Opposition to net neutrality was faked, New York says(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Opposition to net neutrality was faked, New York says
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/internet-providers-fake-comments-net-neutrality-new-york.html
276 comments
People had claimed their own email address had been used to post a message. The messages themselves were repetitive and clearly had generated names. Someone ran the entire thing through and reduced the bulk messages down to a handful. I believe there were some attempts to add filler words, but for the most part someone just put together spam bots.
What I don't get is why this is so important. Someone spammed a web form but... this isn't a vote. This is a chance to provide information, which spam by definition does not contain.
If they wanted to make legal or technical points, it doesn't even matter who they are, the points are true (or not) no matter who said them.
So I just don't see what the big deal is here, because someone spammed meaningless comments into a comment form and it's not like they really took any of our opinions into account when making the ruling to begin with.
If they wanted to make legal or technical points, it doesn't even matter who they are, the points are true (or not) no matter who said them.
So I just don't see what the big deal is here, because someone spammed meaningless comments into a comment form and it's not like they really took any of our opinions into account when making the ruling to begin with.
The Chair of the FTC used the number of comments against Net Neutrality as "proof" that people did not want Net Neutrality. He then refused to investigate the obvious forgeries.
Then he released this cringefest: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
Ouch. It's disturbing to see a politically nominated official, who is in his position presumably because of world-class leadership and communication ability, be SO OUT OF TOUCH that he doesn't recognize that what he is doing appears as satire.
Elections matter.
Elections matter.
Appears? This guy was constantly making jokes and memes and he did so to appeal to the internet trolls that were his base. Right leaning millennials loved this guy; you must not have seen his back and forth with John Oliver over his Reece’s cup. For context https://www.chron.com/national/article/net-neutrality-repeal...
HOLY CRAP that's insane. Wow, we can still participate in the pop culture of the day that the pop culture czars want us to keep doing? Sweet!
If I can still keep doing all these cool things, why the need for repealing the Obama-era regulations (his words) in the first place?
If I can still keep doing all these cool things, why the need for repealing the Obama-era regulations (his words) in the first place?
also starring a pizzagate promoter, which seems a whole lot darker now than it was at the time: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fcc-chai...
The thing is, I don't for one minute believe that they would've made a different decision if the comments were different. This is just a legally-mandated hoop they jump through before doing what they want to do.
For the record, I support the goal of NN, I just am too cynical to believe that these comments ever mattered.
For the record, I support the goal of NN, I just am too cynical to believe that these comments ever mattered.
They matter because the inevitable lawsuits can/will point to the multitude in support of NN and demand the FCC explain why they decided against keeping it. They’re not just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through; they actually have to consider and weigh them all. A reason of “it’s ‘Obama era’ regulations that we don’t need” isn’t enough. “It’s bad for economic growth” would require them to explain how.
Obviously, one that just says “** you Ajit” or whatever doesn’t need to be considered, but ones voicing concerns or similar have to be.
Obviously, one that just says “** you Ajit” or whatever doesn’t need to be considered, but ones voicing concerns or similar have to be.
Even if you say that, that just means it's the contents of the comments that matter--not who sent them. So the wrong thing is faked under that analysis.
I agree that Ajit made the wrong decision, I just facepalm when I see people raising this as an argument as to why when there are so many better arguments than whether someone spammed an insecure comment box.
I agree that Ajit made the wrong decision, I just facepalm when I see people raising this as an argument as to why when there are so many better arguments than whether someone spammed an insecure comment box.
FCC, but yes. Another demonstration of how election choices have consequences.
This absolutely happened. My parents, who have never heard nor cared about NN, had both their emails used by bots posting anti-NN comments. It was blatantly obvious to anyone who didn't have a stake in killing NN.
My mother, who is dead, somehow rose from the grave and posted in support of repealing NN. That there will be no criminal consequences makes me very, very angry.
Happened to my wife. All the messages were obviously fake as they would say the exact same thing with a word here or there changed.
While I remember it being a big deal in tech news I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press.
While I remember it being a big deal in tech news I don't recall it gaining a lot of traction in the establishment press.
I look forward to the GPT-3 Assisted astroturfing campaigns in the future, only a matter of time
Hopefully by then we have some sort of anonymous “voting” technology so that each individual can have a vote on all public issues. It’s a pain to hold a referendum now, but if we could answer in 2min on our phones and know that our vote was secure, reliable, and 100% anonymous, we could reshape bureaucracy in an instant.
Don't elect blatantly corrupt heads of state (or legislators who would be able to subvert the results of a free and fair election in 2025.)
We can stop this blatant corruption by handing a very long federal prison sentence to Mr. Pai. It’s not really that complicated.
Just wait for the pendulum swing !
To be fair, the FCC ignored the automatically generated comments and focused on comments that were unique, detailed, and relevant. The actual scandal should be what they did with those comments: those that supported rolling back the NN rules were accepted as fact, those opposed (i.e. those in favor of NN regulation) were dismissed as "not compelling." I know this because my comment was among those dismissed as "not compelling," including specific sections that dealt strictly with the factual errors in Ajit Pai's proposal. The only reason they bothered citing my comment (and numerous others by actual technical experts who took the time to comment) was to avoid being sued for ignoring the public comments (they are legally required to consider public comments when making a decision).
It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).
It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).
These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or important comment really doesn’t matter at all, no matter what side you’re on.
To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.
To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.
I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).
Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).
Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).
I think the vast majority of regulators really care, and almost none are paid shills doing it for the money. It seems they're happy to discuss the academic nuances of their positions, but vanishingly unlikely to switch sides.
This is not accurate, and it feels like it is the only clear detail provided in your post:
Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).
Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).
I can't imagine anyone believing that there is some grassroots concern about net-neutrality. Ordinary people don't care about this. You and I may care about it, but not the general population. And I only slightly care about it -- say a lot less than copyright extensions but a lot more than hair extensions.
The level at which the grassroots don't care about anything is not even funny. If Fox News did not talk about this incessantly, and people "cared" about it - something was wrong.
The headline news is that they do so with impunity and achieved their goals at no cost. The corporations ("like AT&T, Comcast and Charter"), their association (Broadband for America), the lobbying firm (unnamed - who is it?), and the FCC, to the degree it failed its duties, suffer no consequences - and indeed the corporations get what they wanted; their plan worked.
> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud. But, the attorney general said, several “significant red flags” had “appeared shortly after the campaign started, and continued for months yet still remained unheeded.”
> The attorney general’s office said it had reached agreements with three “lead generation” services that were involved — Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media, companies that gather customers for clients as part of marketing efforts. Under the agreements, the companies said they would more clearly disclose to individuals how their personal information was being used. The companies also agreed to pay over $4 million in penalties.
> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud. But, the attorney general said, several “significant red flags” had “appeared shortly after the campaign started, and continued for months yet still remained unheeded.”
> The attorney general’s office said it had reached agreements with three “lead generation” services that were involved — Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media, companies that gather customers for clients as part of marketing efforts. Under the agreements, the companies said they would more clearly disclose to individuals how their personal information was being used. The companies also agreed to pay over $4 million in penalties.
In general, the people and groups in the US that hold real power largely hold power because they have realized that as long as you keep cheating, eventually you will control the people and agencies responsible for punishing cheating. Rigging a process or stealing an election is fine because by the time the court case gets a hearing from a judge, the answer will be "well, the process/election is over, so we can't do anything about it."
As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections. The impact only grows bigger as these systems are exploited to put people in lifetime positions, so that the damage can't be undone for decades.
It's really unfortunate because the knowledge that the system works this way makes it very easy for people to make false claims about a particular election being stolen or the methods used - people seriously making claims that "fake ballots were flown over from China" [1] or things like that when the reality is that theft is simple and not the work of foreign spies, illegal immigrants, or hugo chavez [2] - it's our neighbors, fellow citizens, elected officials, etc
1: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/goofy-az-republican-vote-a...
2: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/18/fac...
As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections. The impact only grows bigger as these systems are exploited to put people in lifetime positions, so that the damage can't be undone for decades.
It's really unfortunate because the knowledge that the system works this way makes it very easy for people to make false claims about a particular election being stolen or the methods used - people seriously making claims that "fake ballots were flown over from China" [1] or things like that when the reality is that theft is simple and not the work of foreign spies, illegal immigrants, or hugo chavez [2] - it's our neighbors, fellow citizens, elected officials, etc
1: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/goofy-az-republican-vote-a...
2: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/18/fac...
> they have realized that as long as you keep cheating
Incredibly, what they're doing isn't cheating at all. Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal.
NOTE: I'm not saying I agree with at at all - I'm just saying this is what it's come to. The people with all the power and the money are making the rules to suit themselves.
Incredibly, what they're doing isn't cheating at all. Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal.
NOTE: I'm not saying I agree with at at all - I'm just saying this is what it's come to. The people with all the power and the money are making the rules to suit themselves.
I think if you print new rules then you hide them in the game box it's still a kind of cheating.
Not in Calvinball.
> Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal.
Lobbying itself is neither good nor bad. There are aspects of it that are both. The more excessive negative portions even pass into illegality, but that doesn't mean there's no good from it.
The EFF meeting with lawmakers and explaining how their proto-legislation is not only impossible in practice but has many negative consequences they should be aware of is the exact definition of the benefits of lobbying as envisioned by the system in place and something we should not lose sight of. Babies, bathwater, etc.
Lobbying itself is neither good nor bad. There are aspects of it that are both. The more excessive negative portions even pass into illegality, but that doesn't mean there's no good from it.
