Net neutrality

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Once you get to digital authentication, things get very difficult. An example is digital cable; in order to get the signal/data you need a box that authenticates you within the network and once there, it gets changed periodically making it very difficult to hack. Proof of it is that while analog cable boxes can be found over the internet (to steal an analog signal) digital cable boxes for the same purpose aren't available despite a few years of digital cable.

The principle is more or less the same, first of all ISPs are connected to a backbone usually in one or two points which can be easily controlled, second, pirating the signal is very difficult, currently most ISPs verify every modem connected to their network via UID/PWD and/or MAC address, third every packet that gets to the gates from the backbone can be authenticated, that is encrypted information is verified upon arrival and let pass or not according to an encrypted UID/PWD. The only way I could think to subvert the system would be having users paying two or more ISPs (say you get DSL from a company and cable from another) and bridge the traffic between both, and it would be very easy for the ISPs to find such cases (based on a higher traffic) and cut the service for violating the terms of the contract.

I hate to say that it is very doable, completely disgusting, disturbing, and plain evil, but very, very doable. 

[Griffin NoName]

Zono, I don't have a problem with what you are saying as far as it goes. But why do you believe ISPs are the only way in?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

When you say you don't have a problem you mean you don't mind? 
--
Lets see, I buy my internet service from a local cable company, they in turn buy their access from a larger company that gets them to the backbone (in my case ATT). The ISP (my cable provider in this case) pays for the bandwidth they use (which goes to why companies like Comcast were throttling down certain traffic on their networks in violation of net neutrality) and the higher bandwidth is eaten by things like audio, video, and file sharing networks. Once on the backbone, and depending on agreements and/or inbound/outbound traffic backbone companies may interconnect for 'free' (inbound traffic is roughly the same to outbound traffic) or charge for the interconnection to their network.

In some cases (like mine) the ISP is 'independent' from the backbone provider, but in others (those on ATT or Sprint or Verizon[UUNET]) the parent company owns both your local access and the backbone network. That creates a desire to own content (like TimeWarner) because it's cheaper to distribute it in-network, and also (if the suggested plan succeeds) to charge extra to other backbone companies/ISPs to get data from your network.

Other point to take into account is the relative success of the so-called Great Firewall of China that proved the concept of systematically block content on the internet. Different countries would love to control what information is available in their turf (just today there was a story where Google was banned in Germany from offering their image search), and a compartmentalized internet sounds like music to many legislators, corporations and autocrats across the globe. How beautiful to shut down those pesky VOIP providers, how moral to prevent the youth from porn and videogames, how righteous to avoid any political dissidents somewhere at the other side of the globe from spreading lies and discontent.

Again, one of these fat cats doing the blocking/taxing their turf would have all their users leaving them in droves, but with the current consolidation, if all ISPs in your market play by the same rules you have no way to protest.

[ivor]

I don't think this net neutrality thing will work.  If it gets that bad I will just not buy any service at all.  I don't think anybody else will either.  I'll dust off the modems, put my BBS back online, find a Fidonet host and renew my subscription to BoardWatch.

[Griffin NoName]

When you say you don't have a problem you mean you don't mind? 

Sort of!!! Yes. Lol!!  I meant it seems to me our contributions to the thread are along different lines which don't meet

I'm unsure if yours can be classed as contributions though, since you started the thread and therefore I was acknowledging that

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't think this net neutrality thing will work.  If it gets that bad I will just not buy any service at all.  I don't think anybody else will either.  I'll dust off the modems, put my BBS back online, find a Fidonet host and renew my subscription to BoardWatch.

I possibly would do something like that (stop the service and look for alternatives). I imagine at some point we'd get two networks: an open one with the companies and countries willing to be neutral, and a closed one with all their precious commercial content. Eventually it would backfire but it would take years to get a second infrastructure in place.

Sort of!!! Yes. Lol!!  I meant it seems to me our contributions to the thread are along different lines which don't meet

I'm unsure if yours can be classed as contributions though, since you started the thread and therefore I was acknowledging that

So I'm getting preachy and boring? 

