Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Net Neutrality

applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 4:57:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The issue of net neutrality has been coming up more and more recently, from tiered services to the seizures of domains. With bills like the COICA, or treaties like ACTA, the place of the Internet is coming more and more into question. So what kind of protections, what kind of restrictions, and what kind of government control do you think should be placed or allowed on the interwebz?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 7:52:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Net Neutrality isn't about controlling the internet. Exactly the opposite. It's about stopping corporations that want to control the internet.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 8:12:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I suppose the thread title is a little misleading. I wanted to start a discussion on the question of the Internet's position in Business and in government, net neutrality is just a recognizable term that hits on a lot of the same questions; Should there be central regulation of domains, of content, and of access? Questions like those are central to both the business, net neutrality in it's strictest terms, side, as well as the other aspect I touched on in my first post - COICA, ACTA, the recent seizures of domains, the possibility of a blacklist, etc.

The Internet has grown as much as it has because of a standard protocol and architecture across the entire world, and a decentralized authority - that means neither businesses or governments control the Web or the Internet. Handing out controls and centralizing power risks the downfall of the Internet, and the Web, as we know it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

It would also turn the operation of sites into a libertarian process instead of being controlled by a moderator.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 10:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 8:31:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

It would also turn the operation of sites into a libertarian process instead of being controlled by a moderator.

child porn, stalkers, murdering rapists would all make plans videos, and posts that wouldn't be seen or stored....except by people they want to see them....GREAT system
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:04:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 10:59:19 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/30/2010 8:31:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

It would also turn the operation of sites into a libertarian process instead of being controlled by a moderator.

child porn, stalkers, murdering rapists would all make plans videos, and posts that wouldn't be seen or stored....except by people they want to see them....GREAT system

Committing crimes and showing them are two completely different things. The showing of things should not be suppressed. Once you say one thing may be suppressed you have opened the doors for everything to be.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:11:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

I don't think you understand how the internet works...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:15:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 11:11:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

I don't think you understand how the internet works...

I know how it works. I'm saying it needs to be completely re-thought. An entirely new invention. One with a full decentralization of authority.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:17:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

The open and specialized internet idea has been gaining a lot of traction, and is probably the best middle-ground plan I've seen so far.
A little more info on it for those who are curious (http://www.goodgearguide.com.au...)

Of course that sites being stored on every computer line has me worried - involuntary downloading and hosting of whatever webpage or FTP server you visit, it would be a black hat playground, and I shudder at the possibilities of what even a scrub like myself could pull off.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:23:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 11:17:56 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 11/30/2010 8:29:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think there needs to be a second internet. One where websites can't be owned or stored on an individual server. Sites would be spread to every computer that uses them. This would prevent corporations or governments from ever taking control ever again unless they actually destroyed all the computers.

The open and specialized internet idea has been gaining a lot of traction, and is probably the best middle-ground plan I've seen so far.
A little more info on it for those who are curious (http://www.goodgearguide.com.au...)

Of course that sites being stored on every computer line has me worried - involuntary downloading and hosting of whatever webpage or FTP server you visit, it would be a black hat playground, and I shudder at the possibilities of what even a scrub like myself could pull off.

It's not involuntary and it's not downloaded upon visiting, sites are created of the computers themselves to start with. Each site is a framework for an indefinite number of people to cling on to and grow.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:26:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 10:59:19 PM, lovelife wrote:
child porn, stalkers, murdering rapists would all make plans videos, and posts that wouldn't be seen or stored....except by people they want to see them....GREAT system

They can do that already if they really wanted to encryption, MAC or IP specific authorization, hell just an email with some DRM build in to limit viewings and copying, you know or just not send a plan video over the Internet. Actually there's already who sections of the Internet sealed off from the rest - throw a rel=nofollow and a few other metatags in your code and google leaves you alone. It's not like everyone can view anything connected to the Internet they want.

But more importantly, that has absolutely nothing to do with this idea. The separate Internet refers to two separate sets of regulation. the Open sector stays equal, the other one allows prioritization of traffic.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:39:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 11:23:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's not involuntary and it's not downloaded upon visiting, sites are created of the computers themselves to start with. Each site is a framework for an indefinite number of people to cling on to and grow.

Are you proposing anything different from the current system of servers and domain registries?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:43:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 11:39:55 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 11/30/2010 11:23:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's not involuntary and it's not downloaded upon visiting, sites are created of the computers themselves to start with. Each site is a framework for an indefinite number of people to cling on to and grow.

Are you proposing anything different from the current system of servers and domain registries?

