Slashdot Mirror
Thank You, Phish Fans, For Caring About Net Neutrality (theoutline.com)
If you venture over to Battle For the Net, which encourages internet users to call Congress to advocate for the preservation of net neutrality rules, you'll find something peculiar: Several of the top sites that direct calls are Phish-related. (Phish is an American rock band.) From a report: As someone on Twitter pointed out, the traffic from phish.net -- which describes itself as "a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans" -- appears to be coming from a pop-up message that greets visitors to the site. The same pop-up, which directs to www.battleforthenet.com, appears when you visit the site's forums and setlist pages. So, it appears that Phish fans, while in the midst of discussing their favorite extended noodling sessions, are leading the charge to save us from our impending telecom-dominated hellscape. Thanks, guys!" Phish.net sees over 400,000 unique visitors each month, according to web analytics firm SimilarWeb. In July, the website served over one million unique visitors.
I don't understand what I just read. Is Phish bad? Is it related to Phishing?
Don’t worry; google, Apple and he rest will issue a statement that they are “disappointed by the decision” 20 pages deep on their sites that no one will see.
Some kind of hint about what "Phish" is would be nice. Without that context the summary doesn't really give any real information or even let the reader know if TFA is worth looking at.
Clicked on the link and RTFA. Never had been to outline.com site before. You almost can't tell where the story stops and the ads start. They look the same, sound the same with what seems to be the same quasi-plagiarized material that's on 100 other sites these days. Christ, it must be easy to sell advertising these days. Won't be going back to outline. Been there, it sucks.
That's all I wanted to know.
Whatever. We don't let the canal operators determine who gets the water; its the same thing.
"Shape their traffic"; that's hilarious. Its not theirs. Its their customers' traffic. Their business is in providing the channel. If Youtube and Netflix are their big problem, then they should just switch to billing per unit usage. Then individual customers can and will police their own usage, and make their own decisions about whether they want to pay for watching hi-def video.
Believing made up scare stories. Internet doomsday is almost upon us. Unlike all the other doomsdays that were predicted thousands of other times, this one is going to happen for sure!
Believing stories made up to scare you is the ultimate in wise decision-making methods.
You don't seem to understand what net neutrality is. Ouch.
Thanks, Phish fans, for doing the bidding of two or three giant corporations! You're the best.
But Google and Netflix love us! They are want to save us from the bogeyman. Wake up and smell the bogeymania!
I'd have expected Reddit to have been up near the top... a lot of popular (and unpopular) subreddits have pushed and stickied the battleforthenet link.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy detection meter at 90%.
Hahaha Phish... Hipster.... You clearly don't know who Phish is.
Trump is a this year...
That sums him up pretty nicely, yes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hey, everybody! It's ScentCone showing off his customary disconnect from reality. Colour me surprised.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hey, everybody! It's ScentCone showing off his customary disconnect from reality. Colour me surprised.
In this context, "reality" means made up scare stories.
You don't seem to understand what net neutrality is. Ouch.
Yes, I do. And it is a major roadblock to smaller operators being able to provide internet access to smaller markets where the larger companies will never set foot. The "ouch" part is YOU not understanding how this Obama regulation does that, because you're comfortable in your well-wired little enclave and really don't care enough about fly-over country to worry about why it is millions of people have little better than dial-up internet in 2017. The slamming on of the brakes in that area is a symptom of things like NN. Which you'd know if you did a little homework.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I see. So, tell me all about your experiences with small local ISPs and how they aren't at all concerned with federal regulations that prevent them from shaping their traffic. Please, get into some details of your familiarity with that topic, rather than just dishing out some lazy ad hominem that directly avoids even touching on the substance of the matter. Looking forward to you saying something actually on the topic, instead of trying to deflect with some juvenile insults.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, small ISPs in rural areas are not "in reality" the least bit troubled by facing friction with the FCC if they try to manage their very limited resources by not having two or three huge corporations burning up 90% of their bandwidth streaming cat videos?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The slamming on of the brakes in that area is a symptom of things like NN.
In the sense that Hurricane Harvey is a symptom of things like gay sex.
Inteligent people like thoughful, intelligent musicians.
No, I was saying Net Neutrality is based on made up scare stories. We keep hearing we need Net Neutrality as a talisman to keep the bogeyman away and prevent Internet doomsday.
Ordinary rules, created to respond to specific, genuine needs, based on actual events that have actually occurred, apparently don't meet the groupthink test of righteousness.
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know a thing about net neutrality. The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
There is absolutely nothing about net neutrality which would prevent a small ISP from doing "things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices" as you claim.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
>muh small ISPs
show us one Verizon employee.