The EFF meeting with lawmakers and explaining how their proto-legislation is not only impossible in practice but has many negative consequences they should be aware of is the exact definition of the benefits of lobbying as envisioned by the system in place and something we should not lose sight of. Babies, bathwater, etc.
I agree that it's good for elected politicians in a democracy to meet with and hear the concerns of their constituents.
That is literally their job, and the reason they were elected. If they're not doing that..... then we have no use for them and should eliminate their position entirely, because it obviously doesn't serve a purpose.
The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money, because then you can just buy whatever laws you want. The more money you have, the more you have laws that agree with what you're trying to do and squash everyone else. [1]
[1] I mean, you just have to buy 8.5 million votes in this case - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-pai...
That is literally their job, and the reason they were elected. If they're not doing that..... then we have no use for them and should eliminate their position entirely, because it obviously doesn't serve a purpose.
The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money, because then you can just buy whatever laws you want. The more money you have, the more you have laws that agree with what you're trying to do and squash everyone else. [1]
[1] I mean, you just have to buy 8.5 million votes in this case - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-pai...
> The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money
But that's not lobbying, and that's against the law. The problem is the weird edge cases, like inviting the politicians and their families to a summit to discuss the issue that just happens to be in the Bahamas, or less obviously all the different dinner meetings that add up, etc.
Honestly, those examples aren't so much edge cases as much as entrenched obvious problems some of which are explicitly illegal and others grey, but there are lots of edge cases that are much harder to track down, where the quid-pro-quo is separated by time or other things, such as businesses of close or not so close family members and friends getting more consideration, etc which then flow back to the politician from someone else (can a politician's cousin not invite them on a family vacation and offer to foot the bill?).
Lobbying isn't so much the problem as corruption is, and lobbying just makes some small part of the corruption easier to do in the open, the explanation of what's wanted, because that's an obvious thing you want politicians to hear from interested parties in the areas they represent, whether businesses or individuals.
Blaming lobbying for corruption is like blaming encrypted messaging for terrorism. Sure, they help those using them for nefarious purposes, but getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it slightly easier to see at the expense of the people that used those for good purposes. In both cases I would argue we're better off leaving those communication mediums available and attacking the problem from a different angle. I'm not sure what that is for lobbying, but "you're not allowed to talk to your politician" doesn't seem like it's it.
But that's not lobbying, and that's against the law. The problem is the weird edge cases, like inviting the politicians and their families to a summit to discuss the issue that just happens to be in the Bahamas, or less obviously all the different dinner meetings that add up, etc.
Honestly, those examples aren't so much edge cases as much as entrenched obvious problems some of which are explicitly illegal and others grey, but there are lots of edge cases that are much harder to track down, where the quid-pro-quo is separated by time or other things, such as businesses of close or not so close family members and friends getting more consideration, etc which then flow back to the politician from someone else (can a politician's cousin not invite them on a family vacation and offer to foot the bill?).
Lobbying isn't so much the problem as corruption is, and lobbying just makes some small part of the corruption easier to do in the open, the explanation of what's wanted, because that's an obvious thing you want politicians to hear from interested parties in the areas they represent, whether businesses or individuals.
Blaming lobbying for corruption is like blaming encrypted messaging for terrorism. Sure, they help those using them for nefarious purposes, but getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it slightly easier to see at the expense of the people that used those for good purposes. In both cases I would argue we're better off leaving those communication mediums available and attacking the problem from a different angle. I'm not sure what that is for lobbying, but "you're not allowed to talk to your politician" doesn't seem like it's it.
> "we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections"
.... Right. Overseas. Wink. [Cries in Bernie Sanders.]
.... Right. Overseas. Wink. [Cries in Bernie Sanders.]
> "As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections"
Out of curiosity, what election or elections are you speaking of?
Out of curiosity, what election or elections are you speaking of?
After the Brexit referendum concluded, the Leave campaign was officially found to have violated the law and fined. There were plenty of additional accusations that were never addressed. In the end, you can't undo something like leaving the EU even if voters feel they were lied to.
You can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campai... for some examples of the accusations.
I don't mention this to claim that foreigners are somehow worse - the US specializes in doing this at home if anything, even if we also love to interfere in foreign elections.
You can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campai... for some examples of the accusations.
I don't mention this to claim that foreigners are somehow worse - the US specializes in doing this at home if anything, even if we also love to interfere in foreign elections.
They absolutely could have nullified the outcome and said you have X months to redo it.
Nothing is final unless you make it final.
Nothing is final unless you make it final.
No, sigh, it's the other way around. The people who believe the law was broken were lied to, by a corrupt set of regulators. Very apt, given the topic here.
The Electoral Commission spent a long time trying to build cases against Leave campaigners. It did so because although theoretically neutral, like a lot of British government institutions it's run by people who are openly biased and happy to make strongly political statements on the record. The EC is literally run by people who made public statements saying Brexit and the Tories are bad, and that they wanted Remain to win. They also never bothered speaking to the people they were fining as part of their investigation. Not a good start.
https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-emai...
So they worked over-time to try and prosecute people who campaigned for Leave, but they themselves (fortunately!) do not have law enforcement powers. This is indeed fortunate because every single case they referred to the CPS and Police was dismissed on the grounds that no crime had actually been committed. The High Court has repeatedly criticised the EC for appearing not to know what electoral laws actually say. Or in other words, the people you are claiming "officially found" one side to have violated the law, had their investigations/decisions labelled by the High Court as "unconstructive", "arbitrary" and lacking "any rational basis" (quoting the judgement itself there).
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electora...
Here's another case where the EC lost in court against Leave:
https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins...
The Metropolitan Police stated the EC itself had broken the law in its attempt to submit a case against Leave campaigners due to withholding evidence and not complying with criminal evidence and procedure law:
https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral...
Part of the reason the EC's arguments were dismissed is that the EC is responsible for issuing interpretations of electoral law. In at least one case, the Vote Leave campaign requested such an interpretation, was told what they were going to do was entirely legal and OK, and then later the EC changed its mind and decided to fine them for doing it. That sort of thing is hard to explain: either the regulators are corrupt, or incompetent, or both, but it's certainly not the fault of people who explicitly requested clarification about an unclear rule and then were put in Kafka-esque no-win situation.
Naturally they ignored quite blatant violations of electoral law when it was done by Remain campaigners like the famous mailshot to the entire country that mysteriously didn't count as campaign spending, or this one (who they eventually DID fine, but only after a lot of kicking and screaming):
https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whit...
The EC's quite transparent campaign against anyone who campaigned for Brexit, certainly motivated by the biases of the people appointed to run it, is a classic case of exactly the same problem Americans are complaining about in this very thread w.r.t. net neutrality. The regulator was captured by a certain viewpoint and appeared to care very little about even the appearance of doing their job properly let alone neutrally.
The Electoral Commission spent a long time trying to build cases against Leave campaigners. It did so because although theoretically neutral, like a lot of British government institutions it's run by people who are openly biased and happy to make strongly political statements on the record. The EC is literally run by people who made public statements saying Brexit and the Tories are bad, and that they wanted Remain to win. They also never bothered speaking to the people they were fining as part of their investigation. Not a good start.
https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-emai...
So they worked over-time to try and prosecute people who campaigned for Leave, but they themselves (fortunately!) do not have law enforcement powers. This is indeed fortunate because every single case they referred to the CPS and Police was dismissed on the grounds that no crime had actually been committed. The High Court has repeatedly criticised the EC for appearing not to know what electoral laws actually say. Or in other words, the people you are claiming "officially found" one side to have violated the law, had their investigations/decisions labelled by the High Court as "unconstructive", "arbitrary" and lacking "any rational basis" (quoting the judgement itself there).
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electora...
Here's another case where the EC lost in court against Leave:
https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins...
The Metropolitan Police stated the EC itself had broken the law in its attempt to submit a case against Leave campaigners due to withholding evidence and not complying with criminal evidence and procedure law:
https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral...
Part of the reason the EC's arguments were dismissed is that the EC is responsible for issuing interpretations of electoral law. In at least one case, the Vote Leave campaign requested such an interpretation, was told what they were going to do was entirely legal and OK, and then later the EC changed its mind and decided to fine them for doing it. That sort of thing is hard to explain: either the regulators are corrupt, or incompetent, or both, but it's certainly not the fault of people who explicitly requested clarification about an unclear rule and then were put in Kafka-esque no-win situation.
Naturally they ignored quite blatant violations of electoral law when it was done by Remain campaigners like the famous mailshot to the entire country that mysteriously didn't count as campaign spending, or this one (who they eventually DID fine, but only after a lot of kicking and screaming):
https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whit...
The EC's quite transparent campaign against anyone who campaigned for Brexit, certainly motivated by the biases of the people appointed to run it, is a classic case of exactly the same problem Americans are complaining about in this very thread w.r.t. net neutrality. The regulator was captured by a certain viewpoint and appeared to care very little about even the appearance of doing their job properly let alone neutrally.
The cited source, the brazenly partisan Guido Fawkes website, is hardly a credible one. Do you have something better?
For others, just look at Guido Fawkes' front page.
For others, just look at Guido Fawkes' front page.
If you have any specific examples of anything in those articles that's wrong, please do present them. Otherwise, ignoring all the factual matters discussed in them has no intellectual merit.
> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud.
