Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Calls For FCC To Keep 'Strong, Enforceable' Net Neutrality Protections (appleinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the call-to-action dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: Apple has written to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in support for the concept of net neutrality, with its four-page commentary arguing for the government agency to "retain strong, enforceable open internet protections" instead of rolling back the rules forbidding "fast lane" internet connections. "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives," starts the comment signed by Cynthia Hogan, Apple's Vice President of Public Policy for the Americas. Citing a "deep respect" for its customers' privacy, security, and control over personal information, Apple believes this extends to their internet connection choices as well. "What consumers do with those tools is up to them -- not Apple, and not broadband providers," the statement claims, before urging the FCC to keep advancing the key principles of net neutrality. Based on a belief of consumer choice with regards to connectivity, Apple insists broadband providers should not "block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services," and not create "paid fast lanes on the internet." Lifting current FCC bans on these restrictions could allow broadband providers to favor one service over another's, "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today -- to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation." Allowing such fast lanes could result in an internet with heavily distorted competition, caused through online providers being forced to make deals or risk losing customers from providing a hampered service. Apple suggests the practice could "create artificial barriers to entry for new online services, making it harder for tomorrow's innovations to attract investment and succeed," effectively turning broadband providers into a king-maker based on its priorities.

50 comments

  1. They can start with Amtrak by mi · · Score: 1

    Try updating apps on your iOS device while using Amtrak's WiFi. Somehow net-neutrality does not apply to government's own institutions.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:They can start with Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Mi, you still upset that Amtrak, like McDonald's, and the Home Depot, isn't allowing you to use their connection however you want?

      Too bad for you that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

    2. Re:They can start with Amtrak by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I get that everyone thinks every Internet connection should be open and unfettered. The problem is that every connection just isn't robust enough to handle that kind of traffic.

      I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for should be free from restrictions and treat all traffic equally. But using some kind of public Wi-Fi, which Amtrak's service would essentially be? It would be unusable if everyone onboard the train was trying to update GBs worth of apps.

      I really don't even care about video throttling on cellular connections. It makes sense from a network management standpoint. As long as content isn't being blocked outright, the message can still get through. Unfortunately, if you read between the lines of the original Net Neutrality guidelines, the proposed rules did exactly the opposite . There was sneaky language in there about no blocking of lawful content. Lawful where? If one backwater jurisdiction in rural Alabama was to make porn illegal, does that then make it illegal for all providers to block PornHub?

      We're already on a slippery slope with all the bandying about of the term "hate speech" here in the states, even though the First Amendment protects it, that doesn't mean local jurisdictions couldn't still pass feel-good (to their bases, obviously) legislation to ban certain things, and while it wouldn't hopefully pass muster with the higher courts, it might take a while before the laws get struck down, if ever in today's scary climate of people in black masks trying to attack freedom of speech and expression.

      If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal, does that mean Verizon can block access to, say, Breitbart? If Texas were to ban communist speech, could AT&T then block access to Mother Jones? Leaving these loopholes in place opens the door to much wider content restrictions than we have now. I don't disagree that a provider you're paying needs to provide access to the ENTIRE internet, without regards to the content. If anything, the current proposed rules don't go far enough in my opinion, and when it comes to free speech and the open internet, there should be no half-measures. Freedom to access all, period. Someone somewhere can succeed in making something they don't like illegal, that doesn't mean that it actually is illegal, and that doesn't mean that anyone should have the right to block it.

      If it's illegal today, there are already rules in place to remove that content from the internet, and any provider will gladly remove illegal material in a heartbeat. The end-user ISPs don't need to be able to wield that kind of power, and this would just codify that power. As it stands today, no provider is blocking access to any legal content, because they'll just lose subscribers if they do. The market is still working, we don't need another law unless it goes all the way in fully protecting the free and open internet.

    3. Re:They can start with Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try updating them at your home with your own wifi.

    4. Re:They can start with Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, if you read between the lines of the original Net Neutrality guidelines, the proposed rules did exactly the opposite . There was sneaky language in there about no blocking of lawful content.

      That's neither the opposite, nor sneaky. It's entirely legalese, but that's not sneaking, that's the law for you.

