Slashdot Mirror
EU Commissioner: I Will End Net Neutrality Waiting Game
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ZDNet:
"Europeans are a step closer to seeing new net neutrality rules put in place, after the release of an EU regulators' report on how often ISPs and operators throttle their services. On Tuesday, digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said the release of the report from by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) means she will make recommendations to the EU on preserving net neutrality, which aims to make sure ISPs do not unfairly restrict customers from accessing the service or application or their choice. 'BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for (PDF). For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,' Kroes said in a statement. 'Given that BEREC's findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe,' she added."
Let me guess -- ISPs cannot restrict access to websites in order to profit, but governments can order ISPs to restrict access to websites to protect the profits of entertainment companies?
Palm trees and 8
Hollywood got back to us, and said we couldn't do it.
"You cannot block any website...... except pornography. Or bittorrent sites. Those you can block and in fact, we DEMAND you block them."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,
As an aside, really: has a regulatory agency ever NOT found a need for more regulations and regulatory actions? Just seems kind of dog-bites-man.
See? Europe is the best country in the world.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
The mind boggling thing is that we are still actually arguing the need for this in the U.S.
When ATT was the phone company we made DAMN certain it couldn't extend or leverage its monopoly position. Stopping ISPs from leveraging their monopoly duopoly position to controlling your content choices is a no brainer.
I've been trying to wrap my head around this for some time now.
As the internet becomes more important for global commercial and cultural enrichment, the US insists on stripping away rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, have come to cherish.
And 99%* of Americans couldn't possibly care less. (*hyperbole)
Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.
The only reason I can see is that Americans have a different societal outlook. Americans value possession (having stuff) above all else.
It's all about our stuff. We are the pre-schoolers (kindergarten, etc...) of global politics. Both literally (youngest 1st world country) and figuratively (we are the whiniest bunch of brats). How many Americans can name 5 neighbors (different households)? How many Americans still eat a weekly meal with non-nuclear family members?
I love America, (it's where I keep all my stuff) but enough is enough. I'm seriously considering emigrating. I live in New England and from what I've seen and read, northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc...) all seem to have "similar" weather and significantly better socio-political climates.
This country needs a serious re-tuning. Not sure how or by who, but please let it be for the better.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Hopefully he can do it before the EU collapses under the weight of 70 years of socialism.
Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as âoeInternetâ at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.
(Emphasis mine)
Sounds to me like no ISP in any country that orders a block on, say, TBP, should be able to market itself as providing Internet access under this proposal.
Palm trees and 8
...but let's see those pesky details.
Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.
Yes, you want to make sure monopolies don't exploit their position. BUT, you also you want to make sure the ISPs are capable of managing their network.
I've worked in the telecom equipment space, and the issue is complex. Attitudes that say things "Don't block or throttle anything" don't jive well when actually trying to provide service.
Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
So would it not make sense for ISPs to prioritize such traffic above others? To some people this violates net neutrality. I think its a reasonable think to have a discussion on.
Theoretically, you could complicate the entire purchasing experience by having people purchase bands for real time data and modify clients to take advantage of those things, but again... now you're introducing crazy complexity in what used to be a simple purchase.
It's not as simple as saying we want net neutrality. It's getting into the nitty gritty of the actual laws that is complicated.
>>>Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
ISPs could control this very easily by imposing data caps, and charging extra when you go over them. That would force the leechers to cut back on their downloads, and thus free-up space for people to make Skype calls. (They could also try installing an extra parallel cable, thus doubling the available bandwidth.)
As for jittery video, the internet is less-prone to jitter than broadcast television. The wind blows, a tree blocks the antenna, and the sound drops out (the reporter sounds like he's stuttering). Or lightning strikes in a nearby storm and the picture freezes, so you miss 1-2 seconds of video. Internet video is FAR more reliable, thanks to buffering.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
But when their Vonage calls are always jittery while their Comcast/Xfinity calls work Just Fine, that's when things start to smell funny, with or without background downloads.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada might disagree, old-timer.
Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.
I would argue that the regular people against "net neutrality" in the US know exactly why they're against it. Because all the legislation proposed so far that has been billed as "net neutrality" with hopeful-sounding titles has had very little to do with *actual* net neutrality (throttling, etc), but have been principally about government gaining more control over the internet.