How could they NOT have known? I mean... surely they were seeing these fraudulent comments, and the internet was stirring about it because we all knew they were fraud. Claiming that the ones who paid the fraudsters were unaware seems like a stretch. Did they not look at what they paid for?
I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea.
How could they NOT have known? I mean... surely they were seeing these fraudulent comments, and the internet was stirring about it because we all knew they were fraud. Claiming that the ones who paid the fraudsters were unaware seems like a stretch. Did they not look at what they paid for?
I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea.
If there are no consequences and there is good amount of grease they can see or not see whatever someone wants them to. It's a farce.
> Did they not look at what they paid for?
Nope. Plausible deniability is a thing. It's not uncommon corporations and lobbying firm to pay contractors large sums of money for 'image management' and intentional ask no questions about how it gets done.
Everyone knows what's happening, but as long as no one explicitly asks (in a documented form), the benefactors can feign innocence.
> I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea.
The individual investigators likely know full well that Broadband for America knew what was happening, at least in broad terms. But knowing something and being able to prove it in a legally actionable way are two completely different things.
Nope. Plausible deniability is a thing. It's not uncommon corporations and lobbying firm to pay contractors large sums of money for 'image management' and intentional ask no questions about how it gets done.
Everyone knows what's happening, but as long as no one explicitly asks (in a documented form), the benefactors can feign innocence.
> I find it hard to believe these investigators truly think Broadband for America had no idea.
The individual investigators likely know full well that Broadband for America knew what was happening, at least in broad terms. But knowing something and being able to prove it in a legally actionable way are two completely different things.
Sort of, you can still nail people for this stuff. It’s just a question of reasonable doubt and what they expect to happen.
It’s the same issue as a phone call about having someone assassinated can be a “smoking gun” even if they never say what they want to happen.
It’s the same issue as a phone call about having someone assassinated can be a “smoking gun” even if they never say what they want to happen.
> Plausible deniability is a thing.
It only works if you don't hold actors responsible for consequences, only for knowingly doing wrong. For example, if Tesla cars periodically exploded when the batteries drained to zero, Tesla couldn't say 'well, we didn't know'. Nobody cares; it's your job to know. In fact, it adds to the failure that you didn't know (though knowingly selling that product might not be so hot either - not a perfect example).
When does law and regulation require knowledge? When is knowledge part of your responsibility? IMHO, there are civilians and soldiers. The mom & pop convenience store can say 'we didn't know' about some things; Whole Foods, with its resources and expertise, had better know.
Personally, when I'm doing something professionally, I never want to say 'I didn't know'. It's embarrassing. Unless it's some oddball thing that isn't even worth thinking about, it's my job to anticipate and to know. 'I didn't know' means 'I wasn't doing my job, and I don't even understand that my responsibility or what it means to be professional.'
It only works if you don't hold actors responsible for consequences, only for knowingly doing wrong. For example, if Tesla cars periodically exploded when the batteries drained to zero, Tesla couldn't say 'well, we didn't know'. Nobody cares; it's your job to know. In fact, it adds to the failure that you didn't know (though knowingly selling that product might not be so hot either - not a perfect example).
When does law and regulation require knowledge? When is knowledge part of your responsibility? IMHO, there are civilians and soldiers. The mom & pop convenience store can say 'we didn't know' about some things; Whole Foods, with its resources and expertise, had better know.
Personally, when I'm doing something professionally, I never want to say 'I didn't know'. It's embarrassing. Unless it's some oddball thing that isn't even worth thinking about, it's my job to anticipate and to know. 'I didn't know' means 'I wasn't doing my job, and I don't even understand that my responsibility or what it means to be professional.'
I see your point. On the other hand, wouldn't these companies (Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media) that fabricated comments on a federal filing from real people, using their addresses, be guilty of identity theft?
Using someone else's identity to influence federal law seems like it would be a crime, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how that would hold up in court.
Using someone else's identity to influence federal law seems like it would be a crime, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how that would hold up in court.
I used to work for a PR firm in Chicago that would work with AT&T to do astroturfing. I never knew the details but the gossip about the contract with AT&T was interesting.
Internally, they would never say the word, "AT&T" but had a client code #, like client 750, or something like that. It was always sketchy and everyone in the firm knew it was sketchy but they tried their best to keep the details from the employees.
What they would do is work with "community outreach groups" to create fake outrage about certain "bad" legislation that, people participating in such protests, problem didn't even know who was ultimately behind it.
Overall, pretty disgusting behavior and the fact that we let corps behave like this with no repercussions, speaks a lot to where we're at as a country and why. The US rewards sociopathic behavior.
The PR firm: Jasculca Terman strategic communications. I believe their contract with AT&T was severed many years ago but I don't know the reasons why. So, I doubt that particular firm worked on this astroturfing but it doesn't matter because companies like AT&T have a whole bevy of companies at the ready to do this work for them.
Internally, they would never say the word, "AT&T" but had a client code #, like client 750, or something like that. It was always sketchy and everyone in the firm knew it was sketchy but they tried their best to keep the details from the employees.
What they would do is work with "community outreach groups" to create fake outrage about certain "bad" legislation that, people participating in such protests, problem didn't even know who was ultimately behind it.
Overall, pretty disgusting behavior and the fact that we let corps behave like this with no repercussions, speaks a lot to where we're at as a country and why. The US rewards sociopathic behavior.
The PR firm: Jasculca Terman strategic communications. I believe their contract with AT&T was severed many years ago but I don't know the reasons why. So, I doubt that particular firm worked on this astroturfing but it doesn't matter because companies like AT&T have a whole bevy of companies at the ready to do this work for them.
Separation of church and state should be followed by separation of companies and state.
> Separation of church and state should be followed by separation of companies and state.
Very interesting!
Very interesting!
Good idea. Who will enforce it? Because those with the most to lose will always, by definition, have the most money to throw at un-separating them.
I am not implying that it cannot be done, but I like to encourage people to think long and hard about why things are the way they are and what systemic changes would be necessary when they propose that "society should do X". Most people would agree that we shouldn't have big companies running the government. So why do we keep letting them do it?
I am not implying that it cannot be done, but I like to encourage people to think long and hard about why things are the way they are and what systemic changes would be necessary when they propose that "society should do X". Most people would agree that we shouldn't have big companies running the government. So why do we keep letting them do it?
Because in many ways, companies control the narrative. I don’t mean that in a conspiracy kind of way, but more in a way where all companies share a vested interest into keeping close to the political body. One good rule would to introduce a law that would remove the ability to revolve door between a company and a political position. Another to show the sponsors directly and transparently for each political official. That would be a start.
Two systematic changes that could help.
When separation of church and state was implemented, churches were very powerful. I wonder what the differences are between their power and modern corporations.
If I were the president, I'd start up a DoJ tasks force to prepare for anti-trust proceeding and start some rumors about nationalization of such "critical infrastructure."
Maybe the tanking stock price that results will force the Board of Directors to replace the top brass at these companies with someone much less brazen. If not, whelp, maybe there was some truth in those rumors.
Maybe the tanking stock price that results will force the Board of Directors to replace the top brass at these companies with someone much less brazen. If not, whelp, maybe there was some truth in those rumors.
$4M is how many minutes of revenue for the major telecoms?
The telecoms weren't even fined. The telecoms formed an association (of some sort) called Broadband for America; Broadband for America hired an unnamed lobbying group; the lobbying group hired three lead generation companies, Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media.
The lead generation companies paid the fines. See how it works?
If not, let me give another example that's more familiar, from movies: The mobster wants someone dead. The mobster tells the head of their criminal syndicate, who talks to another criminal syndicate who specializes in this sort of thing, who hires some outsiders to do the job. The police catch the outsiders, who take the fall; the DA prosecutes and convicts them, and says 'justice has been done!'
The lead generation companies paid the fines. See how it works?
If not, let me give another example that's more familiar, from movies: The mobster wants someone dead. The mobster tells the head of their criminal syndicate, who talks to another criminal syndicate who specializes in this sort of thing, who hires some outsiders to do the job. The police catch the outsiders, who take the fall; the DA prosecutes and convicts them, and says 'justice has been done!'
So was the support.
The NN debate online was a massive propaganda warfare campaign between two teams of huge corporations, neither of which had any of our interests in mind. We were squeezed in the middle of it and everyone was pressured to take sides.
The NN debate online was a massive propaganda warfare campaign between two teams of huge corporations, neither of which had any of our interests in mind. We were squeezed in the middle of it and everyone was pressured to take sides.
I haven't come across accusations that pro-NN were systematically submitting fraudulently support comments to the FCC. Absent that, there's no "both sides" argument here.
The pro-NN were systematically publishing fraudlent, alarmist opinion pieces in the media. That the channel is different and more dignified (citizen feedback vs big-name publications) doesn't make it any better.
Actually it makes a big difference, because the FCC has an obligation to consider comments submitted as part of the public comment process.
Anti-NN were doing the same, so on that account perhaps they're equally awful. But defrauding the democratic process of public commentary & input into the policy making decisions of a major governmental organization rises to quite a higher level.
the WSJ piece mentions fake comments on both sides (paywall..) https://www.wsj.com/articles/fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-ma...
"Investigators also found 9.3 million comments supporting net neutrality that used fictitious identities, most submitted by one California college student majoring in computer science."
"Investigators also found 9.3 million comments supporting net neutrality that used fictitious identities, most submitted by one California college student majoring in computer science."