>TLDR wah wah
jesus you whine like a little bitch
fluffhead w00t w007
ScentCone blathered:
Thanks, Phish fans, for your hipster disdain for those deplorable people in flyover country. You know, the ones that will only ever get usable internet access when small, local ISPs provide it to them. But who can't possibly throw Comcast- or Verizon-sized corporate budgets at the compliance costs of an intrusive regulator regime, and who can't trot out things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices. Thanks, Phish fans, for doing the bidding of two or three giant corporations! You're the best.
In other news: black is white, up is down, and the speed of light is regulated by the FCC.
I happen to live in rural Ohio, where the iLEC does its "traffic shaping" by hard-limiting DSL to 768/112 kbps at the DSLAM for folks who live outside of the city limits. It doesn't have to do that, because it runs fiber to the DSLAM, but its NOC operators are paint-by-number idiots, managed by an incompetent nincompoop who got his job via nepotism.
Note that this iLEC basically owns rural southern Ohio. It offers higher speeds within city limits, because it has to try to compete with Time Warner/Spectrum there - and is hemmorhaging customers to EvilCorp, because TW/Spectrum's current entry-level service is nominally 100mbit (in practice, it's closer to 120mbit, as measured by me via DSLspeed).
You are advocating the entire country be held hostage by the mega-ISPs for the dubious benefit of rural incumbents, most of whom couldn't find their asses with both hands and a GPS, technically speaking.
Oh, and most Phish fans are hipsters in the same sense that Jerry Garcia was a military strategist ...
Check out my novel.
Actually it's the opposite.
Net neutrality is cheap to implement. Breaking net neutrality require more complex routers/software which are not worth developping if you are a small ISP.
Small ISPs tend to respect net neutrality and large (if allowed) tend not to.
There is the cost of the upstream equipment, and peering equipment for the rural ISPs. While the media may be able to handle higher traffic, it doesn't mean the routers and other equipment can handle a higher load from all the subscribers being routed through that equipment. *I do not work for any ISP... Though, rural ISPs might be able to charge $1,000 a month for "internet bundles" similar to cable packages if Net Neutrality wasn't a thing. Which would create a more rapid ROI for the internet infrastructure in rural areas.
Translation:
The market worked.
Government got involved.
Big business allies with big government.
Problems.
Now, your solution is...more government? How about severing big business from big government instead?
https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/
Are you sure you have time to post this comment in between sucking corporate dick, Mr. Pai? You don't want to keep Comcast waiting.
Thank you, ScentCone, for doing the bidding of two or three giant corporations (Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner)! You're the best.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Yeah, big corporations like Google and Netflix are bad!
I prefer little Mom 'n Pop corporations like Comcast and AT&T!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
ISP's can already (and do, obviously) manage network resources by customer. So if all their customers are using 90% of their bandwidth to watch Netflix, then what exactly is the problem?
How dare people use 90% of the internet to do 90% of what they do on the internet!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Yes, I am entitled to use the bandwidth I have bought from my ISP to access whatever sites I want. Just like I am entitled to use the electricity I buy from the power company to power whatever I want. I'm entitled because I paid for it. That's what Capitalism is, comrade.
What you're basically saying is the power company should be able to cut my electricity because I plugged in a particular brand of toaster.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
So, tell me all about your experiences with small local ISPs and how they aren't at all concerned with federal regulations that prevent them from shaping their traffic.
Please, tell me yours. Because in none of your comments have you actually backed up this assertion. Name the ISP, and provide a source that shows they are particularly concerned about regulations against shaping traffic based on content, not just regulations in general.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
What percentage of American households is actually served by a small local ISP these days?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that figure is represented by a single digit.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
https://www.freepress.net/blog...
EXACTLY!
With net neutrality, the little guys and startups can try to compete with the big boys. Without it, they will never be able to get in the game.
The oldest /. story I could find on net neutrality the tenor of the comments is largely that the internet was founded on net neutrality and it wasn't until ISPs figured out yet another way to swindle consumers that it was even an issue.
What happened? More partisan politics? More paid shills and less moderation? For all the things that would divide the /. folk, there were two things that united us: free competition within a market free of monopolistic interference (hi Microsoft!)...and Natalie Portman covered in hot grits.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Its originator, Professor Wu, is even against the monster it has turned into.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Yes, I am entitled to use the bandwidth I have bought from my ISP to access whatever sites I want.
You just don't want the people who grow your food to be able to use the internet. Because you're special, and they're not.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
When you're a provider using, say, fixed wireless ... you DO want to pick out destinations/sources like Netflix to throttle because their operation can represent an enormous portion of all of the traffic a provider might be able to carry. Sometimes pushing 90%. So yes, a provider may want to throttle just Netflix, for reasons that go to whether or not they can even stay in business. Or in many cases, they give up trying to start such service businesses because they know that people like you will be there defending a handful of giant corporate content sellers as they swamp such networks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Whoosh. It's the paying customers who are wanting Netflix. Netflix doesn't "push" anything, paying customers pull the content they want. And it's not the ISP's place to determine what customers want. o, there's absolutely no legitimate reason to throttle "just Netflix" - if demand exceeds capacity, under net neutrality an ISP can throttle everyone equally without regard to the content provider. If they do so and limit everyone equally, it doesn't violate net neutrality, so maybe everyone can get email and no one can get a reasonable video stream, but it's equitable=neutral. Why should they be able to limit "just Netflix," when customers could just as well be streaming Youtube, or HBO Go, or Amazon video, or myriad or other streaming services?