      Lawful where? If one backwater jurisdiction in rural Alabama was to make porn illegal, does that then make it illegal for all providers to block PornHub?

      I don't think you proofread this.

      We're already on a slippery slope with all the bandying about of the term "hate speech" here in the states, even though the First Amendment protects it, that doesn't mean local jurisdictions couldn't still pass feel-good (to their bases, obviously) legislation to ban certain things, and while it wouldn't hopefully pass muster with the higher courts, it might take a while before the laws get struck down, if ever in today's scary climate of people in black masks trying to attack freedom of speech and expression.

      Bwahahah. It's hilarious how many people suddenly got apoplectic about a bunch of "people in black masks" trying to attack freedom of speech and expression as if nothing else was part of the situation.

      If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal, does that mean Verizon can block access to, say, Breitbart? If Texas were to ban communist speech, could AT&T then block access to Mother Jones? Leaving these loopholes in place opens the door to much wider content restrictions than we have now.

      If you're concerned about the effectiveness of free speech provisions in law, your problems are far beyond the parameters of Net Neutrality.

      If it's illegal today, there are already rules in place to remove that content from the internet, and any provider will gladly remove illegal material in a heartbeat.

      We've had a few Slashdot discussions about those, it isn't as rosy as you point out.

      As it stands today, no provider is blocking access to any legal content, because they'll just lose subscribers if they do.

      Hah, keep telling yourself that.

      The market is still working, we don't need another law unless it goes all the way in fully protecting the free and open internet.

      The market isn't working though. Some of us do have issues, and some of us would like to be sure we aren't caught reacting to circumstances when we can see the writing on the wall.

    5. Re:They can start with Amtrak by mi · · Score: 1

      I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for

      You pay for Amtrak's WiFi — the cost is included in your ticket.

      It would be unusable if [...]

      That's a perfectly valid argument, yes. My point is, an equally valid argument can be made for filtering this or that in such and such circumstances. Letting the government decide, which argument is reasonable and which is not is tyranny — it gives the bureaucrats undue powers over private enterprises.

      The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC — especially, when the ISP's CEO plays golf with the President and otherwise lobbies the regulators.

      If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal

      They would be in violation of the First Amendment.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:They can start with Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for

      You pay for Amtrak's WiFi — the cost is included in your ticket.

      Nope!

      Check your ticket again.

      That's a perfectly valid argument, yes. My point is, an equally valid argument can be made for filtering this or that in such and such circumstances. Letting the government decide, which argument is reasonable and which is not is tyranny — it gives the bureaucrats undue powers over private enterprises.

      Nope. Check the meaning of tyranny again.

      The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC — especially, when the ISP's CEO plays golf with the President and otherwise lobbies the regulators.

      Nope. Especially not on Trains.

    7. Re:They can start with Amtrak by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      So, what's the answer? How can Amtrak provide a reliable connection to all users while guaranteeing that everyone can download gigs upon gigs of apps and stream 4K video without sacrificing anything? The only thing that comes to mind is some kind of speed tier, where everyone just gets throttled down to some low, kbps range of bandwidth that's wide open.

      Then, the purists will just bitch that throttling should be illegal. The purist in me says that they should forego providing Wi-Fi service at all, and leave it up to the end-user to provide their own cellular connection and be done with it.

    8. Re: They can start with Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purist in me says that they should forego providing Wi-Fi service at all, and leave it up to the end-user to provide their own cellular connection and be done with it.

      Great plan, you hurt Amtrak customers who could be using a wireless plan, and put them at the mercy of cellular providers who still need to be regulated.

      You're like the vegetarian who ends up starving the lion to death.

    9. Re:They can start with Amtrak by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC

      I love the world you live in, and would like to join it, as would the 80+% of the US population that effectively have only 1 true ISP.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. compettion is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    net neutrality could stifle AppleTV.!!!

  3. WTF are these fast lanes? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    everyone seems to be complaining about them but no one can define what they are

    1. Re:WTF are these fast lanes? by chubs · · Score: 1

      Well, they've been banned by the FCC for now, but here's what they used to be: http://www.fiercecable.com/onl...

