Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.
No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.
Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?
You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!
seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.
Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.
The crux of net neutrality is 'deep packet inspection'.
Historically/currently, you are sold bandwidth, or megabytes.
Historically, the ISPs have grown via adding new customers that hadn't previously had a connection, or by offering more bandwidth and competing over existing customers.
Today, the problem for ISPs is that ~everyone that matters has a connection, so new customers aren't a useful source of growth.
Bandwidth has hit a useful plateau - multiple people can be watching 1080p (and even 4k) streams. There is no need to pay for more bandwidth, so ISPs can't upsell you on more bandwidth.
So : How do ISPs continue growing? (Investors want "MOAR")
The solution : Deep packet inspection + pricing content.
Companies want the right to inspect what you are putting into your IP packets, and charge you differently depending on the content (rather than charging you only based on how many bytes you send).
So they can detect compressed video, and charge you a different rate for that (video delivery surcharge).
Or they can detect financial transactions, and charge you a different rate for that (financial transaction surcharge).
Kind of like the mail service reading your stamped and paid for letters, and asking for more money if the letter looks like something you really care about.
ISPs invested a lot of money into the equipment to inspect your data, and now they want to monetize it.
(I actually know a guy IRL that designs the equipment).
Most of the political rhetoric (i.e. language used) is the fallout of people trying to simplify what's going on into terms regular people would care about. "Privileged access", "Fast lanes", etc, it doesn't really tell you what the physical meaning of net neutrality is.
Net neutrality = No pricing discrimination based on the content of packets, bandwidth is bandwidth.
No net neutrality = Packet content can be discriminated and monetized, even if the bandwidth is already paid for.
To clarify, a key aspect is that ISP service contracts include a clause stating that (paraphrased, each has something similar) : They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth, because they can not foresee technical difficulties of network congestion and can not be liable for under delivering.
That 'out' is used for reasons OTHER than technical difficulties or congestion. Because, as stated, the rule is "They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth", and the rest of the sentence is FYI.
Hence they can inspect packets, decide if they want to throttle you under your bandwidth, and hit you up for more cash to get your speed back.
(If my memory is right:)
A related squabble was the Netflix v Comcast/Verizon. Where ISPs claimed slow video streams from Netflix to ISP customers were caused by network congestion, and ISPs claimed they need money from Netflix to upgrade networks just for Netflix.
What ISPs didn't count on was encrypted VPNs, which hide the content of packets from the ISPs.
Over VPN, ISP customers could watch Netflix streams at speed, but if not using a VPN the streams would be slow.
The VPN actually had MORE hops to make, and should have been slower - but it was faster. Indicating that the ISPs were selectively throttling video streams based on packet inspection.
-scheherazadeThis comment was edited on Dec 13, 2018, 12:17.