Hero US Judges Keep Web Open

[Flixy]

When you think about it, Khend, this is actually not the best analogy at all. What private corporation spends truckloads of money to build a highway that has no usage-based component? Most highways charge both per-use and also based on the size of your vehicle. If you use the highway a lot, you pay more. Trucks are usually charged on a per-axle basis for the very sensible reason that trucks cause more wear on the road because of their weight and increased axle-count. But roads are usually built by the government, which is sort of the key distinction here: private companies are spending billions to build infrastructure to sell in a manner that makes sense for them.

A better road analogy: a company owns a toll road. however, that company also owns UPS. Now they decide to charge FedEx higher rates, give them a way lower speed limit, because it's a competitor. And the road is the only road connecting your town to the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure you would oppose that, or at least I hope you would. Plus it shows how this actually hinders innovation and competition, since it's going to be harder to start a new viable delivery company. Oh, and to make it more accurate, you already pay the owner of the road. for x deliveries per year, and suddenly without mentioning to you they start these measures, while you might prefer FedEx but can't use them properly anymore. And like I said, it's the only road available.

Oh, and some of your other claims are not valid either, about the complexity of regulation for example - we have it in our law, it's less than one page. And those regulations still allow, to keep using the road analogy, to charge more for trucks than cars, or to have a lower speed limit for trucks, or to ban trucks completely, as long as they a) treat all trucks equally (I.e. You can block/throttle all video streams, but you can't just restrict YouTube), b) inform their customers clearly, c) and only if it's because the road can't handle that many trucks (e.g. The Wi-Fi in trains here block all music and video streaming because they don't have enough bandwidth for all passengers to allow that). Next to that there are only exceptions for security, spam, and when ordered by a judge (like the former block of the pirate bay). That's it. not very complex, it allows almost anything you complain about (edge caching is perfectly legal).

[Khendraja'aro]

1) Traffic shaping is really not cumbersome and complex.

This just showed that you have no, I repeat, not a fucking clue. How do you think traffic shaping works? It falls from the sky in a magical way?

Do you have any idea how complicated, cumbersome and prone to failure proper traffic shaping is? ("Proper" in this context means going beyond a simple "reduce all traffic in port X to Y")

Not to mention that you're actually sympathizing with Mafia methods here. Yes, Dread, you're of the same mindset as common thugs. "That's a nice website you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to the traffic leading from it."
That's what you're proposing here: Huge companies being able to extort money due to their local monopolies.

Great. Anything else you want to propose while we're at it? How about "Throw people in jail because they critizised McDonald's" or "Allow Pfizer&Co to experiment on babies in order to lower R&D costs."


Let me explain to you how complicated your traffic shaping can become.

So you have this website. And you have this deal with the ISPs not to reduce traffic to it.

Due to the heavy traffic, you decide to move all static content to a different server. Now, don't forget to tell the ISPs about that! Or your visitors will have a nice text-only experience. If the javascript (which is static content!) actually works, that is.
You decide to get some ad-revenue. Too bad that the ad-provide with the best offer resides on the shit-list of the ISPs. No good deal for ads for you!
Then you decide to go one further in order to secure your site and get a 3rd party load balancer. Well, don't forget to tell your ISPs about that.
Later you discover that this load balancer wasn't a good idea. Don't forget to tell your ISPs about that, either.
Then you decide to let your file-uploads be hosted on Amazon S3. Which is currently on the shitlist of the ISPs as well (the ISPs want to sell their cloud offering as well!) Well, shit.

And so on and so forth.

Yeah, that is really easy. And don't get me started on VPN, proxies and SSL.

[Dreadnaught]

A better road analogy: a company owns a toll road. however, that company also owns UPS. Now they decide to charge FedEx higher rates, give them a way lower speed limit, because it's a competitor. And the road is the only road connecting your town to the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure you would oppose that, or at least I hope you would. Plus it shows how this actually hinders innovation and competition, since it's going to be harder to start a new viable delivery company. Oh, and to make it more accurate, you already pay the owner of the road. for x deliveries per year, and suddenly without mentioning to you they start these measures, while you might prefer FedEx but can't use them properly anymore. And like I said, it's the only road available.

Oh, and some of your other claims are not valid either, about the complexity of regulation for example - we have it in our law, it's less than one page. And those regulations still allow, to keep using the road analogy, to charge more for trucks than cars, or to have a lower speed limit for trucks, or to ban trucks completely, as long as they a) treat all trucks equally (I.e. You can block/throttle all video streams, but you can't just restrict YouTube), b) inform their customers clearly, c) and only if it's because the road can't handle that many trucks (e.g. The Wi-Fi in trains here block all music and video streaming because they don't have enough bandwidth for all passengers to allow that). Next to that there are only exceptions for security, spam, and when ordered by a judge (like the former block of the pirate bay). That's it. not very complex, it allows almost anything you complain about (edge caching is perfectly legal).

