Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Vio'ra Mal'caor
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 234

Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#1 » Dec 07 2017 04:49

Hi to all. Before anyone comments on how I have essentially violated a big rule on ATT about on-topic articles, let me explain a few things. Firstly, this site has become one of my many online homes over the past year. I've found a niche where I can discuss stuff with like-minded gamers, and I really don't want to violate the rules of the wonderful community here. But this is important.

As some (or many) of you may have heard, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US is voting in a week to decide whether the laws relating to the concept of Net Neutrality should be revoked. This may not seem that major, but it could possibly mean a slow death for communities such as this one.

At the present time, the laws allow unfettered and equal access to all parts of the internet (at least they are meant to). Sure, there are some exceptions, as there are with everything. But these laws mean that ISP companies can...I'm not putting this right. Yes, I could of backspaced, but I wouldn't be truely telling you what I think then, would I???

OK, let me put it like this. There have always been laws about the internet, ever since Tim Berners Lee created the first HTTP system, creating the modern net. However, until 2014 when Barrack Obama put laws into place restricting how Internet Service Providers operating in the US could control how their clients accessed the net. This is from a forbes magazine article published two days ago AEST:

...That means broadband providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon can treat internet traffic differently if it is necessary to maintain and protect their networks. Wu called this permissible ground for discrimination. What’s forbidden is discrimination that could distort entire markets and harm the consumer. Technically, this could mean discrimination based on IP addresses, domain names, cookie information, and other factors, according to his paper. Net neutrality aims to protect the legitimate needs of ISPs to manage their networks while preventing the abuse of this power.

For example, if an online game takes up a lot of bandwidth or capacity, the ISP could handle it two ways. It could block traffic from the site through its IP address. But this act would violate net neutrality because by blocking access to this online game, it benefits other gaming sites and distorts the market, ultimately harming consumers. The right way to do it is to focus on bandwidth usage instead, Wu wrote. Gamers who want a better experience would have to buy more bandwidth, or curtail their gaming. Here, the consumer has the choice of paying up or limiting playtime. This, he said, is “market choice” not one “dictated by the filtering policy” of the ISP...


Thi

This is only one of the things that will change. If we let the ISP's have this one in the US, they'll pounce like a pack of Kroot hounds elsewhere in the world. Soon, it'll be like there was never such a thing as a free internet. I'm probably being dramatic, but so what??? Would you be cool if you found out your home was about to be bulldozed??? No, you'd pull a Arthur Dent and lie in front of the bulldozers. I know that this seems like a overreaction, and to tell the truth, I'm trying to convince myself that I'm actually not freaking out about nothing. But there is evidence in history that shows that even things that appeared small lead to horrible events. The internet is more than a global communications system. It's our home, our workspace, our library, our second brain. It's more than just something for corporate pen-pushers to define and shape to suit their needs. It's sites like ATT that best exemplify how the net is a culture and a enviroment in it's own way. Sites where people can come together to share ideas, to debate things they love, and to grow a community in the same way you would cultivate a garden.

To take a leaf from our factions book, net neutrality is all about the greater good. The Tau'va of the internet is at risk, and I'm not going to let the place which I practically grew up in be ripped apart to be thrown out into the hoards of rampaging corporate tyranids to be turned into meaningless slurry.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. If the mods don't think that this will affect ATT, then they can happily delete this thread. This year, 2017, has seen a drastic fall in the hopes that humanity has for a better future. The US has fallen into a political quagmire (which I will refrain from elaborating on). The climate has now gotten to the point here in Australia where we're seeing massive rises in temprature change. Some of you may live in LA, which is currently burning from a freak uncontrollable fire. Companies have begun flexing their muscles, with the mining giant Adani enlisting the Queensland State Government to open a eyesore of a coal mine right in the heart of Australia's Gold Coast. Governments are falining to resolve problems, and things look grimdark for our future.

But as with any fire, a spark must set it off. The internet is the one place where we can all escape from the stuff that is going on IRL. ATT is such a place, and if it is locked off by ISP's, it will reduce the community. If open content creation and interent culture is culled, this creates creates a internet where freedom of speech online is laughed at by the corps, then we have lost another part of our lives to the spreadsheets of the corps.

