how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
629 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | By the time harm is shown by providers... It is going to be too late.
The FCC is waiting for some sort of harm to show up before creating NN regulations, however, once that harm shows up, its going to be too late. The providers, whether cable or telco, will find some way of making what they are already doing, be it prioritizing one site over or another for money or something else, legal and anything beyond that illegal.
As they say, one the genie is out of the bottole, it is hard as hell to get it back in.
Sometimes you need to take the initiative and create protections before the harm exists. This is one of those times.
I mean seriously, we already have ISPs injecting ads into people's web sessions without their consent, other providers munging DNS and yet another threatening to filter "pirated" material even though they are going to have a hard time telling legit and illegitimate content apart... No one techie worth their salt can argue in favor of any of those.
Yeah, no harm... Talk about the FCC being out of touch.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: By the time harm is shown by providers... Considering that there has yet to be a legitimate news article detailing an ISP's harm to consumers, why exactly would you propose regulation? Without a clear goal or reason to regulate, do you really want technically illiterate legislatures telling you how you will use your Internet connection? In the end, I see no good coming from regulation simply for the sake of regulating.
As for being "too late", many could've said that about the original AT&T and a few other conglomerates/monopolies in the past. | |
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: By the time harm is shown by providers... said by openbox9:Considering that there has yet to be a legitimate news article detailing an ISP's harm to consumers, why exactly would you propose regulation? Sorry, there have been several outlining things such as manipulating DNS zones in such a way as to impact the performance of the internet or ad injection. Ad injection being the biggest one.
As for regulation - propose that providers be limited to carrying the data that their subscribers desire - websites, mail, etc. - with minimal interference and prevent things such as traffic modification - ie. ad injection into websites, etc.
Without a clear goal or reason to regulate, do you really want technically illiterate legislatures telling you how you will use your Internet connection? In the end, I see no good coming from regulation simply for the sake of regulating. No. The goal is to maintain a standards compliant, open internet free of last mile providers impacting data that does not originate from their own system. In other words, prevent provides from altering anyone's traffic unless, of course, there is a legit security reason.
As for being "too late", many could've said that about the original AT&T and a few other conglomerates/monopolies in the past. Ahh, so true.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: By the time harm is shown by providers... said by bmn:Sorry, there have been several outlining things such as manipulating DNS zones in such a way as to impact the performance of the internet or ad injection. Ad injection being the biggest one. And the legitimate harm to consumers?said by bmn:As for regulation - propose that providers be limited to carrying the data that their subscribers desire - websites, mail, etc. - with minimal interference and prevent things such as traffic modification - ie. ad injection into websites, etc. How would you begin drafting regulation on a statement as broad as yours? Who makes the determination on "subscribers' desires", "minimal interference", and "traffic modification"? Who's going to enforce this regulation? How? Who's going to pay for this regulation? Who's going to maintain over site of the govt and corporate arms? Regulation may sound great when you're freely throwing around ideas that you think are important, but what is often not thought about is the bureaucracy that must be created and sustained to enforce regulations (both good and bad).said by bmn:The goal is to maintain a standards compliant, open internet free of last mile providers impacting data that does not originate from their own system. In other words, prevent provides from altering anyone's traffic unless, of course, there is a legit security reason. Once again, I don't believe their have been any legitimate issues in this regard that haven't been resolved in a timely manner. The ad-injection lives in a gray area IMO and is acceptable so long as the end users gain a benefit (e.g. reduced fees, higher bandwidth tier, etc.) or are able to opt-out. | |
| | | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: By the time harm is shown by providers... said by openbox9:said by bmn:Sorry, there have been several outlining things such as manipulating DNS zones in such a way as to impact the performance of the internet or ad injection. Ad injection being the biggest one. And the legitimate harm to consumers? It increases the advertising that consumers do not want, causing general consumer dissatisfaction. It WILL damage the reputation of some websites and services who have been ad free when ads start appearing causing consumers to defect to other sites and services or cause backlash against those sites. It will impact subscriber bandwidth limits where applicable.
The harm is there. Refusing to admit to it for whatever reason you have doesn't get rid of it.
said by bmn:As for regulation - propose that providers be limited to carrying the data that their subscribers desire - websites, mail, etc. - with minimal interference and prevent things such as traffic modification - ie. ad injection into websites, etc. How would you begin drafting regulation on a statement as broad as yours?
Who makes the determination on "subscribers' desires", "minimal interference", and "traffic modification"? "Subscribers' desires" can easily be figured out - where is the packet going. If they are sending a packet to a particular location on the internet, more likely than not, they want to connect to that service. Virus and trojan activity has a certain signature that makes it very easy to separate out.
"Minimal interference" is an objective term - it means that a provider will pass packets unimpeded or unmodified, interfering with them only in case of security (virii and trojans).
"Traffic modification" is an objective term - it means altering packet flows, destinations, etc. from what was intended based on the packets header information or from speed is allowed on a given connection.
Granted, these definitions may not be entirely complete, but they capture the gist...
Who's going to enforce this regulation? How? FCC. Interstate communications.
Who's going to pay for this regulation? Existing funds. Enforcing a rule like this will cost far less than something like enforcing radio regulations that sometimes require onsite inspections.
Who's going to maintain over site of the govt and corporate arms? Create an panel of technical experts, network engineers, etc. not affiliated with the access providers.
Regulation may sound great when you're freely throwing around ideas that you think are important, but what is often not thought about is the bureaucracy that must be created and sustained to enforce regulations (both good and bad). Oh no, the added size of government has already been considered. But if it is a choice hiring a few more guys at the FCC or having the access providers f*cking with the internet model that worked so well, I'll take the former.
The ad-injection lives in a gray area IMO and is acceptable so long as the end users gain a benefit (e.g. reduced fees, higher bandwidth tier, etc.) or are able to opt-out. 1. Ad-injection can't be opted out of if you read the information on it. It is performed via transparent proxy servers that are setup to prevent users from being able to bypass them.
2. As injection is not there to give the consumer any gain whatsoever. It is there as a revenue stream for providers on TOP of what they already get from subs.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| | | | Congratulations. For the thousandth time on these boards, you just theoreticly outlawed QOS. Good-bye VOIP and IPTV for the masses. Your proposed solution has the exact same effect as the problem you intended to fix. | |
| | | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: By the time harm is shown by providers... said by Yauch:Congratulations. For the thousandth time on these boards, you just theoreticly outlawed QOS. Discriminatory QoS - yep. If a provider were to provide QoS for ALL VoIP services, not just their own or those that pay up, I'd be willing to change my position. However, they likely won't do that.
Good-bye VOIP and IPTV for the masses. Nope. Nothing prevents a providers from create a separate VLAN over the connection to your home outside of your internet connection to deliver VoIP and IPTV. In fact, such an approach makes much more sense than putting it in the same virtual connection as your bulk internet data.
Your proposed solution has the exact same effect as the problem you intended to fix. Actually, it does not.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| |
|
