Slashdot Mirror
Europe's Net Neutrality Doesn't Ban BitTorrent Throttling (torrentfreak.com)
Millions of Europeans will have to do with throttling on BitTorrent. The Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communication (BEREC) published its guidelines for Europe's net neutrality rules on Tuesday in which it hasn't challenged the BitTorrent throttling practices by many ISPs. TorrentFreak reports:Today, BEREC presented its final guidelines on the implementation of Europe's net neutrality rules. Compared to earlier drafts it includes several positive changes for those who value net neutrality. For example, while zero-rating isn't banned outright, internet providers are not allowed to offer a "sub Internet" service, where access to only part of the Internet is offered for 'free.' However, not all traffic is necessarily "neutral." ISPs are still allowed to throttle specific categories for "reasonable" network management purposes.
I don't see what's wrong with trottling bit torrent OUTBOUND traffic, so long as INBOUND speed isn't altered. This is the practice in most places already.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Want better, less restricted, less spyed upon internet?
Give the government more control.
This will give us all we want.
No, it will not. Government guaranteed net neutrality is a farce. It is only there to give the government more control over this wonderful thing. This thing that grew up and out mostly because of the lack of interference from government.
This will be regretted.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Bring it down to a crawl. These selfish people take up all the bandwidth in order to move stolen contents. It seems the solution has been technical all along.
Your BitTorrent packets have lower priority than most other traffic. That's objective fact.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with it. No one's treating the packets differently based on address.
You guys were only one more story away!!!
Net Neutrality is an issue of prioritising traffic based on source.
Throttling bitcoin is an issue of prioritising traffic based on protocol.
Net Neutrality rules shouldn't cover this, not unless it's lumped together in an overarching them of Quality of Service.
"Millions of Europeans will have to do with throttling on BitTorrent"
All network accesses are neutral, but some accesses are more neutral than others.
Luckily the Dutch rules around neutrality are more strict. The Dutch also tried to push these same rules to be applied to the whole EU. But the corporate world convinced these "politicians" otherwise.
In the Netherlands "zero rating" is strictly prohibited: https://www.bof.nl/2016/05/25/...
In the US (and probably EU). inbound mail (SMTP), etc is usually blocked by ISPs. And sometimes outbound SMTP is also blocked except for a few select mail providers plus access to the ISP's own mail server.
It's probably the only way to keep spam under some semblance of control, but it isn't exactly network neutral. It's much easier for me to host my mail server on Google apps, than it is for me to continue running mail on my own hardware at a colo. The IP block I'm on gets blacklisted, most ISPs won't accept mail from me, and some ISPs refuse to even send me mail. I feel that it's hard to get into the email game unless you're Google, Hotmail/Microsoft, Yahoo, and a handful of others that dominate.
spammers ruined it for us little guys.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What you have just described gives an artificial advantage (or disadvantage in the case of bittorrent) to managed protocols, discouraging innovation. A neutral network should not discriminate based on packet contents whatsoever. It is fundamentally impossible to fairly classify traffic, because there will always be unknown traffic and lack of agreement on priorities. In some cases, encryption may even prevent classification; why should those packets suffer? The only place where QoS is both functional and useful is on a customers own connection, where they set priorities among their own traffic.
Beyond that, an ISP has no business discriminating based on address or packet contents. The moment that is allowed, ISPs game the system. As seen, they invest in smart hardware capable of culling unwanted traffic rather than adding capacity, which inevitably results in a more congested network. This devalues the network for all non-priority traffic. There is exactly one good solution: add more capacity when necessary. This is the simplest, least expensive, and perfectly fair. It also ensures that there will be an excess of capacity available for innovative new protocols and uses.
Im sorry this road can only be used by Ferraris.
Have you considered that the mantra of "limited government" means absolutely nothing to those from non-Anglo-American culures?
And yet you keep bringing them in by the boatload, marginalizing your own position.
Fuck you, cuck.
Did you actually think more legislation by lobbied politicians was going to come out in your favor?
Miss the old days when it wasn't so politicized? Me too.