If I sound like the Space Communists we all love, I apologise. So I'm going to get to my point. I'd like any of the mods who believe in such a thing as a free internet to move this post to a place where everyone can see it. This message has to spread, and I'm not taking no for a answer. If you are reading this, and have reached this point without leaving, head to https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality/ and do as they say on that page. This is our home on the net, and this is comparable to a unwarranted demolition. Hell, I'm probably going to lose some face on ATT for doing this. But this message needs to be heard, and my status on one of my favorite sites is nothing compared to everyone's future online.

So get the message out. We have a week until the internet as a culture begins to die. Let's make that week count. Peace and Goodwill to y'all ATT. Merry Christmas too.

Vio'ra Mal'caor
Igne vir renovatur integra

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 315

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#2 » Dec 07 2017 05:19

To start off: Mods, while this might technically be outside the normal line of discussion and can potentially devolve into some very thorny political issues, this does pertain to our community here. Many outside the US view these boards and many are likely not aware of what is going on in the US regarding this issue or how it can effect them. I think there is value to this discussion, and that because it pertains to the community, should be considered on-topic. Vio'ra Mal'caor, thank you for bringing this up and doing such a good job of laying your thoughts out.

More to follow.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2201

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#3 » Dec 07 2017 06:21

I'd say this is a relevant discussion. Let's hope ATT isn't too affected if this goes through. If you're American and your representative hasn't come out as against the new bill already, I'd say it couldn't hurt to give a call. Voices need to be heard.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 315

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#4 » Dec 07 2017 06:38

I work in the tech industry in the USA, and previously worked in the capitol, Washington DC. I have a little more exposure to this issue than average because of this, so thought I would just add some information.

The whole thing centers around a ruling from 2015 that classifies ISPs as "common carriers". A Common Carrier is required to treat all things it is carrying equally, giving none priority nor singling any out for scrutiny, unless absolutely necessary or if doing so does not hamper other carried objects. The language for this is all kinda weird because it was originally designed around the postal system, and was kinda jury rigged to handle things like the phone network and ISPs. Basically it was decided that data packets would be considered objects, and networks would be considered travel routes.

--Background info - Skip if you don't want or need to know how the Internet works--
Spoiler!
A certain amount of what is called "network shaping" and "QoS" or "Quality of Service" is normal on the internet and expected behavior. Certain protocols are more time sensitive, so are given a higher QoS value and transmitted kinda-sorta first by devices on the internet. The internet as a whole is basically made up of a bunch of connected devices, with each device looking at a chunk of information and handing it off to one of the other devices next to it in the chain until the information gets where its going. This can sometimes mean that your data is flowing through multiple companies. Lets take ATT as an example, and me coming from North Carolina in the Southern United States. My traffic goes through 4 Charter devices, then 2 Telia devices, 7 XO Communications devices, an ALGX device, 2 Unified Layer devices, then finally reaches the ATT Server. Each of these devices will stack up packets that it receives, then process and resend one pack from each QoS level, cycling down from top to bottom until it has sent one of each QoS level, then start at the top and carry on. Currently, there are very few QoS levels. One is network management traffic, that is used to organize the huge web of communication that is computer networks. Another is Voice Over IP phone traffic, since significant delays in its transmission can cause the data to come in on the other side incorrectly. Most VOIP Phone systems can handle a certain amount of network weirdness, but the more you get the weirder the sound ends up, so everyone agreed to give it its own QoS level. And the last QoS layer that I am aware of is specific to emergency medical data. This is a growing segment right now, and is relatively recent. Basically data on this QoS level deals with things like prescriptions, transmission of medical records, and other high priority messaging between hospitals and medical facilities. QoS levels are purposefully kept to a minimum because they minorly interrupt other traffic, and increase overhead for each additional layer added. The more layers, the more traffic gets sent before a single "normal" packet of information. In game terms, its like deployment. I place one, you place one. Each of us is one QoS layer. Now imagine adding more and more players, each on their own team and each with their own deployment. Deployment alone would take forever. Now multiply that over many games, because each game is equivalent to one device in this example.

--End Background--

So one thing that they are looking to do is add additional QoS layers specific to each company. Charter may add 2 QoS levels, while Verizon may add 7, but use different tagging so one companys levels would not apply to the other. Spirit and XO may decide to pair up and add the same 3 with the same tagging, so both their networks respect the tagging. And what happens when a packet arrives from Verizon to XO with one of its 7 random tags? It doesn't match one of XO and Spirits 3, so the data gets dumped into "untagged" or "normal" traffic. Now I am mixing terms a bit since tagging applies to something else in networking, but it makes it easier to explain, so please excuse me any other network techs out there.