    2. Re:WTF are these fast lanes? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Fast lanes are network connections that prioritize traffic from one network over traffic from another, causing it to get to customers faster, and/or causing the traffic not preferred by it to be degraded to the point of unusability.

    3. Re:WTF are these fast lanes? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Well, they've been banned by the FCC for now, but here's what they used to be:

      http://www.fiercecable.com/onl...

      One version may have been banned but they have been replaced by things like "zero rating" which is just the same thing by a different name.

    4. Re: WTF are these fast lanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      There was no fast lane involved with Netflix. Netflix was connected to a 3rd party network provider (not Comcast), 3rd parties interconnect to Comcast got saturated. Blame the 3rd party. Netflix didn't want to pay Comcast for a direct connection so kept going with cheaper 3rd parties that couldn't handle the amount of traffic Netflix was sending. Netflix now pays for a direct connection which has nothing to do with net neutrality. Probably solved.

    5. Re:WTF are these fast lanes? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A gig consumer ready plan could be an idea of what a "fast" could be in 2017.
      "Fast" as in gig ready speeds for a consumer priced account would be expected. Expensive for a consumer every month but not having business grade support costs.
      "Lane" as in the service can be expected to keep that speed most of the time down a network and to that account as the better quality services is been paid for.
      Not a business grade product but more network care is provided than on low end consumer grade networks.
      For that a new network has to be offered into an area to paying users expected to take up the new services on offer.
      Someone has to pay in full for that upgrade and then get funds back for all that new work.
      Just build out wealthy areas?
      They have the income to pay for new fast plans every month. So some areas get access to a fast lane and enjoy all the new products and services.
      A poor area might have to just keep using existing networks and never get a fast lane service.
      Poor areas pay just enough to keep the networks they have now but never enough to cover the costs to bring in new fast networks.

      So different groups like to talk of "fast lanes" as a new term to ensure all areas get new networks. Even areas that will never make a profit or can even pay for new services.

      Its a political way of forcing the private sector to network very poor areas that will never pay back for the new services provided.
      As tax payers or as users of a private sector network, someone is expected to have to pay for new networks in very poor areas.
      So expect a lot of talk of fast lanes, network neutrality, what is a lawful website and service, respect, discriminate...
      Its just new words to talk about passing on the full costs new expensive networks in very poor areas.
      Set plan speeds to force more expensive plans to be needed?
      Set data caps to ensure people have to pay much more?
      Take out a huge loan, have the government pay it back over years and build a new network everywhere?
      Just build out wealthy areas and let networks stay as they are in poor areas?
      A lot of cash has to be extracted from users to build new networks and keep network owners and shareholders very happy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: WTF are these fast lanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The 3rd parties did want to upgrade their connection, but comcast refused to upgrade it on their end of it. They wanted netflix or the 3rd parties to pay them to upgrade it, which the 3rd parties refused to do so because each side of the connection is paid for by the company that owns it. So that's why netflix paid comcast for a direct connection.

  4. Hypocritical? by r_naked · · Score: 0, Troll

    "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives,"

    BUT Apple needs to make sure that they retain tight control over their devices......

    I am glad that Apple wants to support net neutrality, but it did just give me a small jab in the ribs as to how hypocritical that sentiment is.

    Open Internet! Walled Garden for Apple!

    --
    -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    1. Re:Hypocritical? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      You haven;t recognised that Apple users have chosen Apple devices. And whenever they are polled, they are pretty happy about it.

      Why are YOU trying to interfere with their choices?

    2. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point by about 3000 feet here. Apple products are a choice consumers make when choosing a device to consume or create content. A lot of people in broadband service areas don't have choice. Apple does not control or throttle access to content.

        If you don't like Apple's policy, buy an Android, or a flip phone or whatever you want. But being an Apple product doesn't prevent you or censor you from internet content. It might prevent you from downloading a malicious app or a version on an app on the Google store, but that isn't an act of censorship. If thats the case you could argue any piece of software available for Windows and not Mac is censorship because you chose to use a Mac or visa versa.

