Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #15006 > unrolled thread

Net neutrality demise

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Net neutrality demise RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-11-21 17:29 -0500
    Re: Net neutrality demise RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-11-21 17:33 -0500
    Re: Net neutrality demise Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-11-21 22:57 +0000
      Re: Net neutrality demise The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2017-11-22 13:38 -0800
        Re: Net neutrality demise Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-11-22 21:59 +0000
          Re: Net neutrality demise RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-11-26 18:58 -0500
            Re: Net neutrality demise Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-11-27 02:12 +0000
              Re: Net neutrality demise Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-11-27 08:34 +0000
                Re: Net neutrality demise RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-11-27 15:52 -0500
                  Re: Net neutrality demise Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-11-28 08:04 +0200
                  Re: Net neutrality demise Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-11-28 08:35 +0000
            Re: Net neutrality demise Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-11-27 08:32 +0000
              Re: Net neutrality demise Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-11-28 02:13 -0400
                Re: Net neutrality demise Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-11-28 09:29 +0000
                  Re: Net neutrality demise Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-11-28 10:29 +0000
                  Re: Net neutrality demise Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-11-28 13:56 +0100
                Re: Net neutrality demise Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-11-28 11:01 +0000
        Re: Net neutrality demise Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-11-23 23:04 -0600
    Net neutrality is dead RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-12-14 14:49 -0500
      Re: Net neutrality is dead Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-12-14 21:57 +0000
        Re: Net neutrality is dead snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2017-12-14 22:23 +0000
          Re: Net neutrality is dead RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-12-15 01:00 +0000
          Re: Net neutrality is dead Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-12-15 16:19 +0100
          Re: Net neutrality is dead Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-12-15 18:18 +0200
            Re: Net neutrality is dead Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-12-16 01:55 -0400
        Re: Net neutrality is dead Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2017-12-16 21:24 +0000
          Re: Net neutrality is dead Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-12-17 10:15 +0000
            Re: Net neutrality is dead Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-12-17 14:54 +0100
              Re: Net neutrality is dead Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2017-12-17 18:27 +0100
                Re: Net neutrality is dead Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-12-20 10:19 +0100
                  Re: Net neutrality is dead Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2017-12-23 14:57 +0100
            Re: Net neutrality is dead RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-12-18 00:12 +0000
              Re: Net neutrality is dead Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-12-17 19:25 -0600
            Re: Net neutrality is dead Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2017-12-20 02:02 +0000
              Re: Net neutrality is dead arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2017-12-20 19:18 +0000
                Re: Net neutrality is dead Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2017-12-23 03:50 +0000
      Re: Net neutrality is dead RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2018-06-11 14:29 -0400
        Re: Net neutrality is dead RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2018-06-12 12:34 -0400
          Re: Net neutrality is dead Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-18 12:05 +1000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#15006 — Net neutrality demise

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

//-- clip
F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in Victory for Telecoms

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday that it
planned to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to
the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block
access to some websites.

The proposal, put forward by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a
sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The
rules prohibited high-speed internet service providers from blocking or
slowing down the delivery of websites, or charging extra fees for the
best quality of streaming and other internet services for their
subscribers. Those limits are central to the concept called net
neutrality.

The action immediately reignited a loud and furious fight over free
speech and the control of the internet, pitting telecom giants like
AT&T against internet giants like Google and Amazon, who warn against
powerful telecom gatekeepers. Both sides are expected to lobby hard in
Washington to push their agendas, as they did when the existing rules
were adopted.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the
internet,” Mr. Pai said in a statement. “Instead, the F.C.C. would
simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their
practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for
them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the
technical information they need to innovate.”

The proposal from Mr. Pai, a Republican, is widely expected to be
approved during a Dec. 14 meeting in a 3-to-2 party line vote from the
agency’s five commissioners. But some companies will probably put up a
legal fight, or actions by lawmakers, to prevent it from taking hold.

//-- clip

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.d398fd2ac98d

//-- clip

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites
customers see and use

Federal officials took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday,
unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to
determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.

Under the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission, companies
that provide high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon or
AT&T, would be able to block web content they do not like and auction
off speedier delivery of content to the highest bidder.

//-- clip








-- 
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15007

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html
> 
> //-- clip
> F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in Victory for Telecoms
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday that it
> planned to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to
> the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block
> access to some websites.

Some good commentary at Ycombinator, of course:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749150

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15008

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> ?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
> the internet,?  Mr.  Pai said in a statement.  ?Instead, the F.C.C. 
> would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
> about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
> that?s best for them ...

If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
most part.  Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
and let me pick.

But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
DSL connections over copper phone lines.

So now I've got two I can "pick and choose" between.  Comcrap and
Verizon.

