual incident (the Santa Clara fire department being throttled) is this one: "Within the documents submitted by Santa Clara, it appears to be some confusion as to what exactly was Verizon selling to the fire department. Twice the public safety officials asserted they thought they were buying an unlimited plan and twice they discovered during the emergency they did not." In other words, to me the key issue here is not throttling, but whether customers understand what they are buying. (As the article notes, it might not be Verizon's fault if there was a misunderstanding; that would need to be investigated.) If you buy a plan that says you get throttled after a certain usage point, that's what you bought; I don't see how that is inconsistent with NN since the throttling doesn't depend on what sites you go to. But the EFF then argues this: "The FCC, however, could have proactively addressed this problem in the future and establish a federal rule applicable in all fifty states that ISPs are not allowed to throttle public safety services during emergencies. The FCC under its Title II authority could even go so far and categorically say it is illegal to try to upsell public safety agencies, or anyone, wireless plans during official emergencies as a matter of public safety. The agency would have good arguments as to why to set these rules, and thanks to Verizon, the evidence to demonstrate that threats to health and life are at stake in the absence of such rules. But the Restoring Internet Freedom Order abandoned those powers, so right now in America, firefighters don’t have a government agency they can turn to for help." To me this is a different issue from NN, since the whole basis of the argument is that public safety agencies should be treated differently from other customers. I don't disagree with that argument, but I don't think it falls under NN either.

lightbyte 8y ago

Having speed tiers isn't what people typically refer to when saying throttling. Throttling is "you used 100gb so we're halving the speed you purchased"

dragonwriter 8y ago

I believe in the Verizon case at issue, one of the issues was whether the apparent confusion was a result of a failure of transparency, which was an element of both the 2015 and 2010 Open Internet (aka, “net neutrality”) orders from the FCC, though a separate issue from net neutrality as that is usually understood.