6 ms·

It is strange to see the correct reply in the gray. Let's re-emphasize: the dire predictions of removal of net neutrality didn't come to bear. They didn't pass

by dexen 5y ago

It is strange to see the correct reply in the gray. Let's re-emphasize: the dire predictions of removal of net neutrality didn't come to bear. They didn't pass the sniff test either. The dire predictions were fake news - however they are now the official record in the media, and won't get corrected.

jgwil2 5y ago
That's specious reasoning: perhaps the dire predictions didn't come to pass precisely because of the amount of controversy that was generated. The telecoms didn't want to rock the boat; they knew that it was only a matter of another administration change for the policy to get reversed anyway.
- Fellshard 5y ago
  No way for you to prove your assertions, either. There's a ton of presumption that goes on regarding this topic instead of examining NN from first principles and seeing what its consequences would actually be.
- ertian 5y ago
  All the disastrous things that proponents of NN said would surely happen without it haven't happened since it was repealed, and also never happened before it was implemented. It really does beg the question why it was ever needed in the first place.
  - jgwil2 5y ago
    As I stated above, there was (a) a massive public outcry against repeal and (b) a strong possibility that it would be put back in place in ~4 years if a Democratic administration came in. These both surely must have been taken under consideration by ISPs. Just because certain practices became legal for them does not mean that it would have been good business to implement them.
- dexen 5y ago
  Perhaps it is as you are saying. Nonetheless, the very charitable "perhaps the dire predictions didn't come to pass precisely because of the amount of controversy that was generated" would be neutrally described as "fake news must be published so that bad things don't happen". That's not a valid civilizational setup: it's both ripe for abuse, and also teaches people to dabble in double-think for sake of the greater good.
  - jgwil2 5y ago
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that maybe, dire things could have happened, and the only thing that prevented them from happening is the massive amount of attention that was given to the possibility of dire things happening. It is not "fake news" to talk about the practices that would have been allowed under these policies. The public outcry may have had a deterrent effect.
monocasa 5y ago
> Let's re-emphasize: the dire predictions of removal of net neutrality didn't come to bear. Why would they start to use that power while the process is still ongoing, and there's (as can be seen in this very article) still active investigations of fraud in the underlying process? That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place? This is an undue presumption of bad faith. There are many situations where Net neutrality legitimately harms global internet routing efficiency and user experience. For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. It’s much more nuanced than net neutrality good, isps greedy and evil. Think about it from the perspective of a network engineer working for an ISP.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Why are you using as an example a way to violate net neutrality that you approve of as an example of how companies might not have been planning to violate net neutrality?
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      Because the GGP is implying that ISPs opposed NN because they stand to anti-competitively financially benefit when there are other less diabolical reasons that are just as likely if not more likely.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. Additionally, ISP level QOS of IP packets based on content rather than src/dst is mainly vaporware anyway. You don't have the time to favor certain types of packets at the routers, the streams are going too fast.
salawat 5y ago
Arguably they didn't in the most visible sense only because of the inherent level of noise made, and you still got some gems like the throttling of Firefighters in California. It's also a rhetorical technique to promise not to do an impractical thing to cover up the intention to partially implement an unpopular measure. >No, we're not setting out to throttle Netflix. (We won't need to, because use will go up, and it's already in the contract we reserve the right to traffic shape anyway, and given we won't improve infrastructure, it's a given it will happen). The stuff in parentheses is the unsaid part that would upset the normal people. The Network Engineers in the crowd heard it loud and clear though . If Net Neutrality (and the incentive it creates through forbidding QoS to dynamically prioritize traffic), should have lead to investment in the infrastructure to increase network throughput to meet actual demand. Instead, POTS got torn down, broadband stagnated as ADSL lines were milked for every possible cent, Unlimited data plans disappeared and were replaced with caps... We have more IP addresses than we should ever need, yet the biggest hurdle to robust connectivity is no one wants to spend money to actually get the wires strung/buried/overhauled. Why? because screw y'all. We're near if not de facto monopolies now, wires cost money, and they'd subtract from the exec bonus that gets cut. https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/ https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firef... When you start resorting to rationing (data caps), you have an infrastructure problem. Fix it. Don't embrace it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by dexen 5y ago

jgwil2 5y ago

That's specious reasoning: perhaps the dire predictions didn't come to pass precisely because of the amount of controversy that was generated. The telecoms didn't want to rock the boat; they knew that it was only a matter of another administration change for the policy to get reversed anyway.