Well, that's pretty awful, and I appreciate the counter point. However, I'd draw a distinction between the actions of a single person that don't equate to the large scale coordinated attacks of the same sort by Anti-NN groups.
This! People forgot the whole "why should we pay for this, when we can politically club the providers over the head?" arguments here. Netflix was having interconnect issues, and didn't want to pay for a reasonable solution, so they made a hissy fit and progagandized the issue.
And I will also admit that I DID OPPOSE NN regulations, as they were "specified" (if any one remembers, they were only released AFTER being accepted by the FCC). Specifically in the "why fix what's not broken?" sense (ref stratechery for a more detailed consideration than I can give: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/) . It was not clear to me that they would provide any benefits that propaganda claimed. It was also clear to me that the quite reasonable thing of Netflix to pay Comcast (and other Tier 3 providers) to skip interconnect issues, which was being done before the whole argument came up, would also possibly come under scrutiny by the new regulation. And so I threw up my arms and said "If real technical solutions are going to be abandoned because of some misunderstanding of technology, I'm not on board".
The vitriol that still exists over this from people who this never really effected nor even understood the technical problem. Moreover, I was appalled at the lack of care here to even consider this from a technical perspective. Complete blindness to consideration due to tribalism.
Now were people wrong to use other's info without consent, sure! I 100% agree there.
Downvotes, commense!
And I will also admit that I DID OPPOSE NN regulations, as they were "specified" (if any one remembers, they were only released AFTER being accepted by the FCC). Specifically in the "why fix what's not broken?" sense (ref stratechery for a more detailed consideration than I can give: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/) . It was not clear to me that they would provide any benefits that propaganda claimed. It was also clear to me that the quite reasonable thing of Netflix to pay Comcast (and other Tier 3 providers) to skip interconnect issues, which was being done before the whole argument came up, would also possibly come under scrutiny by the new regulation. And so I threw up my arms and said "If real technical solutions are going to be abandoned because of some misunderstanding of technology, I'm not on board".
The vitriol that still exists over this from people who this never really effected nor even understood the technical problem. Moreover, I was appalled at the lack of care here to even consider this from a technical perspective. Complete blindness to consideration due to tribalism.
Now were people wrong to use other's info without consent, sure! I 100% agree there.
Downvotes, commense!
Companies like Google and Facebook were running around screaming Chicken Little about how companies like Verizon and Comcast will use their monopolistic powers to dominate public speech, screw over users, and screw over startup competitors. Interesting where we ended up today.
The propaganda framed it like sites like Netflix would be really fast because they could afford to pay for it and startup competitors would be very slow, but economic incentives would have actually caused the exact opposite. A startup video hosting site is of relatively no burden to an ISP compared to a behemoth like Netflix so they would have no reason to slow down the startup speeds. If the startup succeeds because it has a competitive advantage to Netflix, then when they become big they get a new customer they can bully into keeping their speeds high.
Yes ISPs will take a cut of the fees they charge content providers, but they will also be able to pass those savings onto the average consumer because the Netflix customer, who is already using most of the internet bandwidth, is helping pay for the service connection. Market forces would force streaming services to go up in price and ISP costs to go down. It would be generally fairer.
The propaganda framed it like sites like Netflix would be really fast because they could afford to pay for it and startup competitors would be very slow, but economic incentives would have actually caused the exact opposite. A startup video hosting site is of relatively no burden to an ISP compared to a behemoth like Netflix so they would have no reason to slow down the startup speeds. If the startup succeeds because it has a competitive advantage to Netflix, then when they become big they get a new customer they can bully into keeping their speeds high.
Yes ISPs will take a cut of the fees they charge content providers, but they will also be able to pass those savings onto the average consumer because the Netflix customer, who is already using most of the internet bandwidth, is helping pay for the service connection. Market forces would force streaming services to go up in price and ISP costs to go down. It would be generally fairer.
>The propaganda framed it like sites like Netflix would be really fast because they could afford to pay for it and startup competitors would be very slow.
The irony is that this is how Netflix already operates. They sign direct interconnect agreements with ISPs to host their servers directly at local ISP network distribution hubs. They have a competitive advantage that is literally built in to the internet infrastructure.
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
The irony is that this is how Netflix already operates. They sign direct interconnect agreements with ISPs to host their servers directly at local ISP network distribution hubs. They have a competitive advantage that is literally built in to the internet infrastructure.
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
You misunderstood the specific situation with Netflix. They have a solution that is free to ISPs, and dramatically reduces transit on their networks. The networks instead wanted to extract a rent specific to Netflix.
My problem was I never saw a technical definition that a system admin could follow. I was very worried that basic spam blocking would break a badly written law.
For those who don't think that would be possible, then you haven't had the pleasure of watching a law with good intentions ban you from using Drop Box.
For those who don't think that would be possible, then you haven't had the pleasure of watching a law with good intentions ban you from using Drop Box.
[deleted]
Companies opposing to NN paid for astroturfing campaign. While proponents based their marketing on fear-mongering ("The internet is dying" - NYT, "Death of the internet" - CNBC). Would be interesting to measure which was more efficient in terms of mobilizing voters, but worth keeping in mind that it's tangential to the discussion about NN's virtues, and deficiencies
Are you kidding? The account of astroturfing on behalf of NN was far more widespread.
Why would NN need astroturfing when it's wildly popular?
It wasn't a matter of need - it was just trivially easy to do. New York says they traced 7.7 million faked pro-NN comments to a single college kid who doesn't seem to have done anything more complex than run a script.
Yeah... and I wouldn't be surprised if the proponents didn't pay for some astroturfing too.
Like seriously, who has time to write an opinion to the FCC? Not even most people on HN who might even have real, honest opinions about net neutrality. And probably 99.5% of society doesn't have a clue what net neutrality might even be. Is it possible that there's one honest opinion in the batch? I suppose so, but it's probably like Ajit Pai's mom.
Like seriously, who has time to write an opinion to the FCC? Not even most people on HN who might even have real, honest opinions about net neutrality. And probably 99.5% of society doesn't have a clue what net neutrality might even be. Is it possible that there's one honest opinion in the batch? I suppose so, but it's probably like Ajit Pai's mom.
Why the misnomer in the headline? Let’s call this what it is: fraud. These companies committed fraud. All involved should be prosecuted accordingly and the regulation rolled back and re-reviewed.
But nothing is going to happen. Nobody wants to go through it again and nobody wants to go to jail. People will complain for a bit and next week or month almost everyone will forget about it.
Furthermore, there are legislation coming e.g. from the EU (terreg) that makes hosting of projects with user generated content prohibitively expensive for small players, not to mention hobbyists.
The internet as we know has ended.
There are some attacks against our system of government that we seem to tolerate, maybe because they are so familiar.
This particular attack seems less familiar.
I'm wondering whether we'll deliver such a firm corrective "no" on this attack, that actors decide not to do anything too similar in the future.
This particular attack seems less familiar.
I'm wondering whether we'll deliver such a firm corrective "no" on this attack, that actors decide not to do anything too similar in the future.
We could rate-limit Ajit Pai's internet to 25 down, 3 mbit up for the rest of his life (because that is enough for everyone, he said).
But, I'm guessing there will be no firm corrective "no". The parties involved will get away without any consequences. Maybe a slight slap on the wrist for one or two of the minor corporations involved.
But, I'm guessing there will be no firm corrective "no". The parties involved will get away without any consequences. Maybe a slight slap on the wrist for one or two of the minor corporations involved.
And yet without NN, internet speeds have gotten faster.
Is this different than what was reported more than 3 years ago [0]?
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I'm getting downvoted, but why, I don't understand.
Because you're saying up-front that you didn't even bother to click the link to see whether it was different, and you're suggesting that corporate malfeasance is only worthy of scrutiny if it's fresh.
a) There are HN guidelines that warn you not to complain about downvotes.
b) This is an article in the NYT that came out today, about findings by the NY AG released today. Yes, we all more or less "knew" that most of the comments were bogus all along, but having an official finding that says that is still extremely important, and is news in its own right.
b) This is an article in the NYT that came out today, about findings by the NY AG released today. Yes, we all more or less "knew" that most of the comments were bogus all along, but having an official finding that says that is still extremely important, and is news in its own right.
We did some analysis back in 2017 and found some interesting stuff. Highlights: automated comment submission with broken templates so comments were coming from {STATE} and {CITY}, and over a million submissions from @pornhub.com email addresses.
Analysis here: https://www.gravwell.io/blog/discovering-truth-through-lies-... (disclaimer: I work for Gravwell)
Analysis here: https://www.gravwell.io/blog/discovering-truth-through-lies-... (disclaimer: I work for Gravwell)
If your identity was used without your consent, I wonder if you could sue?
Who would you sue?
I am not a lawyer, but I thought in cases like this you can sue a “John Doe” and then ask the court to compel logs and data from an entity (in this case, the FCC, to then identify the defendant.
You can't. Did you lose anything? Did one spoofed message have any bearing on the result?
Maybe if people came together it would be different, but whoever made the decision could say that they knew these messages were off and had no effect on the result.
Maybe, but also maybe we shouldn't be making policy based on how many people wrote things on an internet comment forum.
for all the crying, none of the doomsday scenarios people were claiming would happen have happened at all. and the internet is the same as it’s ever been. tel me why i should care now
If these companies fraudulently stole the identity of individual Americans why aren’t they facing criminal charges?