      You can access Netflix on an Apple device just like you can on Android. But if for some reason you are on Comcast or Verizon and you didn't pay for fast lane access you might not be able to, OR if Apple served up music content from a datacenter hanging off a different carrier you might get far worse quality or delays or perhaps, none at all. Net neutrality puts toll roads up in an environment not designed for such tolls.

      By the way, your comment on Apple is monumentally stupid. Apple doesn't prevent you from accessing content on the internet. They aren't censors. They do, however, have standards for how apps and devices made by Apple and third parties handle privacy, control user information, and how data is secured. That is a far cry from what net neutrality is and what it represents.

    3. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People either love apple or hate apple. The polls likely don't include people that have tried apple in the past, but got burned. (what do you mean itunes doesn't support copy\paste of my files from device to device or storage to storage? what do you mean I can't install my own apps lilke VLC? why did all my files on my ipad get deleted one day, just because I uploaded them originally with a tool from linux instead of using itunes?)
      Apple hardware is nice, but otherwise I stick with anything else.

      The captcha for posting was "liberty", which I thought was ironic.

    4. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't manufacture thre internet, but they do make their own hardware.

      Seems fair to me, and not at all hypocritical.

    5. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of IOS users are not programmers
      99% of IOS users are not capable of repairing their devices
      99% of those peoples software/hardware needs are met
      IOS users are high value targets for malware, yet the vast majority of malware is on Android
      And being able to LEGALLY install software I buy on 5 devices has reduced my software costs

      only a very small percentage of IOS users feel any restraint on their devices, yet 100% of them would feel the impact of the loss of net neutrality.

    6. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor little salty troll!

      So short on meme you have to parrot some flamebait.

    7. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People either love apple or hate apple. The polls likely don't include people that have tried apple in the past, but got burned. (what do you mean itunes doesn't support copy\paste of my files from device to device or storage to storage? what do you mean I can't install my own apps lilke VLC? why did all my files on my ipad get deleted one day, just because I uploaded them originally with a tool from linux instead of using itunes?)

      waaah! it breaks when I don't follow the directions! waaaah! waaaah! waaaah!

    8. Re:Hypocritical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaah! They break my hand if I don't follow the directive! Waaah!

  5. Excellent! by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Not only strong net neutrality protections, but enforceable as well. Kudo to Apple for taking this stand.

    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad to see Apple taking this stand, but my impression is that Pai and his sugar daddies are determined to dismantle net neutrality come hell or high water. They made up their mind and they don't give a fuck what *anyone* else wants or says, including US consumers.

      All of these protests matter shit because all that matters is him losing his position, and legislators are too willing to turn a blind eye to the molestation because they benefit as well.

      Pai has basically convinced himself that he's somehow taking a moral high ground by not giving into pressure. He's rationalized his corruption by wrapping himself in a banner of self-righteousness.

      If there's anything worse than being a financially corrupt whore, it's externalizing blame for that and rationalizing your behavior. Pai is a fawning psychopath who cares for nothing other than himself and his masters. He's a spineless fuckdoll for giant communication corporations, and is willing to bend over because of the kickbacks he gives. He cares nothing about anything other than pushing through ISP's wet dreams.

      Eye on the prize Pai, you keep your eye on the prize. History will give you what you deserve.

  6. hashtag where is the server Love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple has written to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in support for the concept of net neutrality, with its four-page commentary arguing for the government agency to "retain strong, enforceable open internet protections" instead of rolling back the rules forbidding "fast lane" internet connections. "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives," starts the comment signed by Cynthia Hogan, Apple's Vice President of Public Policy for the Americas. Citing a "deep respect" for its customers' privacy, security, and control over personal information, Apple believes this extends to their internet connection choices as well. "What consumers do with those tools is up to them -- not Apple, and not broadband providers," the statement claims, before urging the FCC to keep advancing the key principles of net neutrality. Based on a belief of consumer choice with regards to connectivity, Apple insists broadband providers should not "block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services," and not create "paid fast lanes on the internet." Lifting current FCC bans on these restrictions could allow broadband providers to favor one service over another's, "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today -- to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation." Allowing such fast lanes could result in an internet with heavily distorted competition, caused through online providers being forced to make deals or risk losing customers from providing a hampered service. Apple suggests the practice could "create artificial barriers to entry for new online services, making it harder for tomorrow's innovations to attract investment and succeed," effectively turning broadband providers into a king-maker based on its priorities.

