Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
On a tangential note, I wrote a post about the recent rollback of privacy protections by Congress, along with what it means, and some advice. Please direct discussion of such to that topic. Thank you. : )
Network Neutrality is likely going to be a major topic soon, and something you are likely to hear about from many parties. This is no longer a subject I can afford to ignore.
While I bring this up because of the situation in the United States, it is helpful to understand this principle no matter where you are, as this debate has been properly settled in only a few countries.
Net Neutrality is a concept that ensures:
• As an Internet server operator, I pay the same amount to send you the same amount of data, no matter what ISP you use. I do not have to make thousands of individual deals with individual ISPs, just for you to reach my site.
• As an Internet consumer, you pay the same amount to retrieve the same amount of data, no matter what peers your service of choice uses to send you this data. You don't have to know what peering even is, much less which one connects you to my sites.
• Thus, my datacenter operator can't block individual consumers without cause.
• Nor can your ISP block websites without cause.
• In an ideal situation, a given bit of data cannot be prioritized over another. This started to break down with the rise of bittorrent, and no longer quite applies.
• Accordingly, Google and others discuss prioritizing non-streamed/torrented data in general. Although it makes up a minority of traffic, it has a much greater impact when a small amount of data is disrupted.
• This is generally accepted, with some gripes. What brings this debate to the fore is the measures some ISPs have taken recently:
1) Throttling traffic from some websites - namely Youtube and Netflix - unless the ISP is paid an additional premium.
2) Completely blocking some forms of traffic externally, such as Comcast's interference with torrenting.
3) Promoting their own content for free, currently being called 'zero rating'.
This last has drawn some attention, because it begins to resemble the 'walled gardens' of the Internet's early, failed competitors. It gets a little bit too close to censorship for some tastes.
So far, Network Neutrality has had a powerful, leveling effect on the Internet's development. It does not require much effort to have a voice under Network Neutrality. A relatively tiny investment can reach any other Internet user, if they wish to listen.
There were many private competitors to the Internet during the 80's and early 90's. AoL, CompuServe, and Prodigy being the most well-known of these. The Internet - a US Government project - ate everything it did not simply crush.
Because none of them could compete with the unrestrained output of the rest of the planet.
This level playing field is why the Internet succeeded where every single private attempt failed.
What will the repeal of Network Neutrality in the United States mean?
Repealing neutrality opens the door to many tactics that block groups from reaching each other. Once any ISP can block any website unless it or its customers pay an additional fee, the fear is when this will happen, not if. Youtube and Netflix are already the first victims.
There are deeper concerns regarding political censorship:
Comcast owns NBC. If you are a Comcast customer, eventually, access to NBC services get 'zero-rated', while you have to use your limited bandwidth allotment for other services.
Fox News will cost you after your bandwidth is up, but MSNBC is still free!
AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. Which includes CNN.
Verizon bought Yahoo. Which includes Tumblr.
I'm sure after Sumner Redstone dies his heirs will make some deals regarding the future of Viacom and CBS.
...this sort of writing has been on the wall for years, now. Given the above, I figured that Republicans would make the wise choice, accordingly.
That does not seem to be happening.
This is a freedom of speech issue. Network Neutrality helps guarantee it, by forcing Internet providers to be neutral parties.
Revoking it opens the door for ISPs to use moral or political guidelines in determining what sort of sites they allow access to, and for what price. I cannot be certain that, if there is no pushback on this, my sites will not eventually be impacted. Whether through increased costs or censorship.
For those inside the United States, there are things you can do. Two charities that help with the Network Neutrality fight are:
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation is probably the most famous group lobbying for digital rights in the modern age.
• Free Press is a smaller organization, more focused on Network Neutrality itself as well as other factors arising from media consolidation.
Once resolutions about this start showing up in Congress - most likely to legislate a way out of Title II - you are going to hear a lot more about this. At this point it would be a good idea to contact your representatives:
• Call your representative or visit them in person. If you call, remember to keep it to a single statement - that you support Network Neutrality.
• Do the same with your senators.