The Francis Wilhoit definition of conservatism as a form of aristocracy seems applicable:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
The Francis Wilhoit definition of conservatism as a form of aristocracy seems applicable:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Not all opposition to Net Neutrality was faked. An argument is that Net Neutrality regulation can be gamed to harm independent ISPs via regulatory capture, where NN protects against throttling traffic by ISP's to harm independent content providers. The people who thought the cure of regulation was worse than the disease opposed Net Neutrality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Net Neutrality effectively subsidize high bandwidth providers, such as Netflix & torrent providers, presumably creating latency across the network? It may no longer be an issue, as rate-limiting can be applied to the consumer.
The context of the Net Neutrality debate is different today than it was a few years, as content providers have more capitalization compared to ISPs, technology has improved, & new markets are in play. A big benefactor to NN nowdays seems to be distributing computing platforms such as IPFS, cryptos, Holochain, etc; which I find beneficial.
But then, as systems are designed, where does Net Neutrality stop? If there were a bill that includes NN, would it be written in a way where lawfare can be abused to require any load balancer or proxy service to provide NN? Which leads back to the primary legitimate (IMO) concern of regulation being abused by entrenched powers to stifle competition. Is regulation better or is less more? At this time, what harm is being perpetrated that NN would solve?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Net Neutrality effectively subsidize high bandwidth providers, such as Netflix & torrent providers, presumably creating latency across the network? It may no longer be an issue, as rate-limiting can be applied to the consumer.
The context of the Net Neutrality debate is different today than it was a few years, as content providers have more capitalization compared to ISPs, technology has improved, & new markets are in play. A big benefactor to NN nowdays seems to be distributing computing platforms such as IPFS, cryptos, Holochain, etc; which I find beneficial.
But then, as systems are designed, where does Net Neutrality stop? If there were a bill that includes NN, would it be written in a way where lawfare can be abused to require any load balancer or proxy service to provide NN? Which leads back to the primary legitimate (IMO) concern of regulation being abused by entrenched powers to stifle competition. Is regulation better or is less more? At this time, what harm is being perpetrated that NN would solve?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Net Neutrality effectively subsidize high bandwidth providers, such as Netflix & torrent providers, presumably creating latency across the network?
Yeah, this is wrong. Netflix is already paying it's ISP, and both sides of a BitTorrent connection are paying theirs.
Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.
Yeah, this is wrong. Netflix is already paying it's ISP, and both sides of a BitTorrent connection are paying theirs.
Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.
> Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.
I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies. Netflix serves as a middleman in a big machine as does Comcast. I have to care about my direct interests instead of spending energy on a crusade on behalf of a big tech company with the liability of the cost & making sure that the legislation does have any unintended consequences. Knowing politicians & lobbyists, there are always unintended consequences to any piece of legislation.
From what I'm seeing, the argument for NN is moot, heavy-handed, & rife with unintended consequences; Unless you can provide information about how somebody like me is adversely affected by something that only NN legislation would solve, why should somebody like me support NN when there are many alternatives that would be better for me? With NN, Comcast, Verizon, etc. are only going to capture the regulators to crack down on their competition (e.g. independent ISPs).
Focusing on providing better competition for underserved markets, included distributed networks & community wifi, would probably be more effective at keeping the quality of ISP market high. Improving distributed tech & removing (or rendering obsolete) legislation that limit competition to 1-2 ISPs in a region would also truly be beneficial. I also care about distributed systems. Is there something that regulation would do that the free market would not?
I'm a wee bit tired of NN being an oxygen-sucking rallying cry wedge issue that does not solve the root issues that affect me personally, but instead could be another regulatory tool to crack down on independent providers & distributed platforms.
NN is another of a long list of schemes to crack down on independent providers to capture yet another set of markets by the govt, lawyers, technocrats, etc. I wouldn't put it past Comcast to act as the heel in this charade.
I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies. Netflix serves as a middleman in a big machine as does Comcast. I have to care about my direct interests instead of spending energy on a crusade on behalf of a big tech company with the liability of the cost & making sure that the legislation does have any unintended consequences. Knowing politicians & lobbyists, there are always unintended consequences to any piece of legislation.
From what I'm seeing, the argument for NN is moot, heavy-handed, & rife with unintended consequences; Unless you can provide information about how somebody like me is adversely affected by something that only NN legislation would solve, why should somebody like me support NN when there are many alternatives that would be better for me? With NN, Comcast, Verizon, etc. are only going to capture the regulators to crack down on their competition (e.g. independent ISPs).
Focusing on providing better competition for underserved markets, included distributed networks & community wifi, would probably be more effective at keeping the quality of ISP market high. Improving distributed tech & removing (or rendering obsolete) legislation that limit competition to 1-2 ISPs in a region would also truly be beneficial. I also care about distributed systems. Is there something that regulation would do that the free market would not?
I'm a wee bit tired of NN being an oxygen-sucking rallying cry wedge issue that does not solve the root issues that affect me personally, but instead could be another regulatory tool to crack down on independent providers & distributed platforms.
NN is another of a long list of schemes to crack down on independent providers to capture yet another set of markets by the govt, lawyers, technocrats, etc. I wouldn't put it past Comcast to act as the heel in this charade.
> I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies.
They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform.
You should care because it's your money.
As far as the rest of your comment is concerned,maybe you can point at what exactly would be the costs in complying with net neutrality? Complying simply takes inaction and isn't a burden on smaller ISPs.
They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform.
You should care because it's your money.
As far as the rest of your comment is concerned,maybe you can point at what exactly would be the costs in complying with net neutrality? Complying simply takes inaction and isn't a burden on smaller ISPs.
> They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform.
I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & stimulate more competition, with solutions such as small ISPs, municipal ISPs, & distributed networks.
The costs of NN are in the regulation, the extra laws that will include pork & more funding for government agencies. Also the ISP market used by everybody shrinks while the large content companies get a subsidy for flooding the commons, incentivizing these large content companies to grow even larger.
With the development of distributing computing, distributed networks, & open source/free software, there are new solutions on the table today that were not available a few years ago. I'd rather go with a bottom up effort to make the state of the art & my life better than top down legislation that only creates more government, more expenses, & does not benefit me.
I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & stimulate more competition, with solutions such as small ISPs, municipal ISPs, & distributed networks.
The costs of NN are in the regulation, the extra laws that will include pork & more funding for government agencies. Also the ISP market used by everybody shrinks while the large content companies get a subsidy for flooding the commons, incentivizing these large content companies to grow even larger.
With the development of distributing computing, distributed networks, & open source/free software, there are new solutions on the table today that were not available a few years ago. I'd rather go with a bottom up effort to make the state of the art & my life better than top down legislation that only creates more government, more expenses, & does not benefit me.
> I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & more competition.
It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions.
And what specific laws and regulations were a burden? Net neutrality existed already as rules on the books before being removed by Pai's FCC. I always here vague "think of the burden", but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions.
And what specific laws and regulations were a burden? Net neutrality existed already as rules on the books before being removed by Pai's FCC. I always here vague "think of the burden", but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
> It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions.
Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. This is yet another example of an unintended consequence of regulation. Proving compliance has costs that the smaller ISPs are less able to afford than the large ISPs.
> but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. This is yet another example of an unintended consequence of regulation. Proving compliance has costs that the smaller ISPs are less able to afford than the large ISPs.
> but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
> Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated.
Which regulation, when?
> > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
> I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda.
Did you just reply with "no u" essentially?
> I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
You're the one asserting that specific regulations are burdensome. I can't be expected to prove a negative; you should name the regulation that is burdensome.
Which regulation, when?
> > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
> I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda.
Did you just reply with "no u" essentially?
> I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
You're the one asserting that specific regulations are burdensome. I can't be expected to prove a negative; you should name the regulation that is burdensome.
[deleted]
> Netflix is already paying it's ISP
And I would argue that that is good. It creates an incentive for Netflix to invest into encoding, compressing and developing new tech in general. It also provides openings for competing platforms with better technology.
Take that away, and we could have a race to 8K@120fps or whatever with the whole internet as losers.
And I would argue that that is good. It creates an incentive for Netflix to invest into encoding, compressing and developing new tech in general. It also provides openings for competing platforms with better technology.
Take that away, and we could have a race to 8K@120fps or whatever with the whole internet as losers.
Nobodies taking that away. That's what still exists with net neutrality.
[deleted]
It's awesome what isn't a crime when you're a major campaign donor.
The real irony of NN opposition is that the dial-up era, which one would otherwise characterize as exactly the kind of thriving market-based competition that conservatives love, only existed in the first place because the phone lines that these small providers used to operate their businesses were regulated as utilities.
In effect, we had net neutrality in all but name until the Internet started to move to other, more vertically-integrated forms of infrastructure like DSL and cable.
I would really love to see a Ted Cruz or Dan Crenshaw or some other disingenuous right-wing hack try to argue that, had it not already been illegal to do so, AT&T wouldn't have done the exact same things to AOL that Verizon and Comcast have gotten caught doing to Netflix.
(EDIT: At least, it would amuse me in theory. In practice, my blood would probably start boiling about 30 seconds in.)
In effect, we had net neutrality in all but name until the Internet started to move to other, more vertically-integrated forms of infrastructure like DSL and cable.
I would really love to see a Ted Cruz or Dan Crenshaw or some other disingenuous right-wing hack try to argue that, had it not already been illegal to do so, AT&T wouldn't have done the exact same things to AOL that Verizon and Comcast have gotten caught doing to Netflix.
(EDIT: At least, it would amuse me in theory. In practice, my blood would probably start boiling about 30 seconds in.)
