5 ms·

Stupid question, is this the issue that was at the core of net neutrality? I may have misunderstood the entire thing if so.

woodrowbarlow 6y ago
it's related. ISPs and telecom in the US do not invest adequately in infrastructure, and the existing infrastructure is overloaded. net neutrality was all about how that infrastructure can be utilized; ISPs want to profit off the scarcity by allowing big companies to pay for priority so that their website would load faster at the expense of everyone else (big companies want this too, and they want it to be expensive, because that increases barrier for entry in a competitive space where they already have an upper hand), but the net neutrality laws used to prevent this sort of bidding for priority. some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  > some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    You think they don't want to implement it in the US?
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      If they wanted, they could have done so.
  - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
    i'm not aware of any ISPs that have taken that step in the US, but since the 2017 repeal it is now a legal business strategy. it has happened in portugal (although that's irrelevant to US law) -- customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) (this is on top of the subscription fees you pay for netflix, etc.).
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      This proves the point. It is legal, but no one even offered such a package.
      - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
        if you say so. i think they're waiting to see whether the new administration will overturn. in any case, the main point is about ISPs creating profitable incentive for themselves to keep infrastructure under-developed by making the internet a pay-to-play arena.
        woodrowbarlow 6y ago
        follow up: t-mobile has a plan in the US that doesn't charge you for spotify/pandora internet traffic, but does charge you for all other data. that's an "internet lite" plan right there. https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/free-music-streaming https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/free-music-streaming
        skynet-9000 6y ago
        Point taken. I've seen them do that for Youtube as well -- basically, they don't include Youtube vids in your data plan if you are ok with them degrading the video experience (and you can disable that sort of "feature"). However, this doesn't seem very compelling -- some of the things cable modem providers have done (DPI, injecting SYN or RST's into traffic) can end up far worse, but customers only put up with nonsense like that for so long (unless it's a de facto monopoly in that area).
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
It's not a stupid question. In short, this is not the issue that was at the core of net neutrality. Sci-hub's repeated evictions from their rented, DNS-resolved internet names were done by the centralized parties that have technical control over the names, not ISPs or mobile data providers.

woodrowbarlow 6y ago

it's related. ISPs and telecom in the US do not invest adequately in infrastructure, and the existing infrastructure is overloaded. net neutrality was all about how that infrastructure can be utilized; ISPs want to profit off the scarcity by allowing big companies to pay for priority so that their website would load faster at the expense of everyone else (big companies want this too, and they want it to be expensive, because that increases barrier for entry in a competitive space where they already have an upper hand), but the net neutrality laws used to prevent this sort of bidding for priority. some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list.

skynet-9000 6y ago
> some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  You think they don't want to implement it in the US?
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    If they wanted, they could have done so.
- woodrowbarlow 6y ago
  i'm not aware of any ISPs that have taken that step in the US, but since the 2017 repeal it is now a legal business strategy. it has happened in portugal (although that's irrelevant to US law) -- customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) (this is on top of the subscription fees you pay for netflix, etc.).
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    This proves the point. It is legal, but no one even offered such a package.
    - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
      if you say so. i think they're waiting to see whether the new administration will overturn. in any case, the main point is about ISPs creating profitable incentive for themselves to keep infrastructure under-developed by making the internet a pay-to-play arena.
      - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
        follow up: t-mobile has a plan in the US that doesn't charge you for spotify/pandora internet traffic, but does charge you for all other data. that's an "internet lite" plan right there. https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/free-music-streaming https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/free-music-streaming
        skynet-9000 6y ago
        Point taken. I've seen them do that for Youtube as well -- basically, they don't include Youtube vids in your data plan if you are ok with them degrading the video experience (and you can disable that sort of "feature"). However, this doesn't seem very compelling -- some of the things cable modem providers have done (DPI, injecting SYN or RST's into traffic) can end up far worse, but customers only put up with nonsense like that for so long (unless it's a de facto monopoly in that area).

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago

It's not a stupid question. In short, this is not the issue that was at the core of net neutrality. Sci-hub's repeated evictions from their rented, DNS-resolved internet names were done by the centralized parties that have technical control over the names, not ISPs or mobile data providers.