4 ms·

It is quite obvious, at least from outside of USA, that “net neutrality” there is how certain group of corporations has been trying to lobby the codification of

It is quite obvious, at least from outside of USA, that “net neutrality” there is how certain group of corporations has been trying to lobby the codification of rules preferential to them to use in battle with other group of corporations. Anywhere in the world there are local and global popular services that generate high volumes of traffic. Providers naturally care about getting shortest paths to them, plan in advance, join local exchanges, and so on, even if they don't have any direct agreements. For starters, it might lower your traffic costs. In some locations there are mid-tier ISPs offering just good connectivity with all locally popular networks; they offer the solution for low-tier ISPs for some extra coins. However, it is hard to imagine that some ISP would try to make the big source of traffic pay for what has already been paid by customers.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> It is quite obvious, at least from outside of USA, that “net neutrality” there is how certain group of corporations has been trying to lobby the codification of rules preferential to them to use in battle with other group of corporations. Complete nonsense. "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. > However, it is hard to imagine that some ISP would try to make the big source of traffic pay for what has already been paid by customers. I think you need to work on your imagination. ISPs in the USA have already tried this (not sure if it is still happening).
- User23 5y ago
  > Complete nonsense. "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. Categorically false. There’s no “net neutrality” legislation enacted or proposed that doesn’t have giant and vague QoS and general network operations carve-outs.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The EFF was fairly happy with the FCC's Title II proposal back in 2015: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet-fcc-officially-embraces-title-ii https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet... In 2018 Markey and others proposed simply overturning Pai/Trump's overtuning of Title II. I don't know precisely what you're referring to ... the closest I could find was the EFF's objections to the FCC proposals from 2011 which had things like "vague QoS and general network operation carve outs": https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/pt-ii-eff-evaluates-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-its https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/pt-ii-eff-evaluates-fc... The EFF seemed much happier with the FCC proposals 4 years later. What am I missing?
    - tylersmith 5y ago
      What does the EFF's happiness have to do with anything?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I consider them one of the most on-point organizations in the fight for actual net neutrality.
- parasubvert 5y ago
  > "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. Which is utter nonsense for any large service provider that requires traffic engineering to handle elephant flows. This is the problem with blanket slogans, they constrain the network in ways that impact user experience dramatically, and is why a LOT of internet pioneers oppose net neutrality. Encouraging open access networks seems more striking at the heart of the matter.
  - dtaht 5y ago
    I have long worried that net neutrality rules mis-applied would prevent the default availability of quality fair queuing and AQM solutions along the edge of the network. https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/bufferbloat-may-be-solved-but-its-not-over-yet/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/bufferbloat-may-be-solved-...
- ogurechny 5y ago
  I am not talking about media propaganda, I am talking about what is happening at the source. This is just another chapter of peering wars, far from being the first in Cogent and its enemies' histories. The actual question here is whether ISPs see themselves as equals (so they can peer with each other, and let traffic fill the links naturally), or belonging to different levels of virtual hierarchy (so one has to pay the other). Netflix and its traffic volume and asymmetry is used as public attention grabbing leverage here, and government decrees are supposed to make one side weaker than the other. Anyway, that has been going for a decade, and lots of bullshit has been promoted by both sides to mud the waters. As for the latter, my point was exactly that in “normal country” it's hard to imagine, but giant corporate clashes managed to turn this into some big argument about “freedom”.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> It is quite obvious, at least from outside of USA, that “net neutrality” there is how certain group of corporations has been trying to lobby the codification of rules preferential to them to use in battle with other group of corporations. Complete nonsense. "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. > However, it is hard to imagine that some ISP would try to make the big source of traffic pay for what has already been paid by customers. I think you need to work on your imagination. ISPs in the USA have already tried this (not sure if it is still happening).

User23 5y ago
> Complete nonsense. "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. Categorically false. There’s no “net neutrality” legislation enacted or proposed that doesn’t have giant and vague QoS and general network operations carve-outs.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The EFF was fairly happy with the FCC's Title II proposal back in 2015: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet-fcc-officially-embraces-title-ii https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet... In 2018 Markey and others proposed simply overturning Pai/Trump's overtuning of Title II. I don't know precisely what you're referring to ... the closest I could find was the EFF's objections to the FCC proposals from 2011 which had things like "vague QoS and general network operation carve outs": https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/pt-ii-eff-evaluates-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-its https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/pt-ii-eff-evaluates-fc... The EFF seemed much happier with the FCC proposals 4 years later. What am I missing?
  - tylersmith 5y ago
    What does the EFF's happiness have to do with anything?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I consider them one of the most on-point organizations in the fight for actual net neutrality.
parasubvert 5y ago
> "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination. Which is utter nonsense for any large service provider that requires traffic engineering to handle elephant flows. This is the problem with blanket slogans, they constrain the network in ways that impact user experience dramatically, and is why a LOT of internet pioneers oppose net neutrality. Encouraging open access networks seems more striking at the heart of the matter.
- dtaht 5y ago
  I have long worried that net neutrality rules mis-applied would prevent the default availability of quality fair queuing and AQM solutions along the edge of the network. https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/bufferbloat-may-be-solved-but-its-not-over-yet/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/bufferbloat-may-be-solved-...
ogurechny 5y ago
I am not talking about media propaganda, I am talking about what is happening at the source. This is just another chapter of peering wars, far from being the first in Cogent and its enemies' histories. The actual question here is whether ISPs see themselves as equals (so they can peer with each other, and let traffic fill the links naturally), or belonging to different levels of virtual hierarchy (so one has to pay the other). Netflix and its traffic volume and asymmetry is used as public attention grabbing leverage here, and government decrees are supposed to make one side weaker than the other. Anyway, that has been going for a decade, and lots of bullshit has been promoted by both sides to mud the waters. As for the latter, my point was exactly that in “normal country” it's hard to imagine, but giant corporate clashes managed to turn this into some big argument about “freedom”.