And guess what, it does not help me much to know that *both* Comcrap and
Verizon are planning to regulate my speeds based upon how much a target
website/target 'destination' (read as Netflix, etc.) is willing to pay
to buy a 'fast lane'.  Because when they *both* do the same thing, I've
only really got one, not so great, choice, disconnect from them both,
and the internet at large.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15009

On 11/21/2017 02:57 PM, Rich wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> ?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
>> the internet,?  Mr.  Pai said in a statement.  ?Instead, the F.C.C.
>> would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
>> about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
>> that?s best for them ...
>
> If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
> that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
> most part.  Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
> and let me pick.
>
> But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
> when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
> cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
> DSL connections over copper phone lines.

There was NEVER a choice in Pasadena.  The City granted exclusive 
permission to whatever Charter called itself to lay cable all over the 
city.  The only viable competition is AT&T, and once you wrench the 
numbers out of them, they're no better.  If we want an actual usable 
(phones/tablets are NOT usable) internet connection, that's it.  Period. 
  $65/month for ~60Mbs down and 5Mbs up, internet only.  The nominal 
speed has increased (along with the price) over the years, but the 
effective speed (driven by websites' upload speeds) is no better.

Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.

And now the bastards will be able to throttle sites (what about usenet?) 
that don't pay.  Charter doesn't innovate, they just deliver.  They ARE 
just a utility and should be regulated (or not) just like the others.

> So now I've got two I can "pick and choose" between.  Comcrap and
> Verizon.
>
> And guess what, it does not help me much to know that *both* Comcrap and
> Verizon are planning to regulate my speeds based upon how much a target
> website/target 'destination' (read as Netflix, etc.) is willing to pay
> to buy a 'fast lane'.  Because when they *both* do the same thing, I've
> only really got one, not so great, choice, disconnect from them both,
> and the internet at large.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
======================================================================
Eat this, NSA: bomb assassinate Washington North Korea Iraq spy poison
ISIS AlQaeda Bush Clinton Pelosi Reid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15010

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 02:57 PM, Rich wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> ?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
>>> the internet,?  Mr.  Pai said in a statement.  ?Instead, the F.C.C.
>>> would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
>>> about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
>>> that?s best for them ...
>>
>> If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
>> that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
>> most part.  Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
>> and let me pick.
>>
>> But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
>> when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
>> cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
>> DSL connections over copper phone lines.
> 
> There was NEVER a choice in Pasadena.  The City granted exclusive 
> permission to whatever Charter called itself to lay cable all over the 
> city.  The only viable competition is AT&T, and once you wrench the 
> numbers out of them, they're no better.  If we want an actual usable 
> (phones/tablets are NOT usable) internet connection, that's it.  Period. 
>  $65/month for ~60Mbs down and 5Mbs up, internet only.  The nominal 
> speed has increased (along with the price) over the years, but the 
> effective speed (driven by websites' upload speeds) is no better.
> 
> Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.

Back in the day of DSL competition (because the local baby bell was
required to offer access to the copper loop to anyone on fair terms) I
saw the price of DSL internet drop down to as low as somewhere around
10-20/month for a reasonable speed (at the time, ranged from about
768kbit up to about 2.5Mbit) DSL link.  Yes, it was asymmetrical and so
upload was a fraction of download.  This was circa 1998-2002 or 2003. 
$20 in 1998 would be about $29/month today.  This was down from where
DSL began (well over $100/month ($145 today vs. 1998)) and these prices
dropped *very* quickly overall.

So, yes, with actual, real, competition among a large enough pool of
players, prices can become good.

Two options (assuming one even has two options) is only competition
from a textbook/dictionary definition of competition.  With only two
players, they can both easily collude without running afoul of the law
by simply each not trying too hard to compete much.  Which is where we
get what we have now, one saw their bit-rates increase, but the dollars
per month figure remained unchanged.

> And now the bastards will be able to throttle sites (what about usenet?) 
> that don't pay.

Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted.  The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down.  And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15027

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
> is very unlikely to be impacted.  The speed to which they would have to
> throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
> being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
> their provider thinking their links were down.  And that support call
> flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

Au contraire.  It will be considered niche/specialty and made
unavailable in traditional packages.  If you want anything other than
port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.

If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
well, actually.  Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the very
last domain, and charge accordingly.  Scumbags.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15029

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
>> is very unlikely to be impacted.  The speed to which they would have to
>> throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
>> being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
>> their provider thinking their links were down.  And that support call
>> flood would convince them they had throttled too far.
> 
> Au contraire.  It will be considered niche/specialty and made
> unavailable in traditional packages.  If you want anything other than
> port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
> NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.

Well, here in the USA, Usenet has already been made "niche/specialty". 
None of the ISP's left provide any form of Usenet access, even for a
fee.