Whether you approve of them or not, Indivisible Guide has some solid insight into how to best communicate with your representatives.
Thank you for reading, everyone.
Network Neutrality is likely going to be a major topic soon, and something you are likely to hear about from many parties. This is no longer a subject I can afford to ignore.
While I bring this up because of the situation in the United States, it is helpful to understand this principle no matter where you are, as this debate has been properly settled in only a few countries.
Net Neutrality is a concept that ensures:
• As an Internet server operator, I pay the same amount to send you the same amount of data, no matter what ISP you use. I do not have to make thousands of individual deals with individual ISPs, just for you to reach my site.
• As an Internet consumer, you pay the same amount to retrieve the same amount of data, no matter what peers your service of choice uses to send you this data. You don't have to know what peering even is, much less which one connects you to my sites.
• Thus, my datacenter operator can't block individual consumers without cause.
• Nor can your ISP block websites without cause.
• In an ideal situation, a given bit of data cannot be prioritized over another. This started to break down with the rise of bittorrent, and no longer quite applies.
• Accordingly, Google and others discuss prioritizing non-streamed/torrented data in general. Although it makes up a minority of traffic, it has a much greater impact when a small amount of data is disrupted.
• This is generally accepted, with some gripes. What brings this debate to the fore is the measures some ISPs have taken recently:
1) Throttling traffic from some websites - namely Youtube and Netflix - unless the ISP is paid an additional premium.
2) Completely blocking some forms of traffic externally, such as Comcast's interference with torrenting.
3) Promoting their own content for free, currently being called 'zero rating'.
This last has drawn some attention, because it begins to resemble the 'walled gardens' of the Internet's early, failed competitors. It gets a little bit too close to censorship for some tastes.
So far, Network Neutrality has had a powerful, leveling effect on the Internet's development. It does not require much effort to have a voice under Network Neutrality. A relatively tiny investment can reach any other Internet user, if they wish to listen.
There were many private competitors to the Internet during the 80's and early 90's. AoL, CompuServe, and Prodigy being the most well-known of these. The Internet - a US Government project - ate everything it did not simply crush.
Because none of them could compete with the unrestrained output of the rest of the planet.
This level playing field is why the Internet succeeded where every single private attempt failed.
What will the repeal of Network Neutrality in the United States mean?
Repealing neutrality opens the door to many tactics that block groups from reaching each other. Once any ISP can block any website unless it or its customers pay an additional fee, the fear is when this will happen, not if. Youtube and Netflix are already the first victims.
There are deeper concerns regarding political censorship:
Comcast owns NBC. If you are a Comcast customer, eventually, access to NBC services get 'zero-rated', while you have to use your limited bandwidth allotment for other services.
Fox News will cost you after your bandwidth is up, but MSNBC is still free!
AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. Which includes CNN.
Verizon bought Yahoo. Which includes Tumblr.
I'm sure after Sumner Redstone dies his heirs will make some deals regarding the future of Viacom and CBS.
...this sort of writing has been on the wall for years, now. Given the above, I figured that Republicans would make the wise choice, accordingly.
That does not seem to be happening.
This is a freedom of speech issue. Network Neutrality helps guarantee it, by forcing Internet providers to be neutral parties.
Revoking it opens the door for ISPs to use moral or political guidelines in determining what sort of sites they allow access to, and for what price. I cannot be certain that, if there is no pushback on this, my sites will not eventually be impacted. Whether through increased costs or censorship.
For those inside the United States, there are things you can do. Two charities that help with the Network Neutrality fight are:
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation is probably the most famous group lobbying for digital rights in the modern age.
• Free Press is a smaller organization, more focused on Network Neutrality itself as well as other factors arising from media consolidation.
Once resolutions about this start showing up in Congress - most likely to legislate a way out of Title II - you are going to hear a lot more about this. At this point it would be a good idea to contact your representatives:
• Call your representative or visit them in person. If you call, remember to keep it to a single statement - that you support Network Neutrality.
• Do the same with your senators.
Whether you approve of them or not, Indivisible Guide has some solid insight into how to best communicate with your representatives.
Thank you for reading, everyone.