    (Home) Servers are devices too! Show them some Love!

    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522219498

    1. Re:hashtag where is the server Love? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the memo. Essentially either you roll an LLC, move up to commercial use and developer contracts or you are a plebian user and cant be trusted to run a server. Home connections will NEVER be officially considered to support servers. Its not a use-case anyone with money at stake wants to encourage. It should be flat out illegal for my ISP to block port 80, but here we are...I have requested multiple times over the last decade to have it removed only for them to tell me to piss off, they wont ever do it.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:hashtag where is the server Love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP blocks port 80, but at least port 443 is open...

    3. Re:hashtag where is the server Love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home connections will NEVER be officially considered to support servers.

      Never say NEVER friend :) I myself lived to see the day, and 8 years in fact of the first non-white-male POTUS. And attitudes and laws regarding cannabis use, and sexual liberty seem to be following that arc of history bending toward justice theory. It may not be as sharp a bend as we'd like, but I am not at all without hope on this matter. I mean, Snowden, Trump, who saw those kinks in the road coming? Other than Matt Groening of course... :(

    4. Re:hashtag where is the server Love? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I'm on comcast and all my ports are open, same when I was on Uverse. There might be some SMTP port blocking, but I don't generally run into that. 22, 80, 443, 8080, 8000, etc. have all worked fine for me.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    5. Re:hashtag where is the server Love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on comcast and all my ports are open, same when I was on Uverse. There might be some SMTP port blocking, but I don't generally run into that. 22, 80, 443, 8080, 8000, etc. have all worked fine for me.

      However the bigger half of the problem (IMO) is that while people like you are able to operate servers in violation of comcast/uverse ToS, at least as far as you can tell for the moment, the software to take real advantage of that capability won't get developed beyond a snail's pace until people feel like they can run the software/service without committing ethical/legal/moral violations (of the ToS they 'agreed' to). This status quo of rare selective enforcement opens up the door (IMO) to evil of the same scale as selective enforcement of traffic and cannabis violations has led to in the past. Gatekeeper bullies and thugs keeping the home entrepreneur out of the commercial internet production game. A field of consumers to harvest, unable and undaring to disrupt and cause big change, is what the establishment wants. In order for Real Free Speech to exist on the internet, the FCC needs to stop playing stupid and look into what the atomic/minimalist "Hello World" version of Free Speech on the internet requires. My calculations suggest it requires the ability for one of the two communicating parties to operate a server, and therefore not be required to agree to some third-party server operator's arbitrary ToS. As well as ISP's losing the ability to discriminate against future customers based on speech(internet usage) conducted in the past (or present, or future- issues of criminal illegality under the sole jurisdiction of the government, not corporate 'judges')

  7. Then include platform neutrality with it. by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

    N/T

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  8. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's politics for sure, but you fail to mention that it depends on which and how many shares you own.

    There is no "sensible" way to manage IP traffic, Cisco kool aid notwithstanding.
    It's been called a series of tubes, but it's more like a series of messages in bottles.
    Better than carrier pidgeons but not by much.

    You just throw bandwidth at it until it mostly works, maybe, hopefully, most of the time.
    Now you need massive excess capacity, so Wall Street makes bank on the broken infrastructure instead of fixing it.

    That's all you need to know about the politics of it.

  9. Re:Summary by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Network neutrality is not the same thing as application neutrality.

    A network is still allowed to prioritize real time packets like video streaming packets to their hearts content. They're just not allowed to prioritize their own over Netflix's or Amazon's over YouTube's.