Just because a law is one page doesn't mean it's not complex. The WiFi on train example you just outlined is exactly why it's complex -- once you are micromanaging how bandwidth can be priced and distributed, you have to have a regulatory infrastructure and a body of case law to manage that. What if someone wants to start an ISP that only allows access to e-mail (with a quota) and three sites per month for $1/month? I would totally buy that for my grandmother, instead of the $60/month package I have to get for her. But, arguably, such a pricing arrangement would be illegal because net neutrality imposes conformity in pricing and services.

But I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't support UPS giving preferential treatment to UPS trucks on UPS-owned roads. Of course I would support that. If UPS owns the roads, why is it obligated to give it away? Especially to competitors. Do you think Staples pays retail costs for office supplies at its corporate headquarters? No, it pays wholesale and sells office supplies for retail.

Your thinking of this is sort of like saying that a freight rail company is-

1) Obligated to let other companies use its rails.
2) Obligated to let other companies use its rails without making a profit on that.

This just showed that you have no, I repeat, not a fucking clue. How do you think traffic shaping works? It falls from the sky in a magical way?

Says the guy who thinks government can just magically regulate Web traffic and compares different pricing arrangements to a mafia.

[Khendraja'aro]

Dude, what's so difficult to understand about "Treat all traffic the same"?

That's what in legalese? One single paragraph?

Then again, it must be complicated because really dense people like you don't seem to understand the concept at all. Geeze.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this single sentence: "Treat all traffic the same"? What's so hard to understand? Where is your brain failing?

And why on Earth is this concept more complicated in your mind than:

Due to the heavy traffic, you decide to move all static content to a different server. Now, don't forget to tell the ISPs about that! Or your visitors will have a nice text-only experience. If the javascript (which is static content!) actually works, that is.
You decide to get some ad-revenue. Too bad that the ad-provide with the best offer resides on the shit-list of the ISPs. No good deal for ads for you!
Then you decide to go one further in order to secure your site and get a 3rd party load balancer. Well, don't forget to tell your ISPs about that.
Later you discover that this load balancer wasn't a good idea. Don't forget to tell your ISPs about that, either.
Then you decide to let your file-uploads be hosted on Amazon S3. Which is currently on the shitlist of the ISPs as well (the ISPs want to sell their cloud offering as well!) Well, shit.

And so on and so forth.

You think, that is easy? What?

I honestly can't grasp the depth of your stupidity here.


You do know that this exact same piece of regulation is already enacted for regular telecommunication? And that worked for what length of time now? At least 50 years?

And if you still think that traffic shaping is easy: Just look at any country with some kind of filter for certain websites, like the UK.

Those blacklists usually have sites which don't belong on there. They have sites which should be blacklisted but aren't. Sites on the blacklist can still be accessed through proxies.

And a simple ban for websites is comparatively easy because you just need to filter one single DNS/IP combination.

Traffic shaping? Not so easy - accessing one moderately sized website can easily result in a visit to several different locations.

[Ominous Gamer]

What if someone wants to start an ISP that only allows access to e-mail (with a quota) and three sites per month for $1/month? I would totally buy that for my grandmother, instead of the $60/month package I have to get for her. But, arguably, such a pricing arrangement would be illegal because net neutrality imposes conformity in pricing and services.

You currently have to pay $60 because of the regional monopolies that cable providers are able to enforce. Know what I miss? Being able to pick from any number of ISPs in the dial up era. Netzero being free and unlimited, sure beats $1 for email. Something that was already tried, and failed. It was called Peek.

You have got to be the only person here who supports moving the current system of cable pricing onto ISPs.

But I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't support UPS giving preferential treatment to UPS trucks on UPS-owned roads. Of course I would support that. If UPS owns the roads, why is it obligated to give it away? Especially to competitors. Do you think Staples pays retail costs for office supplies at its corporate headquarters? No, it pays wholesale and sells

You missed the important part:

Oh, and to make it more accurate, you already pay the owner of the road.

Now please point me to a major ISP that hasn't used government grants, funding, or breaks to build virgin high speed lines across america.

http://www.examiner.com/article/broa...aim-small-isps
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/O...-Grants-109192

[Khendraja'aro]

$60?

I can get 10 Mbit (with phone service) for as low as 9.90€ per month.