Yes, it's different. Rather than visiting a site you are a part of the site. This prevents anyone from stopping it unless they take away or disable your computer.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 11:59:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 11:43:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/30/2010 11:39:55 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 11/30/2010 11:23:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's not involuntary and it's not downloaded upon visiting, sites are created of the computers themselves to start with. Each site is a framework for an indefinite number of people to cling on to and grow.

Are you proposing anything different from the current system of servers and domain registries?

Yes, it's different. Rather than visiting a site you are a part of the site. This prevents anyone from stopping it unless they take away or disable your computer.

Pardon the running in circles, but this sounds like you're hosting a site from your personal computer instead of it being purely on servers. Do you mean a system of voluntary co-hosting - a peer to peer website so to speak? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this - some sort of example or elaboration would be great; IPv4 is running out of addresses, it has 2^32 or ~4.3 billion address, I doubt a voluntary system would choose to support all of these, and again an involuntary system would be disastrous.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 12:31:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 7:52:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Net Neutrality isn't about controlling the internet. Exactly the opposite. It's about stopping corporations that want to control the internet.

Run your own ISP do you?
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 4:20:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 12:31:24 AM, Puck wrote:
At 11/30/2010 7:52:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Net Neutrality isn't about controlling the internet. Exactly the opposite. It's about stopping corporations that want to control the internet.

Run your own ISP do you?

Do we let AT&T control who we call, do they add a waiting time if we call a Verizon customer? These are the same issues of control on the part of the companies, and freedom on the part of the consumer that need to be addressed with ISPs.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 4:31:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Net neutrality is a government requirement that the same level of service be provided to each user regardless of how much bandwidth they consume. Effectively, it means that ordinary net users are required to subsidize heavy bittorrent users who are downloading gigabytes. If this is a good concept, then we ought to also have "gasoline neutrality" whereby each user pays the same amount for fuel, regardless of how much they consume. The government should not regulate internet pricing.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 4:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 4:20:11 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 12/2/2010 12:31:24 AM, Puck wrote:
At 11/30/2010 7:52:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Net Neutrality isn't about controlling the internet. Exactly the opposite. It's about stopping corporations that want to control the internet.

Run your own ISP do you?

Do we let AT&T control who we call, do they add a waiting time if we call a Verizon customer?

No, because that's not very good for business, which is entirely removed from whether they could or not if they choose to, or whether the service they provide should be regulated to remove it if they did in fact choose to.

These are the same issues of control on the part of the companies, and freedom on the part of the consumer that need to be addressed with ISPs.

Nope. You are free to run your own ISP if you choose to provide access as you wish. Or, you can realise that you are paying for a service that is provided contractually.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 4:31:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Net neutrality is a government requirement that the same level of service be provided to each user regardless of how much bandwidth they consume. Effectively, it means that ordinary net users are required to subsidize heavy bittorrent users who are downloading gigabytes. If this is a good concept, then we ought to also have "gasoline neutrality" whereby each user pays the same amount for fuel, regardless of how much they consume. The government should not regulate internet pricing.

This is not only a faulty analogy, but it also misses the scope of the net neutrality. You pay for a __Mbps package, you're limited to that. Net neutrality is not saying you can't cap this access rate. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps package from Comcast. You have bought the right to use up to 20Mbps, and no more, you can use this for gaming, for streaming videos, for downloading files. Net neutrality, on the consumer end, is about not throttling individual users based on what packets are being sent over the connection. Saying you can use 20Mbps, then throttling you down to 5 if you're downloading something is theft.
This is also a policy that protects us from the scenario of filtering packets based on web content. With no protection in place, there may be a time when ISPs are allowed to filter what web pages you can connect to based on who pays them and who doesn't - political websites, competitors, etc. We don't have "per-packet" charge plans, we have a __Mbps plan, a subscription instead of pay-per view, and thats why your gasoline analogy is completely off.

You also have to see what this could do to websites, do you want to turn the web into some bad mob movie, where only businesses who pay up are allowed to operate? Where start-ups are saddled with either terrifying costs, or mediocre connections that make their websites impractically slow, and where competition is controlled by the largest company.

This has much wider impacts than just torrenters.

At 12/2/2010 4:54:19 PM, Puck wrote:
No, because that's not very good for business, which is entirely removed from whether they could or not if they choose to, or whether the service they provide should be regulated to remove it if they did in fact choose to.

These are the same issues of control on the part of the companies, and freedom on the part of the consumer that need to be addressed with ISPs.