And the companies pushing for repeal of net neutrality want both you and the content provider (youtube, google, facebook, ATT) to pay for switching to a different QoS layer. The content provider would potentially have to pay to have traffic they send prioritized, while the end user (you and me) would have to pay for the traffic we send to be prioritized, or even potentially for traffic sent TO us to be prioritized. Details on this are currently fuzzy, since ISPs are not releasing much about said details. There are a couple of countries that have removed their own Net Neutrality rules, and so far both situations are occurring in those countries, so its really a toss up of which method they will go with. My money is on both.

Another thing that was talked about last time Net Neutrality came up was allowing companies to filter or "poison" DNS. Which is a REALLY bad idea. The government itself is actually pushing this part more than companies, but they see money in it to.

-- More Technical Background--
Spoiler!
What is DNS? DNS is a system used by the internet as a whole to keep track of which servers are where. Its kinda like a big Yellow Pages or directory of the internet. When you type in "advancedtautactica.com" the first thing your computer does is reach out to a DNS server and say "Where does advancedtautactica.com live?" to which the server responds "192.254.235.72". Which your computer understands, because that is a network address and network addresses are easy to computers. But if I asked you to remember that number and say that is how you have to get to ATT from now on you would look at me like I am a crazy person.

--End Technical Background--

So why is filtering this DNS thing a bad idea?
The DNS directory is based on a series of 13 core server nodes. 13 servers to rule the internet, as it were. The USA controls a disproportionate number of these. 9 of 13 are owned by US entities, with 3 of them being owned directly by the US government. In addition, they all work together to keep themselves in sync. Changes to one get pushed out to all the others. This is so that you only have to talk to the one closest to you, not to all of them when you go looking up an address. Most of them have more than one physical location, but all locations act as a single unit. This means that if the US starts messing with DNS, it now effects everyone. They either have to rewrite the core DNS protocols so they can filter the entries coming from US nodes, or cut the US nodes out of the structure. This would be literally breaking the foundation of the internet.

Why would they do this? Previously the reasons given were to redirect the DNS entries of sites doing illegal things (child porn, copyright infringement, etc) and redirect them either to catchall pages that say the site has been shut down, or to phishing sites for the police to track down offenders. Not horrible reasons. Opponents of this stated that putting that kind of power into any one governments hands, especially when it effects everyone in the world, has too much potential for corruption or to be used to silence adversaries, as well as it potentially breaking the structure of the internet as a whole.

--Start Politics, please be aware this will have some of my political opinion in it simply by nature of the subject--
Spoiler!
Ok, so why is this all happening? I thought we had this fight years ago.
We did. And we won. Basically the FCC got flooded with comments and they took one look at that and went "Ok, maybe this will make people mad". At which point they decided to declare ISPs Common Carriers, and that was that for a while.
But ISPs have been dumping a stupid amount of money into US politics for years now. They say that Common Carrier laws are stifling innovation, and unless its repealed they will not be able to update the infrastructure. This is straight bull, since infrastructure spending has been consistently going up for the last 5 years. In addition to that, US ISPs have one of the weakest infrastructures in the modern world because they left the old copper networks in place for decades, and are basically demanding government funds to replace them with fiber. Another part of the the Net Neutrality repeal is a small subcomponent that says that ISPs can't shut off the old copper networks until they are replaced with fiber. This means if NN is repealed, many rural US citizens will suddenly find themselves without internet access, because their access is simply costing the ISPs more than they are being paid.

Ok, so what is with this FCC Comment thing?
The FCC is the regulatory body inside the US that has authority of the common carrier status. Before they make rule changes they open the rule up for public comments. Those comments can be seen by all, and can be placed by anyone. They are usually a good way for the average person, or at least the average IT person, to weigh in on matters of the internet as a whole from a regulatory perspective. Previous Chairpersons have been swayed by this. The comment period for the current rule change I believe is over, and got a record number of comments. The vast majority was against.

Ok, if they are against, why is this even a thing?
Because the current Chairperson is Ajit Pai. He was previously an executive at the major US ISP Verizon. He has stated publicly during an interview that he does not care how many comments this gets, he is going to push it through anyways. He has also said that the majority of comments are fake, since they are form generated. This is a lie. After removing the form generated comments, 98% are against this move. With the form generated I think its somewhere around 70% against. Many of the form generated ones, both for and against, are made by actual people through sites that facilitated comments, because the FCC moved the comment page prior to the comment period and made it really hard to get to.

