Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality is Not a Pirates' Fight Anymore (torrentfreak.com)
Today millions of people are standing up for net neutrality and an open internet. The "Battle for the Net," backed by companies including Amazon, Google, and Netflix, hopes to stop a looming repeal of current net neutrality rules. While the whole debate was kickstarted ten years ago when torrent users couldn't download their favorite TV-shows, it's no longer a pirate's fight today, writes TorrentFreak: Historically, there is a strong link between net neutrality and online piracy. The throttling concerns were first brought to the forefront in 2007 when Comcast started to slow down both legal and unauthorized BitTorrent traffic, in an affort to ease the load on its network. When we uncovered this atypical practice, it ignited the first broad discussion on net neutrality. This became the setup for the FCC's Open Internet Order which was released three years later. For its part, the Open Internet Order formed the foundation of the net neutrality rules the FCC adopted in 2015. The big change compared to the earlier rules was that ISPs can be regulated as carriers under Title II. While pirates may have helped to get the ball rolling, they're no longer a player in the current net neutrality debate. Under the current rules, ISPs are allowed to block any unlawful traffic, including copyright infringing content. In fact, in the net neutrality order the FCC has listed the following rule: "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity." The FCC reasons that copyright infringement hurts the US economy, so Internet providers are free to take appropriate measures against this type of traffic. This includes the voluntary censoring of pirate sites, something the MPAA and RIAA are currently lobbying for. That gives ISPs plenty of leeway. ISPs could still block access to The Pirate Bay and other alleged pirate sites as a voluntary anti-piracy measure, for example. And throttling BitTorrent traffic across the board is also an option, as long as it's framed as reasonable network management. The worrying part is that ISPs themselves can decide what traffic or sites are unlawful. This could potentially lead to overblocking. Currently, there is no indication that any will, but the net neutrality rules do not preventing these companies from doing so.
All I see on Google's front page today is some tribute to a costume designer who died in 2012. Informing others about the recently deceased is apparently more important to Google.
This issue has always had broad implications.
Twinstiq, game news
It doesn't matter. I want net neutrality because I want new entrants into a field to have equal ability to compete without being in a slow lane. I want ComCrap and VeriZonE to have to count their own lame services against their data caps too so that they can't push people off of NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon Instant, YouTube, etc. When the desires of the corporation and individual meet - for that moment they can be allies.
Thinks they support this for YOUR benefit.
Who cares that they only support this for their own benefit? In this case, their and our interests align extremely well: we want to be able to choose from whom to purchase internet services and they want us to have the freedom to choose because their services are currently a consumer favourite. Give it a few years and their opinion may change if they suddenly find they are competing with a new startup but the longer net neutrality lasts the better established and harder to change it becomes.
None of the companies allegedly supporting net neutrality is mentioning this on their home page today.
I have a big grey banner across the top of my Neflix screen right now that proves otherwise.
Amazon's major deal of the day was a notice about Net Neutrality.
Mark Zuckerberg's post would have been at the top of his 93million follower's feeds.
And Google while they didn't put it on their home page for search definitely put it on the top of their blog: https://www.blog.google/topics...
...there will be an encrypted version of the internet available on another level.
Rest assured of it.
..and if they ban or otherwise succeed in destroying encyption, there will always be someone who creates unsullied encryption to power it. Viva la revolución! You can't stop the signal!
The thing about internet access is its a two way street. It isnt just you that needs to pay, its the people sending stuff to you.
Way back, Netflix had a problem because their ISP, Cogent, was demanding settlement free peering from Level 3, however Cogent was dumping way more data onto their network than vise-versa so Level 3 told them to shove off. In response to this, Netflix negotiated with Level 3 and switched to using them as an ISP. it turned out that Netflix got the cheapest rate ever from any ISP for so much data. Almost overnight, it was then Level 3 demanding settlement free peering from Cogent but turns out Cogent no longer wanted settlement free peering since it was now Level 3 dumping more data onto their network than vise-versa.
The problem has always been that Netflix is a cheapskate when it comes to their ISP choice. They go with the lowest bidder and then... surprise... the lowest bidder couldn't deliver the enormous and still growing volume of Netflix traffic to other backbones.
So then Netflix went on a campaign. Vilify your local ISP for the fact that Netflix's ISP couldnt deliver enough data over the interlinks between ISPs at the cost they were charging Netflix.
This whole damn thing w.r.t. Netflix has been them manipulating your opinion by hiding details about the economics of the Internet. The sender pays the cost of delivery, and it must be this way because the receiver may not have asked for the data. That bill you are paying to your local ISP may seem like it covers the costs, and maybe it even does, but the fact remains that it is not only illogical for the receiver to pay, making it so allows quite simple abuse that cant be prevented. Packets would be hot potatoes that the ISP's would dump off their network as soon as possible, even if its destination was within their network. Imagine if you had to pay a penny for each email you received. Yes, all that spam too. Netflix argument, once all the facts are on the table, is exactly that. They want the receiver to pay because... they are the sender.
Comcast did some bad shit with torrent packets... but they were in the right to limit the interlink between their backbone and Level 3's because Level 3 was insisting on keep their settlement free status even though the facts on the table were that they were no longer even close to qualifying for such status. Not even close. We are talking hundreds-to-one ratios where even a 2:1 ratio is on the verge of unacceptable.
If you want to do the right thing, demand that Netflix accepts the consequences of going with the lowest bidder. Refuse to let AT&T, whose crappy twisted pair cant deliver HD content to most of its customers, defend its crap network via legislation.
MOST OF ALL THO - Refuse to let the ISP's be defined as common carriers while the DMCA is still in effect. Common Carrier status comes with benefits as well as downsides. They will use the DMCA to eliminate the downsides and you wont be able to do anything about it because... common carrier. STOP BEING SUCKERS
"His name was James Damore."