Double whoosh, because this is obviously all way, way, over your head in understanding.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yep, that's what I said, totally.
I actually work for a small company who is trying to provide people in rural areas with Internet using distributed WiFi.
So yeah, go fuck yourself, but you'll have to wait for Comcast to pull out first.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Why? You're the one who seems obsessed with making sure that only companies the size of Comcast get to provide real service. They've totally played you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If this flyover country is the kind of country where folks think it is a jolly right thing to censor the (legal) porn sites that they consider to go to far, or the community forums where all sorts of people from far away lands (maybe 2 states over) talk about things they find offensive, then I don't think that affordable censored internet service is a value I want to see widespread. What matters is widespread affordable access to an Information Superhighway of Free Speech. Democracy Demands IT.
exactly.
its not ntflix, its the bandwidth consumed. well: theres ways to fix that: make the consumer pay for the bandwidth consumed.
its almost like people have forgotten how to be friggin capitalists instead of job-killing monopolists
in other news: electric company lobby demands that electric companies get to throttle usage by energy-hungry appliances.
Talk about "whoosh." I specifically mentioned a scenario where the PROVIDER has limited bandwidth, and has to do what it can to make their network usable DESPITE the fact that interaction with Netflix and Hulu etc would - without any traffic prioritizing - burn up all of their resources. You understand this, you're just pretending you don't because you're rooting for the very large providers, and don't care about the millions of people who can't even get bad DSL. That's fine - just come right out and say it, instead of pretending people don't see right through your little charade.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...and absolutely noting in net neutrality prevents an ISP from limiting bandwidth, as long as they do it equitably (e.g. everyone gets X Mbps, regardless of whether they're trying to stream video or getting email or web browsing. There's no need for "traffic prioritizing," that's a red herring, you can do traffic shaping without regard to the content. First you said "just Netflix," and now you say "Netflix and Hulu etc." Make up your mind and try to form a cogent argument. You obviously don't understand networking.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
When specific types of traffic from just a few huge companies DO burn up almost all of your bandwidth, yes there IS need for prioritizing it. Why do you care if the people who own a network outside Wichita, where thousands of customers have never been able to seen the internet above dial-up speeds, decides to dial back some streaming video traffic from two or three huge corporations so the local community college's distance learning streaming can run without buffering? Is it just the thought of that that makes you so mad you're willing to keep Obama's fiat rule on this in place, rather than supporting actual legislation, instead? Did a small ISP hurt your family once or something? Do you hate the idea of farmers and small companies outside your comfortable suburban existence having access to resources like this? Maybe its farmers you hate so much.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You keep making untrue and unsupported claims. When you get into that community college and learn to not be an idiot, come back with some reasoned argument.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I was enjoying this comment till the anti-rural thing came out. Why dirty your post with that?
omfglearntoplay commented:
I was enjoying this comment till the anti-rural thing came out. Why dirty your post with that?
It's not anti-rural at all. It's anti-iLEC.
Urban iLECs (i.e. - the so-called "Baby Bells") have been forced, kicking and screaming all the way, to upgrade their systems to compete with cable TV MSOs-as-CLECs for the ISP market. Many of them have clueful technical staff at the NOC, and have an actual strategy for physical plant upgrade to compete with the Spectrums, et alia, because they're basically locked into a cage match with the cable bigs. Not so for the majority of the rural iLECs, who continue to enjoy de facto monopolies in their respective service areas, because the MSOs and regional iLECs don't see a sufficient ROI in building out the systems necessary to compete with them. So, they tend to coast - putting just enough investment into their plants to continue to qualify for Federal subsidies. but not enough to provide even the current definition of broadband service to the vast majority of their customers (apart from those who live in sufficiently densified neighborhoods - which is to say "townies" - to make that profitable in the short term). On top of that, they tend to have a lack of qualified tech people in their local talent pool, because those folks get frustrated by the lack of opportunity in very rural areas, and/or get seduced away by the cultural, social, and other advantages of big-city life.
That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that rule, because there most definitely are. (Two I could point to are Jaguar Communications in southern Minnesota, a CLEC which has absorbed all but a handful of the region's rural iLECs, to their customers' great advantage, and SierraTel in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California, which has steadily built out its infrastructure, and which has at least one world-class routing wizard at its northern NOC.) But, in the main, it's accurate enough.
(Full disclosure: I used to write a column for CLEC Magazine, back when that was a thing ...)
Check out my novel.