--End politics--

I hope this sheds some light. The actual vote goes down on December 14th, and I know the board of 5 has 2 against currently. I don't know how much pressure will even work on Ajit Pai based on his current statements, but maybe one of the other two on the yes side can be swayed. Potentially diplomatic pressure from other countries may also have an effect.

Especially if you live outside the US, please contact your representative. Let them know this will effect them too. Our representatives are not listening to us anymore, but maybe they will listen to the world community.

EDIT: Added spoiler tagging

User avatar
Lostroninsoul
Shas'Saal
Posts: 226

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#5 » Dec 07 2017 07:40

I avoid politics like I avoid hard work. However I found this entire post very helpful and useful. Thank you for posting this even though it wasn't on topic. I wanted to learn about net neutrality anyways and wish granted, thank you (all).

Not only did I use the link, I did something more effective. I shared it on my primary social media account. Exposing it is stronger than just using it. I see it as internet censorship.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 866

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#6 » Dec 07 2017 10:33

Losing Net neutrality will pave the way for ISPs to make slow and fast lanes or break up the internet into packages.

"Oh you want to go to ATT? Well you need to buy our "Internet Fourms Package" for 9.99. No im sorry the Internet Fourm Package does not included Facebook or Reddit as that is considered social media. You'll have to buy our Social Media Package."

At this point, Ajait Pai is dead set on being the vote to kill it, but we can still fight back. If you have time, please write or call a congressman or get involved!

https://www.battleforthenet.com/?ref=fftfad7950
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 400

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#7 » Dec 07 2017 12:18

QimRas wrote:US ISPs have one of the weakest infrastructures in the modern world because they left the old copper networks in place for decades, and are basically demanding government funds to replace them with fiber.


...Maybe I hear this wrong somewhere, but haven't some large ISPs already gotten billions from the government to upgrade everything to fiber like in 2006?

Net neutrality (or preventing ISPs to prioritize different kinds of traffic) only solves a problem that excessive regulation caused in the first place AND it creates further issues preventing startups from competing. The best option for the US would be repealing ALL regulations besides bare minimum like keeping the DNS system in place and make the ISPs be transparent about how the shape the traffic, then let people vote with their wallets.

IF you want to go further, nationalizing few core infrastructure hubs(the US tax payers paid for that, I don't see an issue nationalizing it), then just auctioning the traffic bandwidth on those could be done. Also if you have something like old telephone poles, making them accessible so any startup can just lay an optical cable without much hassle would help. I've heard this requires court approval which is crazy...

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 866

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#8 » Dec 07 2017 01:07

Gragagrogog wrote:
QimRas wrote:US ISPs have one of the weakest infrastructures in the modern world because they left the old copper networks in place for decades, and are basically demanding government funds to replace them with fiber.


...Maybe I hear this wrong somewhere, but haven't some large ISPs already gotten billions from the government to upgrade everything to fiber like in 2006?



The US government gave them money or tax credits on the promise they would upgrade their networks. They didn't and your rates still went up.

Gragagrogog wrote:Net neutrality (or preventing ISPs to prioritize different kinds of traffic) only solves a problem that excessive regulation caused in the first place AND it creates further issues preventing startups from competing. The best option for the US would be repealing ALL regulations besides bare minimum like keeping the DNS system in place and make the ISPs be transparent about how the shape the traffic, then let people vote with their wallets.


No. The best option would be reclassifying the internet as a public right (public utility) rather than something that a corporation can hold over you. Also, how can you vote with your wallet if you only have one choice? There are many many ISPs out there who have bought up or otherwise blocked other ISPs from setting up. Setting up your own ISP is also out of the question. Extremely expensive to set up your own network and lay your own cables.

All in all, Ajit Pai is straight up lying to the people when he says that Net Neutrality is bad. He is bought and paid for by the telecom industry and they want Net Neutrality gone.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 315

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#9 » Dec 07 2017 01:14

Gragagrogog wrote:
QimRas wrote:US ISPs have one of the weakest infrastructures in the modern world because they left the old copper networks in place for decades, and are basically demanding government funds to replace them with fiber.