[Ominous Gamer]

$60 isn't suprising for 10mb around here. Took some digging to find 75/35 with 2 HD cable boxes for $107 after taxes.

Most of the major ISPs also charge a rental fee for the modem, and can have exclusive partnerships with apartments. HOAs will strike similar deals by only allowing 1 ISP to bury a line into new developments, making competition or choice near impossible.

A few ISPs offer Dread's grandma services for ~$30 where you get DSL speeds. I would love to know from whom's ass he is pulling a price of $1, and how thats easier to implement than not filtering at all, especially considering the graphical nature of modern emails and how the major email providers have all tied attachments to cloud services.

[LittleFuzzy]

$60?

I can get 10 Mbit (with phone service) for as low as 9.90€ per month.

As he said, local competition is low in most locations.

[Wraith]

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07...d-competition/

[Khendraja'aro]

As he said, local competition is low in most locations.

Which makes no net-neutrality only much more problematic.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07...d-competition/

Three guesses as to who has the most interest in keeping their local ISP a monopoly.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07...d-competition/

on the flip side, when verizon rolled out fiber down here they did end up collapsing a lot of roads/driveways and even managed fucking up a few stretches of railroad track. Verizon was allowed to lay fiber along our water pipes and railroad tracks since they are both protected against digging.

A few months ago I was almost 2 hours late getting home, on a 10 mile drive, because time warner flooded Bayshore when they hit a water line while trying to repair a cable. Road was closed for the rest of the week.

When you want to be treated like a utility only when it suits you, yeah its going to cost extra.

[Ominous Gamer]

As he said, local competition is low in most locations.

speaking of which...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...and-in-kansas/

[LittleFuzzy]

Prats.

[GGT]

Kansas has a fucked up legislature. They're pretty much owned by specialist lobby groups and/or ALEC.

[Dreadnaught]

Dude, what's so difficult to understand about "Treat all traffic the same"?

That's what in legalese? One single paragraph?

Then again, it must be complicated because really dense people like you don't seem to understand the concept at all. Geeze.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this single sentence: "Treat all traffic the same"? What's so hard to understand? Where is your brain failing?

And why on Earth is this concept more complicated in your mind than:



You think, that is easy? What?

I honestly can't grasp the depth of your stupidity here.


You do know that this exact same piece of regulation is already enacted for regular telecommunication? And that worked for what length of time now? At least 50 years?

And if you still think that traffic shaping is easy: Just look at any country with some kind of filter for certain websites, like the UK.

Those blacklists usually have sites which don't belong on there. They have sites which should be blacklisted but aren't. Sites on the blacklist can still be accessed through proxies.

And a simple ban for websites is comparatively easy because you just need to filter one single DNS/IP combination.

Traffic shaping? Not so easy - accessing one moderately sized website can easily result in a visit to several different locations.

Interesting. Putting aside your ulceric tone, you have a haywire sense of "complexity". You can't seem to recognize that all systems and laws have some level of complexity. But you can't distinguish levels of complexity from your "gimme mine" worldview. So, you massively overestimate the complexity of bandwidth shaping (which is already something done to various degrees by US ISPs) and massively underestimate the complexity of regulation.

I mean, seriously, do you think just writing a law down makes it easy? Let's switch this up a bit-

Seriously, what don't you understand about this single sentence: "Treat all people the same"? What's so hard to understand? Where is your brain failing?

I think laws about treating people the same have been attempted for the last century and a half in various countries. How has implementation gone on that front? Regulation is hard and full of various interpretations and unintended consequences.*

Bandwidth shaping is not that hard. So far major ISPs haven't developed a viable pricing scheme that works around bandwidth shaping, but if they do develop one that enough content providers and consumers are willing to try, I promise you they will try it. That's called business development and it's a normal thing out here in the hinterlands, where real people exist outside of the core of anti-tech lunacy.


* And no, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to treat people equally before the law. I'm using it as an example of something that sounds/is good on paper, but is in fact very difficult to reach consensus over definitions and applications. We'll see if anyone fails to be an adult and understands the comparison.

[Khendraja'aro]

Interesting. Putting aside your ulceric tone, you have a haywire sense of "complexity". You can't seem to recognize that all systems and laws have some level of complexity. But you can't distinguish levels of complexity from your "gimme mine" worldview. So, you massively overestimate the complexity of bandwidth shaping (which is already something done to various degrees by US ISPs) and massively underestimate the complexity of regulation.

I "overestimate" the complexity?

Dude, we actually looked into shaping measures while I was one of two network admins.

It was a major headache. And we promptly dropped any idea of implementing it.