  10. How about corporate censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading the wording intrigues me a bit:
    >>> broadband providers should not "block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services,"

    Seems like if you're for the spirit of Net Neutrality, you'd be for the spirit of allowing everyone to have a voice, even if they're saying controversial things, so long as they are not advocating violence or breaking the law. So I find it ironic that the same types who are supporting Net Neutrality are not concerned by the SPLC's hate map(which has made several questionable designations, among some legitimate ones), or that it has been used by people who have committed acts of violence. Why would anyone be fine with (say) Google strongarming companies into firing people, or otherwise censoring content with which they disagree, whether it was in fact hateful or not. The type of argument being leveled in favor of Net Neutrality seems to me to be exactly counter to recent events in which some powerful entities are [ab]using their clout to prevent points of view from being heard.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?mcubz=1
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/31/google-issues-ultimatum-to-conservative-website-remove-hateful-article-or-lose-ad-revenue/

    Sure, to some extent the situations are different, but isn't the result largely the same? A few people with enormously concentrated power are censoring content. When they get away with this, who really thinks they will stop there? I don't see it as much different than the arguments behind the Net Neutrality debate, just that the companies to target are slightly different.

  11. Apple tries to do something good?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'm going to faint.

  12. Lets Clear Up Some Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the posts, it appears that many ./ members do not understand the difference between quality of service QOS (which uses port numbers) and other methods of traffic shaping by IP address, or by link. The ISPs do a good job conflating the two topics when interviewing with the media, thereby spreading even more confusion.

    Using QOS, I can give priority to SIP (VOIP) packets on ports 5060 and 5061. When that occurs, web browsing, on ports 80 and 443, does not knock live telephone traffic offline. This is a good thing, especially during emergency calls. ISPs do this all the time.

    Using bandwidth and clock rate restrictions, I can slow a peer's traffic down as it enters my network. I can also use access-lists or firewall rules to deny traffic from a particular address or set of addresses. This is what ISPs have been doing recently to cause poor performance with Netflix and Amazon Prime, or to make them pay extra fees.

    Since Comcast promotes a competing Xfinity service, it could be argued that their dominance as an ISP is being abused in a monopolistic way to expand their content provider services. Except that Comcast is not a monopoly. In fact, they may have agreements with other large ISPs not to compete in the same service areas. This leads to other legal troubles, but I digress...

    Netflix and Amazon pay their ISPs for a given bandwidth, and we pay our ISPs for a given bandwidth. These companies are peers who do not originate network traffic on either end. When Netflix sends us data, it is because we requested it through our ISPs. Therefore, it does not seem right for our ISPs - Comcast, Verizon, etc. to demand money from Netflix in order to permit the bandwidth that the consumers already paid for.

    Evidence of this anti-competitive behavior has been released by Verizon. Comcast has also been caught throttling through VPN speed tests. In fact, after Comcast made a deal with Netflix speeds magically increased.

    ISPs are now using various framing methods to force this bitter pill down everyone's throat. For instance, the original issue was called throttling. Then ISPs announced a fast lane and a slow lane. Finally ISPs came up with a fast lane and a faster lane. All the while, we pay extra for our Netflix subscription to pay off the bridge trolls.

    Thank you Chairman Wheeler, for enforcing Net Neutrality, and shame on you Chairman Pai for trying to convince us that anti-competitive ISP behavior is somehow good for the U.S. public. Your actions may literally result in the forking of the Internet in this country.

  13. Paid fast lanes on the internet by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    A person has the option to buy more bandwidth when they have saved up some wealth.
    Someone worked hard and can now pay for more bandwidth.
    Provide a set slow internet to all users all the time. Enough to pay taxes, surf the web and watch a movie.
    It might be a lower standard but a low quality video stream will be supported.

    Want more bandwidth? Pay for more bandwidth to be connected to an account.
    That could need work in a building. In the street. To get the needed new connection.
    Want 4K, pay for a better connection, the needed 4K ready bandwidth and the account that supports that speed every month.
    Why should any network owner just have to keep building out their networks for free to create instant new fast lanes for poor consumers who will never fund such upgrades?
    Wealthy areas get the networks they can support. Other areas that won't pay for new networks get working internet over existing networks.
    Poor areas get to keep their internet connections. Wealthy areas get to enjoy advanced new networks.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Paid fast lanes on the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't have anything to do with internet fast lanes; that's an idea mostly thrown around on the "content" side of the network (a distinction that I thoroughly detest btw). The point is that you're paying $60/mo for barely passable 6mbit dsl because AT&T refused to use the money that they were given to implement fiber networks to do so; that being the case, they shouldn't be allowed to artificially limit your connection to 3mbits for everything that isn't the att/directv set-top box disaster in an attempt to out-compete better video delivery entities. Additionally, they can't implement data limits to other providers while excepting their own service from those caps.

