Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Won't Promise To Treat All Traffic Equally After Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The FCC voted to put an end to net neutrality, giving internet providers free rein to deliver service at their own discretion. There's really only one condition here: internet providers will have to disclose their policies regarding "network management practices, performance, and commercial terms." So if ISPs want to block websites, throttle your connection, or charge certain websites more, they'll have to admit it. We're still too far out to know exactly what disclosures all the big ISPs are going to make -- the rules (or lack thereof) don't actually go into effect for another few months -- but many internet providers have been making statements throughout the year about their stance on net neutrality, which ought to give some idea of where they'll land. We reached out to 10 big or notable ISPs to see what their stances are on three core tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Not all of them answered, and the answers we did get are complicated. [The Verge reached out to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Charter (Spectrum), Cox, Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink), and Google Fi and Google Fiber.]
Many ISPs say they support some or all of these core rules, but there's a big caveat there: for six of the past seven years, there have been net neutrality rules in place at the FCC. That means all of the companies we checked with have had to abide by the no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization rules. It means that they can say, and be mostly correct in saying, that they've long followed those rules. But it is, on some level, because they've had to. What actually matters is which policies ISPs say they'll keep in the future, and few are making commitments about that. In fact, all of the companies we contacted (with the exception of Google) have supported the FCC's plan to remove the current net neutrality rules. None of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment -- or even a comment -- on paid fast lanes and prioritization. And this is really where we expect to see problems: ISPs likely won't go out and block large swaths of the web, but they may start to give subtle advantages to their own content and the content of their partners, slowly shaping who wins and loses online. Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.
Many ISPs say they support some or all of these core rules, but there's a big caveat there: for six of the past seven years, there have been net neutrality rules in place at the FCC. That means all of the companies we checked with have had to abide by the no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization rules. It means that they can say, and be mostly correct in saying, that they've long followed those rules. But it is, on some level, because they've had to. What actually matters is which policies ISPs say they'll keep in the future, and few are making commitments about that. In fact, all of the companies we contacted (with the exception of Google) have supported the FCC's plan to remove the current net neutrality rules. None of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment -- or even a comment -- on paid fast lanes and prioritization. And this is really where we expect to see problems: ISPs likely won't go out and block large swaths of the web, but they may start to give subtle advantages to their own content and the content of their partners, slowly shaping who wins and loses online. Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.
You think any company put money towards this to not benefit from it?
Forget about the ISPs, the big players are Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Those four can do more for censorship of the internet than any ISP can.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I truly believe in net neutrality. This is more about trying to exact fees from streaming services like Netflix. Netflix is currently set up as a networking peer. A network peer is a network provider that agrees to exchange traffic at a peering point with other service providers. Netflix is a content provider, not a service provider and therefore is not a peer and should be paying for bandwidth. That's the big thing that the ISP's are trying to get a handle on. I'm putting on the flame suit now.
I wonder if and how much this revocation could affect international visitors who are using USA based web services in case major US ISPs start throttling/prioritizing traffic.
to leave the boat... land of the free ... no more?!
To hear that ISPs won't promise to commit to all Net Neutrality tenets after paying so much money to get them removed...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The problem is that if they make promises about "throttling" or anything generic like that, they might be forced to follow them. And they all throttle and prioritization is a good thing. Blocking can be a good thing too - if they promised not to block any content, that would include illegal content, such as DDOS attacks. Even net neutrality advocates admit this - they claim that the idea is to prevent "paid prioritization" or something.
Beyond that, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. It's unclear if the FCC even had the legal authority to classify ISPs under Title II, as there's still a court case testing that. All this does is reset back to pre-Obama regulations, regulations under which the Internet saw its largest growth.
Back to BBSs and Ham Radio.
And yet here you are writing things and I'm reading them without any of those companies being involved. But my ISP is still in the loop.
Check the news some time.
Google was recently caught reading the content of documents stored online, and locking people out of access to their own files because Google felt the content was inappropriate.
Twitter bans, shadow-bans, and permanently deletes accounts that have inappropriate content.