How is Ted Cruz disingenuous?
There's that time he tried making some smug Twitter dunk about how anyone concerned about this is a "snowflake, believing online propaganda"[1], claiming that "the Internet grew up wonderfully free from govt regulation" as if he isn't old enough to have personally seen it grow up on publicly regulated phone lines.
There's also the time he suggested that setting basic standards for ISPs amounted to "Obamacare for the Internet"[2], a patently ridiculous statement clearly designed to pander to a base that thinks any government is too much government. (Crenshaw has made similar comments, claiming that "They want to do it by classifying the Internet under a law from 1934"[3] - referring to the Communications Act, literally the one that established the FCC and gave them the power to regulate the aforementioned phone lines. It was also superseded by the Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, but who's counting?)
There's also that whole thing where he's spent the last several months pretending that he didn't spread lies about the 2020 election that led directly to a terrorist attack, but now I'm getting off topic.
Except not entirely, because there's also the time three days later that he called Donald Trump's Twitter ban "Big Tech's PURGE, censorship & abuse of power"[4] as if it weren't already well-documented that the only reason it didn't happen sooner - given his numerous violations of their ToS up to and including calls to violence - was his status as a head of state.[5][6] (I would link to examples of some of those violations, but... you know...) Which, specifically, also flies in the face of the same laissez-faire capitalism bit that he would throw around over topics like Net Neutrality - since, if he really believed that, a more logically consistent position would be that Twitter is a private company and is allowed to make its own policies.
In a broader sense, the GOP spent the entire Reagan administration maligning the Office of Technology Assessment, a Congressional office whose literal job was to educate lawmakers so that they have more knowledge about these topics than Ted Cruz displays in public, before eventually defunding it in the mid-90s - an act which directly contributed to a Congress which has issues like this, or like "Senator, we run ads,"[7] or like that time AOC apparently had to explain to colleagues what Twitch even is while they were attempting to legislate about it.[8]
[1] https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280
[2] https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313
[3] https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/111600513626921779...
[4] https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1347919674101657602
[5] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead...
[6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-...
[7] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/10/17222062/m...
[8] https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1288971591968333826
There's also the time he suggested that setting basic standards for ISPs amounted to "Obamacare for the Internet"[2], a patently ridiculous statement clearly designed to pander to a base that thinks any government is too much government. (Crenshaw has made similar comments, claiming that "They want to do it by classifying the Internet under a law from 1934"[3] - referring to the Communications Act, literally the one that established the FCC and gave them the power to regulate the aforementioned phone lines. It was also superseded by the Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, but who's counting?)
There's also that whole thing where he's spent the last several months pretending that he didn't spread lies about the 2020 election that led directly to a terrorist attack, but now I'm getting off topic.
Except not entirely, because there's also the time three days later that he called Donald Trump's Twitter ban "Big Tech's PURGE, censorship & abuse of power"[4] as if it weren't already well-documented that the only reason it didn't happen sooner - given his numerous violations of their ToS up to and including calls to violence - was his status as a head of state.[5][6] (I would link to examples of some of those violations, but... you know...) Which, specifically, also flies in the face of the same laissez-faire capitalism bit that he would throw around over topics like Net Neutrality - since, if he really believed that, a more logically consistent position would be that Twitter is a private company and is allowed to make its own policies.
In a broader sense, the GOP spent the entire Reagan administration maligning the Office of Technology Assessment, a Congressional office whose literal job was to educate lawmakers so that they have more knowledge about these topics than Ted Cruz displays in public, before eventually defunding it in the mid-90s - an act which directly contributed to a Congress which has issues like this, or like "Senator, we run ads,"[7] or like that time AOC apparently had to explain to colleagues what Twitch even is while they were attempting to legislate about it.[8]
[1] https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280
[2] https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313
[3] https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/111600513626921779...
[4] https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1347919674101657602
[5] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead...
[6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-...
[7] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/10/17222062/m...
[8] https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1288971591968333826
Probably a better link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/internet-provi...
Yes, the current link sends me to an article 'State Claims for Unemployment Benefits Drop Again: Live Updates' - not anything related to net neutrality.
Your link seems to point to the correct article, but it is paywalled.
Your link seems to point to the correct article, but it is paywalled.
Mods, could this be substituted?
Changed from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/06/business/stock-marke.... Thanks!
npsimons(1)
jtms(8)
NN is one of those things that I never really understood. I get that people want to "stick it" to their ISPs, but since the NN talk began my internet connection at home has gone from 8mb to 200mb without me having to pay another dime via Spectrum. They called me and just said, "Here, we're upgrading you. You need a new modem to get the speed so that's free too."
I could get 400mb or 1gb if I wanted but 200mb has been more than enough.
I assume there's just very different issues in other parts of the country, but where I live I haven't seen any need for NN so it makes me wonder if there will be some negative effect to my currently good experience?
I could get 400mb or 1gb if I wanted but 200mb has been more than enough.
I assume there's just very different issues in other parts of the country, but where I live I haven't seen any need for NN so it makes me wonder if there will be some negative effect to my currently good experience?
Net neutrality is not about the speed your ISP can provide you. It's about ensuring ISPs don't privilege some traffic over others.
A packet is a packet is a packet. Well, ideally.
Not ideally to some. People with money want their packets treated differently than other packets, and their ideal is just worse for everyone else.
NN isn't about the raw speed. It's about ensuring content from ISP's competitors is available at the same speed as your ISP's content.
If ISPs were just a dumb pipe, this wouldn't be a problem. But most of the major players are part of massive media conglomerates and have incentive to throttle/restrict certain content.
https://i.insider.com/5887a523f10a9a2a768b6ac9?width=700&for...
If ISPs were just a dumb pipe, this wouldn't be a problem. But most of the major players are part of massive media conglomerates and have incentive to throttle/restrict certain content.
https://i.insider.com/5887a523f10a9a2a768b6ac9?width=700&for...
That's right. It's been a while since I've looked at it and I forgot about that aspect.
The issue was ISPs deliberately throttling individual sites, and then demanding them to pay up, mobster style.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-...
https://time.com/2871498/fcc-investigates-netflix-verizon-co...
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-...
https://time.com/2871498/fcc-investigates-netflix-verizon-co...
Huh? Spectrum raises our broadband price every six months, even during the pandemic. It was ~$40 a few years ago and $75 today. I want to quit but only the decrepit ATT is an option, whose site can't even handle billing reliably.
NN is not about broadband speeds, it is about ensuring that the Internet remains what it is -- a general purpose communication system over which new applications and services can be deployed without requiring permission or coordination with the network operators. It is basically just a regulatory statement of the end-to-end principle.
> my internet connection at home has gone from 8mb to 200mb without me having to pay another dime via Spectrum
"See? Without NN, the speeds keep going up! This is great! NN sucks!"
Congrats on being bamboozled.
"See? Without NN, the speeds keep going up! This is great! NN sucks!"
Congrats on being bamboozled.
This announcement may be an intentional excuse to give Biden a new progressive thing to do domestically (it's not new information.) Maybe I'm just hopeful. The administration seems (to me) to be trying to convert/retain the left-of-Democrats audience who only reluctantly turned out for him. They're going to need it.
edit: I'd love a net neutrality bill or order, but I'd prefer net neutrality + prison time for those responsible for the fraud.
edit: I'd love a net neutrality bill or order, but I'd prefer net neutrality + prison time for those responsible for the fraud.
If I understand this article correctly, the information is not new, but the report is following an investigation which has been on-going since the initial FCC comments began.
However I don't see the report linked anywhere in the article, but I do see sporadic statements from the NY A.G. which were made 5/6/2021.
If these were criminal actions created by the previous FCC chair, e.g. using a citizen's name to submit a false comment, the actors at the FCC and at "Broadband for America" should to be held accountable.
However I don't see the report linked anywhere in the article, but I do see sporadic statements from the NY A.G. which were made 5/6/2021.
If these were criminal actions created by the previous FCC chair, e.g. using a citizen's name to submit a false comment, the actors at the FCC and at "Broadband for America" should to be held accountable.
This seems exactly like the kind of pain-free win that the Biden admin has been pulling lately for the base. I suspect coordination, but at this point it's just wishful thinking.
Especially at this particular time: good luck trying to incite an anti-NN right-wing response right now when the primary rhetoric among the right currently is about internet censorship.
Especially at this particular time: good luck trying to incite an anti-NN right-wing response right now when the primary rhetoric among the right currently is about internet censorship.
The whataboutism is already strong in here. Net neutrality is the battleground, but the issue is pretty universal. Corporate actors are signing off on illegal activity to directly undermine the democratic process in a way that should frighten you, and even when they're caught for it they're not being punished.
Investigators with the NY AG's office "said that Broadband for America acted to give Mr. Pai “cover” to repeal the broadband regulations.". The companies fingered by the AG didn't even pay as much in penalties as they made under their contracts with the telecom companies.
The fact that some other corporate actors might be doing similar shit in the other direction is totally irrelevant; if they got caught, we should all want to bring the hammer down on them too.
The fact that some other corporate actors might be doing similar shit in the other direction is totally irrelevant; if they got caught, we should all want to bring the hammer down on them too.
It's hard to say NN is a democratic process when it was done unilaterally by the FCC and not through congress.
It's actually very easy, regulators are directly subordinate to congress and leadership is appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. The fact that people were willing to spend millions of dollars engaging in widespread fraud solely for the purpose of manufacturing the appearance of broad popular support pretty strongly suggests that you're wrong. The campaign directly targeted congressional offices.