If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
for access.

> If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
> well, actually.  Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the
> very last domain, and charge accordingly.  Scumbags.

Yep, that is definitely a risk.  The CATV companies are likely drooling
at the prospect of legally being able to bring CATV style "bundling"
and "pricing" to the internet.  You want the "Techie Bundle" -
$10/month more, but Hacker News is special, so that's an extra $5/month
on top....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15031

On 2017-11-27, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
>>> is very unlikely to be impacted.  The speed to which they would have to
>>> throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
>>> being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
>>> their provider thinking their links were down.  And that support call
>>> flood would convince them they had throttled too far.
>> 
>> Au contraire.  It will be considered niche/specialty and made
>> unavailable in traditional packages.  If you want anything other than
>> port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
>> NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.
>
> Well, here in the USA, Usenet has already been made "niche/specialty". 
> None of the ISP's left provide any form of Usenet access, even for a
> fee.

Well, they provide *access*, in that you're welcome to establish a
connection to an NNTP server, they just don't run that server. Presumably
since a small and diminishing proportion of their customers used it,
it was impossible to monetise and running a usenet server is a lot
of work.

> If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
> the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
> for access.

Same in the UK.

>> If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
>> well, actually.  Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the
>> very last domain, and charge accordingly.  Scumbags.
>
> Yep, that is definitely a risk.  The CATV companies are likely drooling
> at the prospect of legally being able to bring CATV style "bundling"
> and "pricing" to the internet.  You want the "Techie Bundle" -
> $10/month more, but Hacker News is special, so that's an extra $5/month
> on top....

I fear that you are entirely correct.

:o(


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15034

On 27 Nov 2017 08:34:56 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2017-11-27, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> > If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
> > the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
> > for access.
> 
> Same in the UK.
> 

Right.  Now you'll pay twice.  You'll need to subscribe to Eternal Sept
etc (I happen to like Solani, by the way).  But you'll also have to pay
your ISP for the extended package in which non-port 80 traffic isn't
filtered ...

The only upside I can think of is that it might possibly open the
market for smaller ISPs who offer varied services.  Of course those
smaller ISPs will have to negotiate agreements with the owners of the
fiber/copper lines, who will almost certainly price them into oblivion.

That's what happens when you set up your systems to favor
monopolies ... you get a monopoly.

Good governance.  It's nice, if you can get it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15036

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
> That's what happens when you set up your systems to favor monopolies
> ... you get a monopoly.

Monopolies arise automatically without setting anything up.

> Good governance.  It's nice, if you can get it.

I'm pretty happy with the system in Finland. Not everything is perfect,
of course, but at least there's fierce competition between the political
parties, and that keeps them honest.

Because of the proportional voting system, the 200 seats in the Finnish
Parliament are divided by these parties:

   -----------------------------    ----------------------------
   Government                       Opposition
   -----------------------------    ----------------------------
   Center Party (49)                Social Democratic Party (35)
   National Coalition Party (38)    Finns Party (17)
   Blue Reform (19)                 Green League (15)
                                    Left Alliance (12)
                                    Swedish People's Party (9)
                                    Christian Democrats (5)
                                    Åland's representative (1)
   -----------------------------    ----------------------------

Explanation:
   Center Party = the social conservatives' party
   National Coalition Party = the fiscal conservatives' party
   Social Democratic Party = the wage laborers' party
   Blue Reform = the angry white men's party
   Finns Party = the ultranationalist party
   Green League = the do-gooders' party
   Left Alliance = the communist party
   Swedish People's Party = the coastal Swedish-speakers' party
   Christian Democrats = the evangelicals' party
   Åland's representative = the autonomous region's quota


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15039

On 2017-11-27, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2017 08:34:56 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-11-27, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> > If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
>> > the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
>> > for access.
>> 
>> Same in the UK.
>> 
>
> Right.  Now you'll pay twice.  You'll need to subscribe to Eternal Sept
> etc (I happen to like Solani, by the way).  But you'll also have to pay
> your ISP for the extended package in which non-port 80 traffic isn't
> filtered ...

The net is a very different place outside of the USA. There is a fair
range of ISPs to choose between and "net neutrality" is not a thing.

Oh, and I use the Free University of Berlin for my usenet access. They
charge, but it's in the noise.

[7 lines snipped]

> Good governance.  It's nice, if you can get it.

America has the best Government money can buy.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15030

On 2017-11-26, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
>> is very unlikely to be impacted.  The speed to which they would have to
>> throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
>> being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
>> their provider thinking their links were down.  And that support call
>> flood would convince them they had throttled too far.
>
> Au contraire.  It will be considered niche/specialty and made
> unavailable in traditional packages.  If you want anything other than
> port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
> NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.
>
> If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
> well, actually.  Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the very
> last domain, and charge accordingly.  Scumbags.

Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15037

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
> we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
> as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
USA?  Huh.

I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
fee structure.


[1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
    articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
    convivial fireside conversation. :-)

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15040

On 2017-11-28, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
>> Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
>> we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
>> as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.
>
> Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
> whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
> USA?  Huh.

Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought bandwidth.

> I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
> providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
> fee structure.

In which case it will be worth Canadian ISPs setting up their own bandwidth.
IMNHO, the "net neutrality" thing will result in much less traffic being
routed through the USA.

> [1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
>     articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
>     convivial fireside conversation. :-)

Two rooms? I email stuff to my wife who's sitting 5 feet to my left!


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15041

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2017-11-28, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>> Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still,
>>> now we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats
>>> censorship as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

At a purely technological level it’s false, the Internet has been
censored since at least the 1990s, with the cooperation of connectivity
providers (who don’t like going to prison).

As a statement about the tendency of end users to seek out workarounds,
there’s a bit more to it, but I think that’s more a fact about human
nature than computer networks as such.

>> Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife
>> [1] whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed
>> through the USA?  Huh.
>
> Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought
> bandwidth.

Also, potentially:
 - who they’ve outsourced email too
 - which multinational they’re part of

My ‘British’ ISP is actually part of a larger US-based company and
receives inbound email via infrastructure which seems to be in the
Netherlands (not that I usually use my ISP-provided address).

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15044

On 2017-11-28, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-11-28, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
>>> we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
>>> as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.
>>
>> Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
>> whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
>> USA?  Huh.
>
> Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought bandwidth.
>
>> I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
>> providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
>> fee structure.
>
> In which case it will be worth Canadian ISPs setting up their own bandwidth.
> IMNHO, the "net neutrality" thing will result in much less traffic being
> routed through the USA.

Between 2005 and 2010 or so, I was getting regular speed boosts from my
cable ISP without extra charges.  This was no doubt driven by competition.

A notable aspect of those upgrades was that for the first week or three,
US sites didn't seem to be any faster.  That delay was probably down to
the ISP monitoring the demands of several hundread thousand users and
then negotiating with whoever for the newly required bandwidth, and
stumping up whatever extra cash was necessary.

>
>> [1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
>>     articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
>>     convivial fireside conversation. :-)
>
> Two rooms? I email stuff to my wife who's sitting 5 feet to my left!

Heck, I've emailed long URLs and code snippets to myself just to read
them on a different system :-)

(I do have better methods for doing that nowadays)

-- 
Everybody has a testing environment. Some people are lucky enough to
have a totally separate environment to run production in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15042

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still,
>> now we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats
>> censorship as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.
> 
> Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife
> [1] whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed
> through the USA?  Huh.

No, the MX record in the DNS system for the domain name your wife's
email is hosted on determines where email is routed.

As to why an Ontario ISP is routing email through the US, it could be
that they have 'outsourced' their email to a US company.  I.e., they
might be buying email service from Google (or other 'email' service
provider), and rebranding the service under their own domain name.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15015

On 11/22/2017 15:38, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.
> 

My, there is a surprise!
-- 
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15149 — Net neutrality is dead

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/

//-- clip

WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet, setting up a court fight over a move that could
recast the digital landscape.

The approval of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal marks a victory for
internet service providers like AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp. and Verizon
Communications Inc. and hands them power over what content consumers
can access.

Democrats, Hollywood and companies like Google parent Alphabet Inc. and
Facebook Inc. had urged Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald
Trump, to keep the Obama-era rules barring service providers from
blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.

Consumer advocates and trade groups representing content providers have
planned a legal challenge aimed at preserving those rules.

The meeting was evacuated before the vote for about 10 minutes due to
an unspecified security threat, and resumed after sniffer dogs checked
the room.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, said in the run-up to the
vote that Republicans were “handing the keys to the internet” to a
“handful of multibillion-dollar corporations.”

Pai has argued that the 2015 rules were heavy-handed and stifled
competition and innovation among service providers.

“The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital
dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is perhaps the one thing in
American society we can all agree has been a stunning success,” he said
Thursday.

The FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the rules.

Consumers are unlikely to see immediate changes resulting from the rule
change, but smaller startups worry that the lack of restrictions could
drive up costs or lead to their content being blocked.

Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal
content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say
consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated
internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

//-- clip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15151 — Re: Net neutrality is dead

On 2017-12-14, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
> Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
> https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/
>
> //-- clip
>
> WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
> lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
> and open internet, 

Sad now.

-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 56th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web