Fellshard 5y ago
No way for you to prove your assertions, either. There's a ton of presumption that goes on regarding this topic instead of examining NN from first principles and seeing what its consequences would actually be.
ertian 5y ago
All the disastrous things that proponents of NN said would surely happen without it haven't happened since it was repealed, and also never happened before it was implemented. It really does beg the question why it was ever needed in the first place.
- jgwil2 5y ago
  As I stated above, there was (a) a massive public outcry against repeal and (b) a strong possibility that it would be put back in place in ~4 years if a Democratic administration came in. These both surely must have been taken under consideration by ISPs. Just because certain practices became legal for them does not mean that it would have been good business to implement them.
dexen 5y ago
Perhaps it is as you are saying. Nonetheless, the very charitable "perhaps the dire predictions didn't come to pass precisely because of the amount of controversy that was generated" would be neutrally described as "fake news must be published so that bad things don't happen". That's not a valid civilizational setup: it's both ripe for abuse, and also teaches people to dabble in double-think for sake of the greater good.
- jgwil2 5y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that maybe, dire things could have happened, and the only thing that prevented them from happening is the massive amount of attention that was given to the possibility of dire things happening. It is not "fake news" to talk about the practices that would have been allowed under these policies. The public outcry may have had a deterrent effect.

monocasa 5y ago

> Let's re-emphasize: the dire predictions of removal of net neutrality didn't come to bear. Why would they start to use that power while the process is still ongoing, and there's (as can be seen in this very article) still active investigations of fraud in the underlying process? That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place?

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place? This is an undue presumption of bad faith. There are many situations where Net neutrality legitimately harms global internet routing efficiency and user experience. For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. It’s much more nuanced than net neutrality good, isps greedy and evil. Think about it from the perspective of a network engineer working for an ISP.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Why are you using as an example a way to violate net neutrality that you approve of as an example of how companies might not have been planning to violate net neutrality?
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    Because the GGP is implying that ISPs opposed NN because they stand to anti-competitively financially benefit when there are other less diabolical reasons that are just as likely if not more likely.
- monocasa 5y ago
  > For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. Additionally, ISP level QOS of IP packets based on content rather than src/dst is mainly vaporware anyway. You don't have the time to favor certain types of packets at the routers, the streams are going too fast.

salawat 5y ago

Arguably they didn't in the most visible sense only because of the inherent level of noise made, and you still got some gems like the throttling of Firefighters in California. It's also a rhetorical technique to promise not to do an impractical thing to cover up the intention to partially implement an unpopular measure. >No, we're not setting out to throttle Netflix. (We won't need to, because use will go up, and it's already in the contract we reserve the right to traffic shape anyway, and given we won't improve infrastructure, it's a given it will happen). The stuff in parentheses is the unsaid part that would upset the normal people. The Network Engineers in the crowd heard it loud and clear though . If Net Neutrality (and the incentive it creates through forbidding QoS to dynamically prioritize traffic), should have lead to investment in the infrastructure to increase network throughput to meet actual demand. Instead, POTS got torn down, broadband stagnated as ADSL lines were milked for every possible cent, Unlimited data plans disappeared and were replaced with caps... We have more IP addresses than we should ever need, yet the biggest hurdle to robust connectivity is no one wants to spend money to actually get the wires strung/buried/overhauled. Why? because screw y'all. We're near if not de facto monopolies now, wires cost money, and they'd subtract from the exec bonus that gets cut. https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/ https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firef... When you start resorting to rationing (data caps), you have an infrastructure problem. Fix it. Don't embrace it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]