If it had necessary support congress can pass a law to grant the FCC new authorities. It seems they can't and don't want to do that.
I wonder if the millions of communications that fraudulently bear the names of their constituents have anything to do with that lack of enthusiasm.
Net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem, and massive overreach.
this was a collaboration between between corporations like Google and Netflix that want to hamper their competition and leftist who aimed to nationalize the internet. this was the vehicle by which they essentially wanted to seize telecom companies.
Without NN for a few years now, have any of the bad things promised happened?
It seems to me that there should be “social media neutrality” — the very real effects of corporate-sponsored censorship have caused more harm than a lack of NN.
It seems to me that there should be “social media neutrality” — the very real effects of corporate-sponsored censorship have caused more harm than a lack of NN.
In reality the whole debacle was astroturfed from both sides, one side just did it better. The pro “net neutrality” movement was funded by google and Netflix and promoted laughable propaganda such as:
What. If. Every. Thing. You. Did. On. The. Internet. Took. This. Long.
Give me a break. There were no “good guys” in this debate, just corporations scrambling to control the popular narrative to suit their business interests.
What. If. Every. Thing. You. Did. On. The. Internet. Took. This. Long.
Give me a break. There were no “good guys” in this debate, just corporations scrambling to control the popular narrative to suit their business interests.
It amazes me that "we don't want to pay for peering" became such a popular "grassroots" movement.
That is definitely not the argument - everyone pays for peering regardless (one way or another). The argument was that Comcast, despite peering agreements, should not make Netflix traffic on their own network slower while prioritizing their own video services traffic on top of it unless Netflix or their customers paid them for the privilege of not being slow - regardless of actual bandwidth.
Net neutrality would say no - they are a defacto utility and need to treat the traffic objectively and fairly without prioritizing their own at the expense of others.
Reprioritizing say ALL video traffic? Perfectly fine. Peering arrangements at the network link layer that would benefit some players due to locality and not others? Perfectly fine as long as they don’t do it explicitly to penalize a competitor (and even then probably fine).
Targeting certain services or protocols because they are a threat to their own products? Or asking for upsell money to get useful speeds for certain protocols not due to network management/bandwidth and handled objectively, but for revenue extraction? Not fine.
Would you like USPS or UPS to be able to charge you extra (the package recipient) to ACTUALLY deliver Amazon’s packages at the rate Amazon paid those companies already to deliver them, since they know you’re buying expensive things a lot and obviously have money? The extra load on their trucks from these packages is awfully expensive after all. Surely once a week deliveries will be fine for now unless you want to kick in? Don’t worry, the spam mailers will still be free.
Net neutrality would say no - they are a defacto utility and need to treat the traffic objectively and fairly without prioritizing their own at the expense of others.
Reprioritizing say ALL video traffic? Perfectly fine. Peering arrangements at the network link layer that would benefit some players due to locality and not others? Perfectly fine as long as they don’t do it explicitly to penalize a competitor (and even then probably fine).
Targeting certain services or protocols because they are a threat to their own products? Or asking for upsell money to get useful speeds for certain protocols not due to network management/bandwidth and handled objectively, but for revenue extraction? Not fine.
Would you like USPS or UPS to be able to charge you extra (the package recipient) to ACTUALLY deliver Amazon’s packages at the rate Amazon paid those companies already to deliver them, since they know you’re buying expensive things a lot and obviously have money? The extra load on their trucks from these packages is awfully expensive after all. Surely once a week deliveries will be fine for now unless you want to kick in? Don’t worry, the spam mailers will still be free.
There's also the fact that Comcast isn't a tier 1 ISP. The only netflix traffic going across their network is traffic specifically requested by Comcast customers. It's not like Netflix (even indirectly through their ISP) is somehow using Comcast's network for non Comcast uses.
Most of the peering talk was leaving that part out, trying to pretend that Netflix was using Comcast's network to reach third parties like is the model being addressed by peering agreements between tier 1 ISPs.
Most of the peering talk was leaving that part out, trying to pretend that Netflix was using Comcast's network to reach third parties like is the model being addressed by peering agreements between tier 1 ISPs.
Correct - it’s blatant double dipping combined with anticompetitive practices against competitors of their own related services.
Net neutrality is not not just the fight over peering. It's also:
* Can an ISP have charge for access to Spotify but not YouTube Music (and presumably get a kickback from YT)
* Can an Mobile phone forbid you tethering on you unlimited use plan?
* Can an ISP ban you using bittorrent?
* Can an ISP have charge for access to Spotify but not YouTube Music (and presumably get a kickback from YT)
* Can an Mobile phone forbid you tethering on you unlimited use plan?
* Can an ISP ban you using bittorrent?
Your questions are making the assumption that this would cost more and limit choice. This is not how markets work, this is exactly what government regulation and crony capitalism does.
Even in the case of your Spotify but not YT music example, what if there was a 5/month offer for 15mb internet with spotify streaming. Because spotify and your provider made a deal that subsidized the plan? At the end of the day, partnerships are not bad for the consumer. YT music could make a competing for deal for less money with more Google offerings. Also, this wouldn't eliminate an unlimited option across the board. When has competition made something more expensive? Its regulations like NN which pour amber over a system and make it impossible to be cheaper or better.
Even in the case of your Spotify but not YT music example, what if there was a 5/month offer for 15mb internet with spotify streaming. Because spotify and your provider made a deal that subsidized the plan? At the end of the day, partnerships are not bad for the consumer. YT music could make a competing for deal for less money with more Google offerings. Also, this wouldn't eliminate an unlimited option across the board. When has competition made something more expensive? Its regulations like NN which pour amber over a system and make it impossible to be cheaper or better.
The questions simply state the scope of the debate.
The fight is over whether ISPs should be able to leverage their position in the uncompetitive infrastructure space to extract rents from the very competitive internet application space.
Perhaps the reason it's so amazing is because that's not actually what net neutrality is about, and never has been, despite a massive propaganda campaign to trick you into believing it is.
Peering is for fellow ISPs. Netflix, as you may or may not be aware, is not, in fact, an ISP. They already pay for their internet access. Do they pay enough? That's between them and their provider. Does their provider need to pay more for peering with its fellow ISPs? That's between the provider and its fellow ISPs.
What we do not need is for me to need to pay for my internet access and a Netflix subscription, and then pay extra just to let Netflix's internet traffic actually reach me.
Peering is for fellow ISPs. Netflix, as you may or may not be aware, is not, in fact, an ISP. They already pay for their internet access. Do they pay enough? That's between them and their provider. Does their provider need to pay more for peering with its fellow ISPs? That's between the provider and its fellow ISPs.
What we do not need is for me to need to pay for my internet access and a Netflix subscription, and then pay extra just to let Netflix's internet traffic actually reach me.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques.
That’s not true. Nailing down what ISPs are allowed to do in terms of QoS is still very much an open question. It’s not legally clear, for instance, why Comcast would be allowed to prioritize real-time video streams yet not be allowed to deprioritize BitTorrent sharing. What you’re referring to is peering discrimination but the whole of net neutrality is a larger and more complex subject.
That’s not true. Nailing down what ISPs are allowed to do in terms of QoS is still very much an open question. It’s not legally clear, for instance, why Comcast would be allowed to prioritize real-time video streams yet not be allowed to deprioritize BitTorrent sharing. What you’re referring to is peering discrimination but the whole of net neutrality is a larger and more complex subject.
Give an example then of the specific rule that blocks standard QOS techniques then. I can't be expected to prove a negative.
Additionally, I'm not just talking about peering discrimination. The residential ISPs want the ability to restrict arbitrary sources and destinations at the last mile even if capacity exists on the rest of their network and their IX.
Additionally, I'm not just talking about peering discrimination. The residential ISPs want the ability to restrict arbitrary sources and destinations at the last mile even if capacity exists on the rest of their network and their IX.
Yea there is a specific rule that prohibits throttling in the 2015 order: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
The caveat is that throttling is allowed if it is “reasonable network management” which is defined as actions being done with a “technical network management justification.”
And this is where legislation ends, under the ambiguity of reasonable and technical. Comcast tested this when a complaint was filed against them for throttling BitTorrent. I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. Enough people probably disagree that they had to deny any such throttling practices, meaning that in practice they would likely not be allowed to throttle based on technical reasons alone.
The caveat is that throttling is allowed if it is “reasonable network management” which is defined as actions being done with a “technical network management justification.”
And this is where legislation ends, under the ambiguity of reasonable and technical. Comcast tested this when a complaint was filed against them for throttling BitTorrent. I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. Enough people probably disagree that they had to deny any such throttling practices, meaning that in practice they would likely not be allowed to throttle based on technical reasons alone.
> I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree.
So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling?
As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling?
As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
> So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling?
The fact that what constitutes “reasonable” and “technical” QoS is ambiguous and strongly dependent on popular opinion is a huge design smell for net neutrality legislation.
> As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
If 20% of your customers are using 80% of your network capacity because of BitTorrent then yes, throttling them is both technical and reasonable.
The fact that what constitutes “reasonable” and “technical” QoS is ambiguous and strongly dependent on popular opinion is a huge design smell for net neutrality legislation.
> As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
If 20% of your customers are using 80% of your network capacity because of BitTorrent then yes, throttling them is both technical and reasonable.
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?
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.
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-firef...
