Net Neutrality 2017

[Sonikku]

That's already happened, Netflix paid Comcast years ago because they were slowing them down.

Of course. What I mean though is that ALL the telecoms will be lining up for their piece of the pie now. Perhaps every year for now on as well, and not limited solely to services like Netflix.

 

[bshole]

Of course. What I mean though is that ALL the telecoms will be lining up for their piece of the pie now. Perhaps every year for now on as well, and not limited solely to services like Netflix.

Why can't they just invest in making the pipes so big that throughput is never an issue? This is a throughput issue is it not... the pipes aren't big enough to fill the data demand?

Haven't they been attempting to take out of this apple since Bush? Even if they do pass it, couldn't it be ruled unconstitutional or repealed in the next administration? Surely this isn't a one and done scenario that can't be rolled back.

 

[brycejones]

Making America great again apparently means shitting on the consumer and allowing corporations to extort and lie their way to whatever they want. Go figure.

Of course America is great when the corporations have all the power.

 

[dank69]

Why can't they just invest in making the pipes so big that throughput is never an issue? This is a throughput issue is it not... the pipes aren't big enough to fill the data demand?

Pipes don't matter. It's the bits that matter. Once we use up all the bits, the game is over. We need to conserve.

 

[brycejones]

Why can't they just invest in making the pipes so big that throughput is never an issue? This is a throughput issue is it not... the pipes aren't big enough to fill the data demand?
.

Actually it isn't a throughput issue except for edge scenarios like satellite based access. Providers have been increasing bandwidth and maintaining or improving gross margins for years now. Like many other things in the tech world (storage, cpu power, etc) bandwidth has fallen dramatically in cost and performance has increased at the same time.

This is nothing more than an industry looking to double dip and take great margins to insane margins.

 

[bshole]

Of course. What I mean though is that ALL the telecoms will be lining up for their piece of the pie now. Perhaps every year for now on as well, and not limited solely to services like Netflix.

More worrying is that ATT now owns DirectTv and is actively trying to merge with TimeWarner. We are swiftly moving towards monopoly in ISPs and the days of affordable internet access may become a relic of the past.

 

[ElFenix]

at&t isn't merging with that timewarner. they're buying the content producer so as to be vertically integrated. time warner the cable/isp company was bought by charter last year.



anyway, ever been on an airplane and bought internet there? your ISPs want to be like that. in addition to 'sponsored data' and all the other stuff going on with mobile right now.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Theoretically ISPs could block SSH traffic, of-course that would cause a havoc from customers that actually use ssh and vpn.

They won't block any traffic, they will throttle it. In the case of VPN and encrypted traffic they will decide that to use it you need to pay extra. There will be internet tiers for things like VPN, Video, Gaming, that you have to buy extra like premium channels on cable TV. That is the strategy they really want. They charge you, they charge the content provider, they charge the middle man.

The point is: what is the current status of the technical capabilities for both sides of the camp? Is traffic segregation just a switch flip away for ISPs or do they have to upgrade their infrastructure? Anyone working on a TOR router, essentially using TOR passively without user interaction?
Any predictions on which team will win?

It would be pretty easy to throttle any number of traffic types with their current infrastructure. As for who will win, it will be a war going back and forth for as long as non-neutrality lasts. Each time someone comes up with a way around their system they will just find a way to block that, and sooner or later someone will come up with a way around that, and the war will escalate. The most tech savey will find ways around it, and the common man will pay through the nose for the war.

Encryption proponents can present an argument that encryption is protected under freedom of speech. I am free to say what is on my mind and i am also free to say utter gibberish that only one other person can understand.

Once net neutrality is gone your ISP has no requirements to give you access to free speech. They get to decide what you can say to who based on how much you are willing to pay. That is kind of the whole point.

I think despite their tech-illiteracy, it is possible to explain to them in layman's terms that no encryption = no privacy. I'm willing to bet a majority will be swayed into opposing any legislation that affects their privacy (or at least I hope they have the common sense and reasoning to see it this way).

At least in the US our commoners are so dumb that they accept that if you are doing nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide. I think that each person thinks that he will be able to keep his dirty laundry covered while getting a chance to peek at his neighbor's. All you seem to have to do is call into question an average American's morals and he will put his own head in a noose to prove he is holier then thou.

 

[cytg111]

In P&N of all locations?
Well that would change my reply...



Yes... how could they bypass that?
Maybe such an effort would be to make encryption illegal, or easily void and bypassable for those interested.

How would encryption help?

If(endpoint not netflix)
throttle(this.idiot);

encryption will not save you from the slow lane.

 

[1sikbITCH]

I get the whole legislature aspect of net neutrality. My question is about technical aspect of it. Theoretically someone could make SSH proxy and hide the traffic type... Of-course this assumes the proxy's ISP is not segregating the traffic as well...

This. The script-kiddies will just start cranking out "fixes" to get around it. Life will go on. I doubt prohibition stopped anyone from drinking. They all just became criminals. Same will happen here.

 

[JEDIYoda]

This thread is intended to discuss the technical feasibility of traffic segregation if something stupid is to happen to net neutrality under republican hill.

Lets say net neutrality is no more and providers can segregate traffic. It seems to me two implications are possible:
1. Completely blocking content. This may run into a problem with first amendment, since in this case cariers are suppressing content providers freedom of speech.
2. Slowing down certain content types like video.
3. Providing content from service provider at faster speed or not counting it towards data cap. I don't see a problem with this as long as the rest of the content is provided per TOS signed by the customer.

Now, let's talk about the technical side of things:
1. How reasonable is it to actually have the above (and what ever other scenarios i did not think about) being enforced? Does existing hardware support traffic segregation or do service providers have to buy new fancy gadgets to implement such segregation?
2. How likely that such traffic segregation can be overcome by ssh tunnels to european server or even a home server on a different provider network? Could ssh tunnels fall under "segregated" traffic criteria like video content?
3. Any other technologies on the horizon (other than ssh tunnelling) that will help to hide traffic types and render traffic segregation useless?

4. Do you think passing of net neutrality legislation will backfire on FBI and other national security agencies by accelerating "going dark" condition due to increased use of encryption to circumvent traffic segregation.

What did I forget?

My God, not another thread on net neutrality -- get over dude! We are all pawns to this and as such don`t have a lot of say one way or the other! I have some tin foil hats I am selling.......like I`m saying....you know.....well.....hmmmmmm