WHAT COMPLEXITY OF REGULATION YOU IDIOT? Repeat after me: "TREAT ALL TRAFFIC THE SAME!"

What is COMPLEX about that? WHAT IS COMPLEX? Are you so daft, so utterly idiotic, so braindead as not to see how SIMPLE this is?

Dread: The moron who insists that 1+1 is some kind of Quantum Mechanic Algebra.

And, please, comparing this to anti-racism laws? Seriously? The new and utter lows to which you continue to step are beyond me.

But, well, okay. You obviously think that your toaster is intelligent for that particular brainfart to work.

I'll also note that you only have this vague notion of what kind of regulation that enforced "treat all traffic the same" is actually complex. As of yet, you have utterly and completely failed to give an example, other than to spout this idiotic drivel of "free markets provide best! Herp-Derp!" and "all regulations are automatically evil because I believe so! There's only black and white and Lewk's my best buddy!"

Give us an actual example of the "unintended consequences" or the "complexity" other than your moronic blurbs which amount to "Because I said so!"

[Dreadnaught]

Well, I guess it took about 15 minutes to answer my question: "We'll see if anyone fails to be an adult and understands the comparison".

I'm glad you liken your student-days attempt to manage a university network to managing an ISP, with massive capital investment budgets, real staff and options to build wide-scale shaping and DPI tools.

[Ominous Gamer]

All ISPs engage in some level of bandwidth shaping.

1) Traffic shaping is really not cumbersome and complex. It's fairly common and has been detected across several US ISPs, at least on the downstream end

bandwidth shaping (which is already something done to various degrees by US ISPs)

You have so far been unable to settle on who, or how often traffic shaping happens, on top of not being able to articulate how its less complex than not doing anything at all. Yet you continue to ramble on, making yourself look like a fool.

I'm glad you liken your student-days attempt to manage a university network to managing an ISP, with massive capital investment budgets, real staff and options to build wide-scale shaping and DPI tools.

and this is where your hiccup is. You have no idea how many ISPs are garage operations. You are only able to comprehend how to defend the market share of the current leaders that have this country's internet operating under an oligopoly (at best) for a huge majority of users.

It wouldn't be a stretch at all for a university, the one down here has over 47,000 students, to have a larger and more complex network than most rural providers.

[Khendraja'aro]

"Hey, let's buy several new servers to cope with the traffic shaping we want to do! We also need to hire new guys who constantly update the tables!"

compared to

"Let's just leave the routers at their default setting."

Which is more complex and prone to failures?

I'm also a bit dubious on what advantages this would bring to the consumer. Oh, wait, there are none.

[Dreadnaught]

"Hey, let's buy several new servers to cope with the traffic shaping we want to do! We also need to hire new guys who constantly update the tables!"

compared to

"Let's just leave the routers at their default setting."

Which is more complex and prone to failures?

I'm also a bit dubious on what advantages this would bring to the consumer. Oh, wait, there are none.

It's called money. That's why ISPs and consumers may be interested in alternative options than your one-size-fits-all utopia.

As we've been saying, this is a proxy battle to open up (or in your case, restricted) pricing options.

[Ominous Gamer]

interested in

being doublespeak for "we got rid of your old plan in favor of these plans that cost more and offer less, because we have no competition".

Just look at how tightly people are holding on their grandfathered unlimited wireless plans.

[Khendraja'aro]

I wonder what Dread thinks how countries like Finland do it.

Not to mention Latvia. Or Japan.

(Yes, Finland. Thus the usual shenanigans like "Oh, but the US are sometimes so sparsely populated!" won't work.)

I'm also interested into his thinking as to how exactly buying new servers (needed for DPI and traffic shaping), which costs money, results in saving money. And before you say: Peering or Transit! - please remember that peering/transit costs have been going down: http://drpeering.net/white-papers/In...-Projected.php

[Dreadnaught]

I'm also interested into his thinking as to how exactly buying new servers (needed for DPI and traffic shaping), which costs money, results in saving money. And before you say: Peering or Transit! - please remember that peering/transit costs have been going down: http://drpeering.net/white-papers/In...-Projected.php

Come on, seriously? This isn't about ISPs saving money. It's about if ISPs can make more money by trying different pricing schemes. And the reality that more consumer choice is often better. Do you really think consumers would benefit if only one type of tomato were allowed to be sold?

Given many EU member's under-investment in telecom infrastructure, I'm not sure we really want to get into a Transatlantic pissing match. Both markets have problems.