When you start resorting to rationing (data caps), you have an infrastructure problem. Fix it. Don't embrace it.
>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-firef...
When you start resorting to rationing (data caps), you have an infrastructure problem. Fix it. Don't embrace it.
[deleted]
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.
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.
It really does beg the question why it was ever needed in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like how “both sides” here are clearly the corporations and special interests. And since “both sides” here did the lobbying and propaganda we’re now at a place where there’s no value in the comments collected or the debate at all.
I could give a —- expletive — about what the corporations think. What about normal people?
It feels like we need a better audio mix for public policy discourse.
I could give a —- expletive — about what the corporations think. What about normal people?
It feels like we need a better audio mix for public policy discourse.
“Both sides” are solely composed of corporations and their benefactors debating the parameters of a business relationship that has a relatively large fiscal impact on their respective operations. This is not a public issue that concerns normal people at all. The fact that so many normal people think the decision on net neutrality will have a meaningful impact on their lives, the products they use, or even democracy shows how successful these corporations have been in astroturfing this issue. It’s another nothingburger fake political debate of the kind that pervades and rots actual public discourse.
Correct, this is merely a fight between corporations on who controls the flow of information. As we have seen edge providers are also information monopolies who can censor and limit who use their platforms based on subjective whims.
I wouldn't expect Google and Netflix to make any particular effort against net neutrality, since they stand to benefit most from regulatory capture.
(If anyone in their respective industries is in a position to benefit over their competition by making deals with ISPs, it is likely them)
This is reflected in the Netflix CFO's comments in 2015, among others: https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-says-it-still-supports-net...
(If anyone in their respective industries is in a position to benefit over their competition by making deals with ISPs, it is likely them)
This is reflected in the Netflix CFO's comments in 2015, among others: https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-says-it-still-supports-net...
Google and Netflix did campaigns for NN. So did Facebook and other internet and media companies.
One of the most successful was the John Olivers Last Week Tonight piece. I saw some evidence later that the ‘evidence’ provided in that piece (claims from Netflix about throttling) were either fabricated or exaggerated, although I did not look into it too much.
One of the most successful was the John Olivers Last Week Tonight piece. I saw some evidence later that the ‘evidence’ provided in that piece (claims from Netflix about throttling) were either fabricated or exaggerated, although I did not look into it too much.
apologies - I mistyped the direction.
The Net Neutrality argument wasn't that Google and Netflix would be slowed down, it's that everyone else would.
Of course Google and Netflix were going to pay for peering and priority. The question was if everyone else who wanted to get into the video business should have to do so. Comcast wanted to basically double-bill for traffic: they wanted their customers to pay, and then they wanted the services on the other end to also pay.
This is all a moot question nowadays, because the video market is dramatically different than it was a decade ago. "Free-to-air" content is basically all handled by YouTube and Twitch, both of which are services run by companies with the money to afford the storage costs. "Premium" content fragmented into a bunch of different exclusive providers that already have business relationships with cable companies. So there really isn't a competitive video market being stymied out of existence purely because Comcast wants them to pay in order to compete with cable. The barriers to entry in video got a lot higher than just getting double-billed on bandwidth.
(As an example of this: Floatplane, an early-access "premium" platform for people already on "free-to-air" video platforms, had far more problems getting onto iOS than paying for bandwidth. Apple was their existential threat more than Comcast.)
Of course Google and Netflix were going to pay for peering and priority. The question was if everyone else who wanted to get into the video business should have to do so. Comcast wanted to basically double-bill for traffic: they wanted their customers to pay, and then they wanted the services on the other end to also pay.
This is all a moot question nowadays, because the video market is dramatically different than it was a decade ago. "Free-to-air" content is basically all handled by YouTube and Twitch, both of which are services run by companies with the money to afford the storage costs. "Premium" content fragmented into a bunch of different exclusive providers that already have business relationships with cable companies. So there really isn't a competitive video market being stymied out of existence purely because Comcast wants them to pay in order to compete with cable. The barriers to entry in video got a lot higher than just getting double-billed on bandwidth.
(As an example of this: Floatplane, an early-access "premium" platform for people already on "free-to-air" video platforms, had far more problems getting onto iOS than paying for bandwidth. Apple was their existential threat more than Comcast.)
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with individuals and more to do with "entities"..entities like corporations and other very wealthy edge providers. corpos who are more worried about limiting their competition and using government to ensure they aren't impeded.
> This is all a moot question nowadays, because the video market is dramatically different than it was a decade ago.
With distributed computing & peer-to-peer storage networks such as IPFS, this may not be moot.
With distributed computing & peer-to-peer storage networks such as IPFS, this may not be moot.
I have zero faith in P2P video distribution until copyright liability for watching those videos is shifted off of individuals.
Right now, using something like PeerTube is taking your life into your hands. Look at all of the copyright nonsense that hits otherwise legitimate YouTube channels, and now imagine that they get to sue everyone who watched the video, too.
Centralized services can rely on DMCA 512 for liability limitation; and individual viewers almost certainly do not have copyright liability for merely watching a video on a central service. At the very least, you'd have to subpoena the service to get an IP address, and then subpoena the ISP to get at DHCP logs, and then argue to a court that a user that the temporary copies involved with merely watching a video had infringed your copyright.
When you join a swarm that shares a file, you just broadcast that IP address directly to the person who's going to sue you. That's how these networks work. There's a cottage industry of firms that deliberately "leak" their content to BitTorrent and then sue whoever downloads it; that also applies with PeerTube, IPFS, etc. You don't get DMCA 512 liability limitation because it's your own copyright liability. Furthermore it's easier to argue that someone in a P2P swarm has infringed copyright as there's uploading - further copying - involved. So both practically and theoretically speaking it's far easier to get sued in a P2P system.
Also, P2P video is terrible for mobile use-cases. Mobile devices are leeches in a P2P system - they don't have access to unlimited power like a desktop does. So you either flatten the batteries of everyone on phones, or you detect the use of a battery and lose the benefit of the swarm.
Right now, using something like PeerTube is taking your life into your hands. Look at all of the copyright nonsense that hits otherwise legitimate YouTube channels, and now imagine that they get to sue everyone who watched the video, too.
Centralized services can rely on DMCA 512 for liability limitation; and individual viewers almost certainly do not have copyright liability for merely watching a video on a central service. At the very least, you'd have to subpoena the service to get an IP address, and then subpoena the ISP to get at DHCP logs, and then argue to a court that a user that the temporary copies involved with merely watching a video had infringed your copyright.
When you join a swarm that shares a file, you just broadcast that IP address directly to the person who's going to sue you. That's how these networks work. There's a cottage industry of firms that deliberately "leak" their content to BitTorrent and then sue whoever downloads it; that also applies with PeerTube, IPFS, etc. You don't get DMCA 512 liability limitation because it's your own copyright liability. Furthermore it's easier to argue that someone in a P2P swarm has infringed copyright as there's uploading - further copying - involved. So both practically and theoretically speaking it's far easier to get sued in a P2P system.
Also, P2P video is terrible for mobile use-cases. Mobile devices are leeches in a P2P system - they don't have access to unlimited power like a desktop does. So you either flatten the batteries of everyone on phones, or you detect the use of a battery and lose the benefit of the swarm.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are many possible configurations & usages for P2P. Data stored on a DHT is one important tech for having people own their own data.
Also, it's ok to have leaches on a P2P system if you can properly incentivize & pay the hosts. Ethereum, FileCoin, IPFS, Holochain a market for hosting data. Ethereum & Holochain will provide a market for hosting apps.
Also, it's ok to have leaches on a P2P system if you can properly incentivize & pay the hosts. Ethereum, FileCoin, IPFS, Holochain a market for hosting data. Ethereum & Holochain will provide a market for hosting apps.
Petition to re-title this, "No, you're a towel"?
We're in this incredibly undesirable place where instead of debating something, we have this meta debate. "Net neutrality is valid because it's opponents astroturf."
It's pretty funny, because I have the same opinion, but in reverse. Net Neutrality disappeared off the radar, and now all of a sudden it's on HN every other week. Looks like astroturfing to me! "No, you're a towel!"
But you know what? Whether or not something is being AstroTurfed is entirely irrelevant, and debate is fruitless. We can have a debate on Net Neutrality without pointing fingers at who has genuine interest, and who is astro turfing.
We're in this incredibly undesirable place where instead of debating something, we have this meta debate. "Net neutrality is valid because it's opponents astroturf."
It's pretty funny, because I have the same opinion, but in reverse. Net Neutrality disappeared off the radar, and now all of a sudden it's on HN every other week. Looks like astroturfing to me! "No, you're a towel!"
But you know what? Whether or not something is being AstroTurfed is entirely irrelevant, and debate is fruitless. We can have a debate on Net Neutrality without pointing fingers at who has genuine interest, and who is astro turfing.
I mean, I'd be happy to have educated discussions about net neutrality, if I'd ever seen an argument against it that didn't boil down to "I think ISPs should be allowed to make things worse for everyone else—customers, streaming providers, game companies, everyone—just to increase their own already-obscene profits."
And yes, that includes "they should be allowed to do the above Because Freedom".
And yes, that includes "they should be allowed to do the above Because Freedom".
There isn't any major political stance that doesn't use social media and PR groups to astroturf. Anyone pretending they aren't astroturfing are lying and you should be wary of them.
Why was FCC head Ajit Pai able to get away with citing fraudulent evidence? How can we stop such blatant corruption of the FCC's policy-making process in the future?