...Maybe I hear this wrong somewhere, but haven't some large ISPs already gotten billions from the government to upgrade everything to fiber like in 2006?


You would be correct. They were given both grants and tax breaks to subsidize infrastructure upgrades to get fiber to the premises. Problem is they took the money and then generally only did backbone link upgrades. The vast majority of the US does not have fiber to the premesis, and when they do its only on business accounts. Where I work we only started getting fiber to the premesis from major carriers in the last two years, because Time Warner Cable basically refused to do it. AT&T would do it, but would charge you for the buildout, which was usually $50,000 or higher. We recently got a new provider in town that is willing to do it, but they are still small and have a limited service area. So the government has been subsidizing fiber builds for 10 years and we have been getting almost nothing out of it. The backbone fiber build outs were completed somewhere around 2010.

Gragagrogog wrote:Net neutrality (or preventing ISPs to prioritize different kinds of traffic) only solves a problem that excessive regulation caused in the first place AND it creates further issues preventing startups from competing. The best option for the US would be repealing ALL regulations besides bare minimum like keeping the DNS system in place and make the ISPs be transparent about how the shape the traffic, then let people vote with their wallets.


I am not sure which regulations you would consider excessive. Common Carrier status basically means they have to ignore the traffic going over their network beyond basic traffic management. They can charge what they want, they can offer bandwidth plans how they want, as long as they don't restrict based on time and call it unlimited (which they were doing) or on type of usage. They can charge based on quantity of usage.

Currently what is preventing startups from competing are laws against municipal internet services and co-ops. Those laws are fairly recent (like last 3-4 years) and have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Another major factor is the backbone lockout that a lot of small companies are experiencing. Basically, they are either being charged excessive prices for backbone access, or being denied due to deals with other providers. In the US cable providers have made agreements with each other not to enter each others service areas. Because of these people CAN'T vote with their wallets. If they could, we would not be in this situation. The vast majority of the US has only a single internet provider in the area, and many others only have the option of Coax or DSL. In areas were fiber is available, it is available from either the Coax or DSL provider.

All that said, none of those have any bearing on net neutrality, nor are they part of the ruling.

Gragagrogog wrote:IF you want to go further, nationalizing few core infrastructure hubs(the US tax payers paid for that, I don't see an issue nationalizing it), then just auctioning the traffic bandwidth on those could be done.


This was suggested previously and shot down. In the current political climate it is impossible.

Gragagrogog wrote:Also if you have something like old telephone poles, making them accessible so any startup can just lay an optical cable without much hassle would help. I've heard this requires court approval which is crazy...


We do have those, and they are accessible to any startup without a whole lot of havok. The only time court approval is generally needed is when you are going over or under rail lines, and yeah those permits take a millennium to get.

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 400

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#10 » Dec 07 2017 03:15

QimRas wrote:I am not sure which regulations you would consider excessive. Common Carrier status basically means they have to ignore the traffic going over their network beyond basic traffic management. They can charge what they want, they can offer bandwidth plans how they want, as long as they don't restrict based on time and call it unlimited (which they were doing) or on type of usage. They can charge based on quantity of usage.

Currently what is preventing startups from competing are laws against municipal internet services and co-ops. Those laws are fairly recent (like last 3-4 years) and have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Another major factor is the backbone lockout that a lot of small companies are experiencing. Basically, they are either being charged excessive prices for backbone access, or being denied due to deals with other providers. In the US cable providers have made agreements with each other not to enter each others service areas. Because of these people CAN'T vote with their wallets. If they could, we would not be in this situation. The vast majority of the US has only a single internet provider in the area, and many others only have the option of Coax or DSL. In areas were fiber is available, it is available from either the Coax or DSL provider.

All that said, none of those have any bearing on net neutrality, nor are they part of the ruling.


I might be misremembering this, but didn't the government regulators (FCC) play a role in limiting telephone and cableTV lines since 1920s in the US? (As in "preventing wasteful competition" in an area) Then, from 1990s or so until 2000, you had FCC setting peering rates between ISPs, which ofc caused many ISPs to bankrupt when the price gouging ended. (This was "the telecom bubble") Then there was(still is??) the "infrastructure fund"(or how's it called) which gave politically connected companies subsidies to "upgrade the infrastructure", then there's the whole classifying as information carriers or common carriers, which again causes market crash because you busyness model gets changed. bla bla bla.... This is what I mean by excessive regulations, in all this time, you had government create a huge market bubbles and monopols. This isn't an environment most companies can survive.