      Fortunately we haven't really seen many companies abusing they're power in these regards yet, so it's a bit difficult to imagine what the problem would be, or how best to protect against it while also avoiding creating additional problems. The legislation probably needs to be updated anyway though; it's becoming obvious that cable providers are using data caps as an excuse to try to dis incentivize competition in the digital TV space, and while "cable TV" isn't necessarily using IPTV, it's a distinction that has no meaning. Cox or Comcast can hide their TV services behind layers of proprietary tech and illegal cablecards in the interest of achieving the technical advantages of IPTV without users realizing that they are violating net neutrality rules while doing so.

  14. Fuck Apple, they are anti-Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's no wonder they have a knee jerk support for so-called "net neutrality". Any chance those democrat supporting fuckers get to screw over real America they take it.

    1. Re:Fuck Apple, they are anti-Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die in a fire republitard

  15. How could this even work? by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Regarding "enforceable" net neutrality, how can you prove that an Internet transmission is being throttled? Every TCP connection is "throttled", or else it would expand to use all the bandwidth of the Internet. TCP increases its speed until it drops packets. It will drop those packets somewhere in the ten or more hops between a server and your home computer. Those ten hops go over links of different sizes and mixed with traffic of different bandwidths from the other hundred million people on the Internet.

    BTW, those content distributors (who profit by dumping video traffic on end-user ISPs in exchange for monthly fees or ad sales) are continuously changing their routing for their own business purposes (see Google Espresso or Facebook Edge Fabric), ignoring the normally understood way to interpret BGP announcements from end-user ISPs. Sometimes they use peering connections, sometimes transit. Not "neutral" at all.

    Yes, you can easily make a consumer-paid "fast lanes" where end-users pay end-user ISPs illegal. But are you really going to make it illegal for a content distributor to pay an ISP to increase their port sizes at an inter-exchange point, or to put/operate/maintain content caches in an ISP network?

    To date, I've seen no precise technical details that would matter to Internetworking engineers in any of these net neutrality proposals. The jurisprudence to figure it all out would lag about five years behind the technological changes. We now have 400 GbE switches, SDN, NFV, programmable data plane. And some judge is really going to get all this?

    That and and the fact that no actual "net non-neutrality" has ever occurred. There have always been peering disputes on the Internet, and some people have tried to run massive servers on their home computer against their terms of service, but there has never been an ISP that has seriously and consciously impeded a specific Internet content distributor in an attempt to enhance sales of their service in the Western World.

    If there is ever a solid law behind net neutrality, I can assure you it will be 99% nuisance lawsuits against ISP where people will present nebulous evidence in hope of profits.

    Apple is correct in their filing that end-user ISP competition is a good thing. Government needs to get out of the way to allow for competing end-user ISPs. And with 5G wireless coming, I'm sure there will be some.

    1. Re:How could this even work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the technical challenges here, but is this really any different from adjudicating other industries? Does a judge need to be a chemical engineer to hear arguments about a oil well failure, does he need to be a mechanic to hear arguments about an airbag clusterfuck?

      Any normal person or lawyer will need to hire a network engineer to evaluate the situation, and that expert would provide his analysis to the court.

      I will say that some of the "good guys" of this whole argument (like google, netflix etc), seem to have a habit of pushing lots of connections and saturating a network connection just to push low priority traffic like the first 10 minutes of a video stream, or a set of android app updates; often times these distribution methods are so intense that they cause less aggressive network traffic to drop entirely. If there's going to be a healthy state of using the internet as a platform for high performance and high impact applications there needs to be some standards as to what's considered "urgent, use the whole pipe" network traffic vs traffic that can arrive much later.

  16. Be careful Apple, you are a network provider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take a big picture view, hundreds of millions of people use network wires connected to Apple servers as a service they pay for. Why can't I have access to that in a neutral way? Because, if you look carefully enough you will see that Net Neutrality is a made up collection of political positions and not really a principled standard.