[Aimless]

I have anxiously been awaiting Japan's entrance into the EU

More consumer choice is often also worse, especially when the choices are deliberately and artificially shittified

The vast majority of Western supermarkets actually do sell only one type of tomato: tasteless

[Ominous Gamer]

Both markets have problems.

and so far all you've done is highlighted and defended what is wrong with ours

[Khendraja'aro]

So, I'm understanding it right: It's not about saving money, it's about making more money.

Dude, you understand what you yourself are saying here, right? The only way you can make more money if you don't bring down your costs (aka "saving money") is by increasing the rates for your customers.

So, the customer now has to pay more money - for the same product. Wait, it's not the same product. It's a product of inferior quality now.

Way to go, Dread.

I'm also not quite sure why the EU is a country now.

[Dreadnaught]

I have anxiously been awaiting Japan's entrance into the EU

More consumer choice is often also worse, especially when the choices are deliberately and artificially shittified

The vast majority of Western supermarkets actually do sell only one type of tomato: tasteless

I was highlighting EU members, not Japan. In particular, Western European carriers have resorted to just competing on price alone. This has slimmed margins and per-capita investment is substantially lower than places like Australia, Canada and the US. This is not a great long-term trend, but like I said I don't think a Transatlantic pissing match is really necessary for this discussion.

What is necessary is a discussion over whether you like your choice of one, tasteless tomato. Net neutrality artificially shittifies choices by imposing a single business model on an industry. I don't pretend to have the ideal business model, but that also means I don't think it's a good idea to micromanage an industry that might develop new and interesting pricing models in the future.

So, I'm understanding it right: It's not about saving money, it's about making more money.

Dude, you understand what you yourself are saying here, right? The only way you can make more money if you don't bring down your costs (aka "saving money") is by increasing the rates for your customers.

So, the customer now has to pay more money - for the same product. Wait, it's not the same product. It's a product of inferior quality now.

Way to go, Dread.

I'm also not quite sure why the EU is a country now.

I very clearly referred to EU members.

And yes, once again this is about pricing. In a competitive market with differentiated products, some consumers may pay different prices for different product configurations. Do we force people to pay one price for one car?

Who the heck are you to judge what is an inferior ISP product if enough people are willing to buy it? You and I probably share the same desires in an ISP package, but I don't have to arrogance to claim my personal product preferences are superior. It shouldn't be up to you or me to force ISPs to limit their options. That just leads to stagnation.

At the end of the day, you're mostly being the spear of an arrow for corporations who want a uniform product mix in ISPs for their own purposes.

[Ominous Gamer]

but that also means I don't think it's a good idea to micromanage an industry that might develop new and interesting pricing models in the future.

Telling an industry to not micromanage how an ISP customer uses their internet connection is hardly micromanaging an industry. Or do you think laws against rape is the government micromanaging sex?

This thing you're doing of drawing on nonexistent extremes (read, not a shred of supporting resources for any of your claims) only makes you look like an idiot. Following your posts, you are currently comparing factitious $1 email to the death of the internet. and you think that belongs in D&D?

[Khendraja'aro]

And yes, once again this is about pricing. In a competitive market with differentiated products, some consumers may pay different prices for different product configurations. Do we force people to pay one price for one car?

Dude, you don't have a competitive market.

And by what standard is the result not an inferior product? It is slower in some regards, you have to pay more to get the same results.

If that isn't inferior then I honestly don't know what you're not understanding about the term. It's not a subjective judgment, it's an objective "pay more for less".

Protip: "Inferiority" has nothing to do with "people willing forced to buy the product".

[Dreadnaught]

Dude, you don't have a competitive market.

And by what standard is the result not an inferior product? It is slower in some regards, you have to pay more to get the same results.

If that isn't inferior then I honestly don't know what you're not understanding about the term. It's not a subjective judgment, it's an objective "pay more for less".

Protip: "Inferiority" has nothing to do with "people willing forced to buy the product".

I never claimed there was a perfectly competitive market here. Europe has substantial regulatory burdens that limit meaningful competition except in price (leading to systemic under-investment) while the US has a major problem with last-mile operators leaving about 30% of Amurikans with effectively one ISP. Then again, wireless access and the mobile Web is upending even that quasi-monopoly. Industries change, this is normal and a good thing in the long run.

Once again you demand that governments impose your pricing preferences on the wider population in perpetuity. There is nothing objective about this except that, objectively, you could possibly pay more for an "unlimited" ISP versus someone willing to pay less for a different level of service.

Alternatively, there could be pricing models where companies like Netflix or YouTube pay ISPs to deliver their services faster. Or pay to have visits to their site not count against a customer's data limit for a month.

Who knows? The only thing that's certain is your inability to emotionally handle the idea of businesses experimenting with new pricing/revenue models.