Reddit got rid of lots of conversations that had inappropriate content. Note that those conversations are opt-in; meaning, you have to seek them out to view them. People who don't participate in those conversations got those conversations banned because they don't like other people talking about certain things.
It seems conservative viewpoints are overwhelmingly censored for nothing, while liberal viewpoints that flagrantly violate the rules are given a wink and a smile (viz: "let's kill all white people").
Ajit Pai's recent video defending the NN decision was censored by YouTube.
You can post 1-line vanilla text is an anecdote.
The plural of anecdote is not "data".
You want fast access, pay for it. You want any access at all, pay for it. Let the market decide not the government. The less regulation the better off we are.
Overblown.
When India kicked Facebooks free internet service out because Net Neutrality advocates were against zero rating; that was when I realized that I was against Net Neutrality.
I am very happy that Net Neutraltiy is in the garbage can now. The Internet survived for decades before Net Neutrality rules were drafted. I will survive long after.
Will the cable companies charge streaming providers like Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and Netflix for priority bandwidth to offset their losses of cable TV subscribers?
We need every router sold in this country to use VPN by default to reputable VPN providers. Let the cable companies try to prioritize encrypted traffic.
Really about slowing Netflix and getting you to keep/buy overpriced Cable TV.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When ISPs start throttling, they will no longer be common carriers. They lose the ability to control the utility poles, and real competition begins.
What is particularly worrying to me is how short the list of ISPs is (and this is after we include cellular providers, who are ISPs only in a wider sense of the word). There are more electricity generating companies out there than there are ISPs providing home broadband internet. USA truly does not have much choice here.
This is not a surprising response from the ISPs, but really what does this article really expect? Tell me now if you will ever do any traffic prioritization!! If you're getting information from a company, or our government, you're getting the PR department which is usually there to just pull the wool over our eyes. So even if they "promised" to never ever ever do bad stuff, they can always change their mind. Who cares if they say they will or they won't right now. Also, where did the list of official stances come from? I'm just curious who compiled it.
Why divide up something that's goal is to make everything equal, i.e. divide by infinity...
due to conditions stemming from approval of their purchase of time warner cable. no caps, either. but that runs out in like five years. less if they pay the fcc chairscum pai to relax or eliminate those conditions.
Why would any company OBLIGATE itself to something not necessarily in its interests?
As I said before, wait for PROBLEMS to occur so that you can write legislation to solve the problems. There is no way to get popular support for a bill until it has been proven that the evil ISPs actually start charging for "facebook privilege" or "YouTube privilege" or whatever.
If you don't have an overwhelming amount of support for a bill going in, allow the ISPs to get people to the point of aggravation to where everyone agrees to put them in line.
Makes one wonder what the other motives are.
if they promise the FCC says they can be held liable for violating their promise.
So even if you intended to not violate NN, you would still not promise to avoid liability to the FCC.
So... consider that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Shut up, Vlad
This is troubling considering, since early Nov. of this year Comcast has throttled all devices on my network when 1 of my devices is connected to a VPN. Upload and download speeds are cut in half, until I turn off my work VPN connection. Within seconds the speed for all devices in my network doubles (phones, mac's, pc's, tablets, etc).
Trump's motive = treason and personal enrichment, avoiding prison. (He's failing all 3, what a moron) We'll enjoy watching Billionaires go to prison in 2018.
Enjoy your slavery to your corporate overlords.
So what changed, really?
So go on and switch providers... HAHAHAHA!
Slave.
Now Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, etc have more incentive to takeover ISP or even intermediate ISP and then slow traffic from their competitors. Now with net neutrality gone, that is perfectly legal --- goodbye to unfair business practices or monopoly concerns.
It will now also get worse for services folks get on their cell phones. If just one hop is over cell phone company or affiliate owned 'internet' then it can dramatically slow any competitors traffic.
and the above posts are still loading.........
with inspection of packets, ISPs can slow any traffic that is critical of them also
I have been hearing a few arguments against net neutrality that are false but they seem to live on undisputed so here they are.
I heard the FCC chairman say these things on CSPAN.
1.Network neutrality will prioritize more important services like medicine and finance.
Answer: There is plenty of bandwidth for those things. each subscriber pays for his bandwidth and should receive his limit of bandwidth regardless of where the traffic is coming from.