We're still waiting for a *real* net neutrality bill to be introduced in the US Congress that does not also hand the government far more control & regulatory power over the internet (or at least one that hasn't been instantly killed by one or both sides because of that lack).
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I would argue that the regular people against "net neutrality" in the US know exactly why they're against it. Because all the legislation proposed so far that has been billed as "net neutrality" with hopeful-sounding titles has had very little to do with *actual* net neutrality (throttling, etc), but have been principally about government gaining more control over the internet.
We're still waiting for a *real* net neutrality bill to be introduced in the US Congress that does not also hand the government far more control & regulatory power over the internet (or at least one that hasn't been instantly killed by one or both sides because of that lack).
Strat
Well, you're technically correct. The "net neutrality" proposals in the US have tried to add government regulation to force AT&T, Verizon, etc to treat all packets the same. You may want the "net neutrality" which allows ISPs to share $50/GB for Netflix and Skype packets, and $1/GB for Xfinity packets.
For some reason, most of the "government will control our lives" rants I've heard recently are traceable back to lobbyist companies paid by large companies. You see, lobbyists know that "the government is taking over" makes people's minds shut off and their knees jerk wildly.
Government taking over industry to control how much mercury they can emit near me and my kids? I like it. Government passing regulations to force credit card companies to use standardized contracts and terms? Please! Government regulations forcing companies and states to treat married homosexuals just like married heterosexuals? I wish!
If you use "government taking over" as an argument against something, you aren't making a real argument. Many regulations are bad, and the government does lots of dumb-ass and scary things. But you need to argue the against the actual regulations, not jerk your knee against "the evil government".
Well, you're technically correct. The "net neutrality" proposals in the US have tried to add government regulation to force AT&T, Verizon, etc to treat all packets the same.
That's the point. The "necessary regulations" to establish/enforce actual ISP network practices for net neutrality would take up only a few pages. That's not the part people have a problem with.
What comes before Congress is one of those abominations that wipe out whole forests to print out. Then it gets metric crap-tons of amendments and riders added to it that make it even more of a stinker. One is lucky if the part about actual net neutrality can even be found without a syllabus or table of contents...that is if that part didn't get (oops) dropped altogether.
If you use "those against $LEGISLATION are just anti-government nuts" as an argument for passing something, you aren't making a real argument. The necessary regulations aren't the problem, it's all the other unnecessary crap that is included that is the problem.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The proper solution is to give each subscriber a share of the available bandwidth based on their subscribed plan or SLA and then allow them to specify how to prioritize the traffic within their share. If they want their VoIP packets to take priority over their bittorrent download they could specify that, but they shouldn't be able to have their VoIP packets take priority over *my* bittorrent download.
Sure this takes shaping resources, but the cost of that is dropping constantly.
I demand transport neutrality! Why should those rich businesses that can afford "central" locations get a convenient subway / metro / tube station within convenient walking distance, while smaller businesses in the suburbs are served only by bus? It serves only to reenforce the growth of the already successful! The population should demand that the transport service providers give equal access to all businesses that reach their customers via that infrastructure.
Isn't there a technical solution for this? Like making all traffic marked with "Live"/"bulk" markers on application level?
I know this discussion is mostly about here and now, but some kind of QoS system with hints from apps would be a lot more flexible and give better results (the shedulling starts at users computer).
I don't know how you define a "new" country, separation or re-foundation?
- Canada separated in 1931 [with amendments in 1982]
- Australia federated in 1901, gained more legal powers from 1939, [with amendments in 1986]
- Norway regained independence [from Sweden] in 1905.
- Iceland regained independence [from Denmark] in 1946.
- Germany was formed in 1949 and re-united in 1990(!)
While technically "second world":
- The Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993.
On the other hand the country was separate, but in unions with Denmark and Sweden since 1397. The country itself was of course united after a civil war back in 800.
Again, largely theoretical. It also complicates the purchasing experience. There's also the issue of client applications. How do you detect them? How do you make sure they are obeying their protocol? What if a user intends to throttle bit torrent traffic thinking it is for downloads... but this accidentally hits their World of Warcraft traffic too? And of course the complexity of traffic shaping added into the whole mix.
I don't really know of any proper solution for the mass market.
At one time I thought a simple rule like ISPs can only throttle the user... not per application would be best.
But I don't know. In the end, it is just complicated. I think we'll probably end up with some general rules, as well as a regulatory body to oversee what throttling policies are in use and if they violate monopoly.