Nope. You are free to run your own ISP if you choose to provide access as you wish. Or, you can realise that you are paying for a service that is provided contractually.

And what about when you only have one provider, when larger companies agree to block certain sites? Keep in mind too the governments role in making the internet possible, many of those are cables were built with government grants and subsidies, DARPA is responsible for getting ARPNET out and making the internet possible.
We don't have a capitalist market, we have a market thats closer to that end of the spectrum. The government already regulates industries to keep us safe and protect our rights - sites can't hand out confidential information because it's profitable and screw the consumer and their right to privacy, and ISPs can't pick and choose what content is viewable on the web, and what we can do with out access package.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 9:10:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 6:40:14 PM, applesnack wrote:

And what about when you only have one provider

Where's that then?

when larger companies agree to block certain sites?

As is their prerogative. It's their infrastructure you are renting from. Largely irrelevant to the majority of users though, and the greater issue of net neutrality.

Keep in mind too the governments role in making the internet possible, many of those are cables were built with government grants and subsidies, DARPA is responsible for getting ARPNET out and making the internet possible.

Irrelevant. If you want a Government run industry then complaining about what companies may do is largely hypocritical. As for grants, that only relates to the speed of which infrastructure gets laid - without grants some areas may simply need to wait for the benefits improved infrastructure brings, none of which has anything to do with net neutrality. ISPs must still purchase and maintain the infrastructure. If the cables/satellites didn't exist then access is limited to where they are. That's just the reality of it. That a given government may want a wide population access and thus legislate to that end has nothing to do with the fact that you as an Internet user, must use an ISP's infrastructure to do so.

We don't have a capitalist market, we have a market thats closer to that end of the spectrum. The government already regulates industries to keep us safe and protect our rights

What right exactly are you referring to here? The right to use other's infrastructure as you wish? The idiocy if we apply that consistently should be clear to you.

ISPs can't pick and choose what content is viewable on the web, and what we can do with out access package.

Sure they can. Though this is largely an appeal to consequences as bad business makes for bad profit making, which includes being a tool about limiting access. The concern over net neutrality is generally around access speed priority, not content, though that's a part of it. But still, if you want access to certain locations that aren't provided, there are multiple ways to deal with it.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 9:38:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 9:23:18 PM, Puck wrote:
Feel free to send a debate challenge though. :)

Well I was hoping for a big forum debate, but if I'm going to run through all those arguments, I might just go ahead and do that.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 9:28:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is it messed up that I'm slightly happy my debate partner got food poisoning, meaning I can't go to my tournament this weekend, allowing to challenge you to that debate?

Yes, yes it is, but still.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 6:53:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"You pay for a __Mbps package, you're limited to that. Net neutrality is not saying you can't cap this access rate. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps package from Comcast. You have bought the right to use up to 20Mbps, ..."

No one but heavy bittorrent users cares about the limitation that the high transfer rates cannot be maintained for long periods. Most users care about burst rates, and allowing bittorrent users to hog the bandwidth means that ordinary uses will suffer considerably. Since it isn't technologically feasible to provide the high bandwidth required to support bittorent rates to everyone, net neutral would effectively require that everyone be limited to a relatively low bandwidth.

I do think it is fair that the limitations of use be fully disclosed in the contract for service. The contracts are usually weasel-worded so they really don't guarantee much of anything.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 2:59:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most users care about burst rates, and allowing bittorrent users to hog the bandwidth means that ordinary uses will suffer considerably.

I had the pleasure of touring the servers of my local ISP a year or two ago, unfortunately I wasn't at the same level of geek as I am now, and didn't get too into it much, but I did get some insight into how they manage bandwidth. The company basically watches usage and gets an average any given day, and buys just enough bandwidth for the peak usage. Meaning, ordinary users don't suffer, they manage bandwidth to ensure this and torrents really only make an impact during about 1 hour a day, and this is the same impact that someone gaming during peak hours would make.

The government should not regulate internet pricing.
I missed that last time, the Government isn't managing prices, it's managing information, and who's allowed access to it. Can it effect pricing? Yes. Is the government mandating that it does? Nope.

The contracts are usually weasel-worded so they really don't guarantee much of anything.

This is the sort of practice we can expect though, and it's why we need net neutrality. Are those practices in the fine print or the ones worded in legal and techno jargon beneficial to the consumer? A lot of the time, no, and thats how the invasive policies neutrality combats would be instituted. Only buy preventing the practice can we realistically expect all ISPs to respect privacy and to keep the Internet as it should be, and what it has to be to foster innovation, an egalitarian environment.