2. The internet worked before net neutrality was put in place.
Answer: Network neutrality rules are mostly preemptive. The rules were put in place to prevent anticipated problems in the future.
3.Removing net neutrality regulations will actually improve regulation.
Answer: You could also improve regulation without repealing net neutrality.
In other countries regulations have created government run firewalls that restrict information people can access. In our country deregulation could create the same thing.
The truth is that your not going to know.
The current services will stay the same or get degraded and new services will be added that have faster speeds, its just going to get a lot more confusing as that is usually the business model. Confuse them so much that they will pick the most expensive plan, because it " lets you to do more, and your FB/Google/Youtube/Etc.. feeds will be that much better".
Once one company starts to do it, then they will all do it. But only after everyone forgot about all this in 6 months, when some new bigger news item is there.
RCN's policy page - https://www.rcn.com/hub/customer-center/net-neutrality (half a million customers or so)
See subject (& secure you) + APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (do more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self check vs. infection built-in)
A very satisfied customer here, full disclosure. Sonic.Net sent this out to their users. "Today, net neutrality regulations, which protect your right to an open and fair internet, have been repealed. For anyone who uses the internet (so, everyone), you may think this sounds really scary. And you’d be right. The protections that made it illegal for ISP’s to throttle certain websites or make you pay more to access others are gone. But, what we’re here to tell you is that no matter what, Sonic will remain committed to the principles of net neutrality. Sonic always has and always will keep our internet connections open and equal. You can watch what you want, when you want, on any content provider you choose (Netflix, Hulu, HBO, SlingTV-- it’s all the same to us). We will continue to protect your right to privacy, and your right to not have your own data sold or shared. Ever. We will never charge you more to access certain sites, and we will never slow down others for any reason. Sonic will continue to stand up for everything net neutrality stands for, whether the regulations require it or not. Since the beginning, Sonic has stood up for our customers. And that’s never going to change. For us, the responsibility we have to our members is not a passing trend. When we say there is nothing more important than the customers who make up the Sonic network, we mean it. We’ll continue to back up our words with official policies that benefit you. Please also share with your friends, family, and colleagues: you have a choice to support the ISPs that continue to support net neutrality and consumer privacy."
[UID-HeinzIntel]
I generally treat all packets entering my network as equal, but now have implemented "toll" lanes, as below:
Ad Blocker : Check
No-Script: Check
Pi-Hole: Check
VPN: Check
Other VPN: Check
Encrypted Email: Check
Encrypted files Before sending them to cloud: Check
Local Storage: Check
Ditched Windows: Check
Restrictive Firewall Rules: Check
https everywhere : check
So, in short, large downloading will now use the Microsft store or other free , unmetered connections. I'm sure the MSFT Geniuses will enjoy updating my XP notebook while I download the latest linux distro. Same with any other store offering free Wifi.
As a courtesty, I also ditched my TV, Cellphone [ now pay-as-you-go] , regular phone, in preparation of a higher internet price.
Of course they won't promise that... they just paid a shitload of cash to buy the removal of impediments for them to earn tons more money.
I am 100% certain this is true. Today i was uploading files from behind mediacom in Des Moines to earthlink in Houston on my residential mediacom account. Files with different extensions transferred at different rates. A file with a .zip extension would upload at 100kbps average
A file with a .msi extension would upload at 2.5mbps average.
Tested this several times afyer noticing to confirm.
I won't promise not to hook Ajit Pai's nuts to a car battery and then use the lead to repeat the message in Morris code "Net Neutrality is fundamental to a free internet". Someday I hope regular people in the republican party realize that the party establishment only cares about corporate freedom, individual freedom and the protection of free market competition do not exist in their agenda. Just to prepare you in such an event, the dots are going hurt like hell, but the dashes will be truly and inhumanely excruciating.
Indeed, if there isn't overwhelming support something is wrong. And there isn't overwhelming support. Makes one wonder what your motives are. Spasibo.
...was put things back the way they were in halcyon days of 2015. I can kinda remember buying things on Amazon and using high speed internet then...