You, as consumers, are not going to win by trying to force government to regulate the internet. ALL regulators will eventually have ties to the large "monopol gigants", because every sudden change of the busyness environment can crush small companies, the large companies will use it as a tool to fight competition.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 315

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#11 » Dec 07 2017 04:06

Gragagrogog wrote:I might be misremembering this, but didn't the government regulators (FCC) play a role in limiting telephone and cableTV lines since 1920s in the US? (As in "preventing wasteful competition" in an area) Then, from 1990s or so until 2000, you had FCC setting peering rates between ISPs, which ofc caused many ISPs to bankrupt when the price gouging ended. (This was "the telecom bubble") Then there was(still is??) the "infrastructure fund"(or how's it called) which gave politically connected companies subsidies to "upgrade the infrastructure", then there's the whole classifying as information carriers or common carriers, which again causes market crash because you busyness model gets changed. bla bla bla.... This is what I mean by excessive regulations, in all this time, you had government create a huge market bubbles and monopols. This isn't an environment most companies can survive.


For the limitations in the 1920s, I am not aware of those regulations. In 1992 the Cable Act did set rates for table TV... not internet. And they were not set directly by the FCC, but through localized agencies. I am not aware of an infrastructure fund at all.

The classification of data service vs telecom service actually has to do with the net neutrality fight two rounds ago, back in the early 2000s, and actually had more to do with taxes and the CALEA statutes. Certain agencies wanted ISPs to call under CALEA, and so requested that ISPs be considered Telecom services, not data services. If they did fall under CALEA then there would be regulations that required mandatory hardware be installed to allow for push button tapping. It was going to cause a huge additional infrastructure cost for ISPs, but was shot down by privacy advocates because of how it would effect data from other countries passing through the US to other destinations.

The classification of Common Carrier comes out of the last fight for net neutrality from the 2010ish era. Basically there was an attempt by I believe Comcast to charge a company for favorable prioritization on port 80. It got pushed to the FCC, and there was some back and forth again of if they should become Telecom services, which would have prevented those kinds of shinaningans, in addition to putting ISPs under CALEA. Instead the FCC went with the smarter middle ground of classifying them a Common Carrier, which basically just means "You can't look at what you are transmitting, and you can't favor one thing over another.". That said, while there was speculation and lots of speculative trading in response, none of these actually changed the business models of the ISPs.

Gragagrogog wrote:You, as consumers, are not going to win by trying to force government to regulate the internet. ALL regulators will eventually have ties to the large "monopol gigants", because every sudden change of the busyness environment can crush small companies, the large companies will use it as a tool to fight competition.


The common carrier status is not an onerous regulation, and does not stifle growth or the entry of new players into the market. Again, all common carrier status says is "don't look at what is in the packets you are handling, and you can't priortize more than necessary for operation". The cable companies have reported repeated record profits every quarter for the last 4 years. They are not struggling, nor are they negatively impacted by this at all.

What IS stifling additional entrants into the market is laws against municipal and co-op ISPs. Where I live we were working on quoted project to run a fiber line in from the nearest node on the backbone to a town that only had AT&T DSL for an ISP, purchase bandwidth from XO, and set up our own municipal ISP for the town. The town was going to fund the fiber line, and we were going to provide the technical knowledge to get it working and keep it working. When it went to the lawyers they discovered that a law had been quietly passed at the county level 6 years ago that stated we could not do exactly that.

Again, the net neutrality laws have absolutely nothing to do with competition, innovation, or infrastructure investment.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Please Listen (specifically Mods)

Post#12 » Dec 07 2017 07:44

Thank you QimRas for explaining, i am non US citizen and the information reaching here about net neutrality is vague (to say the least).
I am more alarmed about the DNS filtering you mentioned, how exactly do they think this is going to work? It could easily lead to a fracturing of the internet, there is already quite a bit of resentment in a lot of european countries about the fact that we are so dependant on the US for anything "computer science" related, if someone in the US starts "tinkering" with the DNS then more and more we will be forced to rely on non US DNS servers (which can't really be done) which in turn might lead to creating new protocols which bypass the US DNS tinkering which, in turn, might lead to creating different addresses for non-US servers (which pretty much is a second web).

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nymphomanius and 5 guests