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Netflix pulled the whole stunt in the first place because ISPs asked Netflix to pay for all the bandwidth it was using.
The ISP has customers, the customers ask for data, and it's the ISP's job to deliver to them. It's not Netflix using the bandwidth, it's the ISP's customers.
This is the whole point of net neutrality: the ISP's customers ask for some bits, and it's the ISP's job to deliver them without fucking around with them.
It's the ISP's job to figure how to make money from their customers. If the customers are using "too much" data then break out the spreadsheets and change your price points.
I’m not a techie, so excuse my ignorance. Is there a possible alternative to the monopolists of internet access? Why is something that’s become so important to free speech, and cat videos, subject to Robber Baron rules? I’ve read a little about mesh networks, but that seems to rely on, ultimately, Big Internet to connect. It’s like , suddenly, there’s two providers of Air, and if you want to breathe, you have to face the wall and spread ‘em.
Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content.
However later down the road.... well you know the common man forgets this stuff and then they can do what they want. Especially when ISPx impliments something they will have to stay competitive.
Just like the Tax Bill that sunsets Individual Tax breaks and keeps Corporate breaks in place - they are planning on people have short memories.
You stupid fuck. They already proved themselves to be untrustable back in the early 2000's.
hang the CEOs in the town square and nationalize the ISPs.
Prioritization is already a thing, but paying for it is like allowing regular car drivers to park in handicap zones, drive in emergency lanes and ride across side walks.
(Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google), responsible for "about 64 percent of internet traffic" (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/other-tech-stocks-may-outshine-fang-after-access-rule-overturned.html) promise to block ALL traffic from any ISP that engage in blocking, throttling and/or fast lanes. This way when users call to cancel with their ISP and get the "but your speed will be a million times slower on [alternative crappy provider]" we can all respond with "but their is no content I want to access on your [current shitty provider] limited internet."
Why should Trump be in prison?
Probably all the rape, etc if nothing else
it takes a f**k-ton of money, capital and patience to make money off it.
Countries many times poorer than USA have a multitude of Internet providers, small, medium, whatever; and those manage to turn a profit while generally billing their users less.
Do you believe any smaller company can get a Wikipedia page and keep it, or did you hope people here don't know of their "notability requirement"?
On Slashdot? Really?
What if other companies decided to return the favor. Europe and rest of world could delay priority traffic, or make the Disney channel lethargic. It could be short or long haul.
Cross ocean fiber links - could flatten juicy tax free international money - or just another ISP.
it could be anyone in a trace route killing end-to-end times - the only thing that matters.
Other companies will want a piece of the action - something the could not do before.
Twelve different providers and probably twelve different policies eventually, each becoming more and more detailed and complex themselves. Complexity in all things continues to advance at a tremendous rate.
E Proelio Veritas.
So the one "concession" was that ISP's would have to be open with what they are throttling/blocking? Isn't that the one thing they've spent years repeatedly lying about? Is anyone actually buying that they'll come clean on it now that there are pretty much no consequences?
Every US state has the power of Eminent Domain and that means everything needed for infrastructure can and should be seized for the public good just like we do for bridges and roads.
Not even once. sigh I wont live long enough to see an America without trickle down.
People knew that this shit was coming. They knew and voted to put Republicans in charge anyway.
Enjoy the fruits of your labour.
Comcast already has tiered service. You can get different internet speeds for different monthly fees.
If ISPs are already offering tiered service, what is all this stink about?!
I get that they might choose to block competition, which seems wrong.
Yet, then perhaps they need to spin-off that competing division.
This would de-monopolize these creepy behemoths.
It seems to just show that there needs to be rules in place that prevent any entity from obstructing another entity from freedoms to distribute.
They ought to call it mandatory neutrality!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
i can't promise i won't attack your offices when you fuck with my internet.
They all seem to have a "fuck it, let's just trash America for
our gain" attitude, and they probably figure that if things
get real bad, they will hop into their escape jet and
fly to the Caymans or something.
I predict in 20 years, the United States will be a very
nasty, unpleasant place to live.
Golly! And UPS and FedEx charge more for speedy delivery and for larger packages and for heavier ones.
We need Parcel Post Neutrality!
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.