[Griffin NoName]

I don't think this net neutrality thing will work.  If it gets that bad I will just not buy any service at all.  I don't think anybody else will either.  I'll dust off the modems, put my BBS back online, find a Fidonet host and renew my subscription to BoardWatch.

I possibly would do something like that (stop the service and look for alternatives). I imagine at some point we'd get two networks: an open one with the companies and countries willing to be neutral, and a closed one with all their precious commercial content. Eventually it would backfire but it would take years to get a second infrastructure in place.

Our parallel lines approach a crossing point ! 

Sort of!!! Yes. Lol!!  I meant it seems to me our contributions to the thread are along different lines which don't meet

I'm unsure if yours can be classed as contributions though, since you started the thread and therefore I was acknowledging that

So I'm getting preachy and boring? 

No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. Quite the opposite.

Someone said to me recently: I don't think X gives you enough credit.   not talking about the banking system

They meant it as a complement.

How I heard it was, credit for being bad thing <1> <2><3><4>...............

Is that what happened here, or am I just unable to express myself well and digging myself into a bigger hole?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Our parallel lines approach a crossing point ! 

My point is that those alternatives may not be there.

No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. Quite the opposite.

Someone once told me: "I'm not saying you are ugly or not but exactly the opposite"

That statement condenses how much I'm getting what your saying...

[Griffin NoName]

Our parallel lines approach a crossing point ! 

My point is that those alternatives may not be there.

Yes, I understood that you were making that point by the fact you said it would take years to get a second infrastructure in place. Which is why I used the word "approach". Perhaps "approach" was too precise and I should have used a vaguer term. Like: "somewhere, at some time, in virtual space, some ideas which appear as if they have no connection point, will overlap for a moment."

No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. Quite the opposite.

Someone once told me: "I'm not saying you are ugly or not but exactly the opposite"

That statement condenses how much I'm getting what your saying...

Ok. So I am just digging a bigger hole.

I'll try again. LOL!

I'll go back to the original post -which was two sentences :



a)"Zono, I don't have a problem with what you are saying as far as it goes.

DE-constructing and RE-constructing my first sentence:

You wrote two paragraphs.

Your First para:  "Once you get to digital authentication, things get very difficult........."

My view: Yes. Valid points.

Your Second para: "The principle is more or less the same, first of all ISPs are connected to a backbone usually in one or two points which can be easily controlled,................."

My view: Yes. Valid points.

So I can replace the first half of my first sentence:

"Zono, I don't have a problem with what you are saying "

with:

You wrote two paragraphs. First para:  "Once you get to digital authentication, things get very difficult......... "Yes. Valid points.  Second para: "The principle is more or less the same, first of all ISPs are connected to a backbone usually in one or two points which can be easily controlled,................." Yes. Valid points.

Now I'll look at the last phrase in my first sentence:

"as far as it goes"

I'll take that phrase out and replace it with two sentences:

I'm interested in what you are saying. I'd like to explore this further.

So now my first sentence has become:

You wrote two paragraphs. First para:  "Once you get to digital authentication, things get very difficult......... "Yes. Valid points.  Second para: "The principle is more or less the same, first of all ISPs are connected to a backbone usually in one or two points which can be easily controlled,................." Yes. Valid points. I'm interested in what you are saying. I'd like to explore this further.

it now sounds pedantic - possibly even patronising - like I am being!



b)But why do you believe ISPs are the only way in?"

DE-constructing and RE-constructing my second sentence:

What I have noticed in what you wrote is that I think the points you make might rely on believing ISPs are the only way to gain access to the backbone. I am interested in why you have this belief (if I am correct in thinking you do have it). Perhaps if you do have this belief, then explaining to me why you have it, might help me understand more about all this. I could focus on the points you have made about digital stuff, but from the way I have understood what you have written, that is secondary, so I think I'd like to start with the ISPs. If I can understand more about why you have this belief (if I am correct in thinking you do have it) that ISPs are the only way to gain access to the backbone, then some of what I might otherwise want to discuss about the digital stuff may become irrelevant to the whole discussion.

So now, I have re-written my whole reply.


"Zono, I don't have a problem with what you are saying as far as it goes. But why do you believe ISPs are the only way in?"

has become:

You wrote two paragraphs. First para:  "Once you get to digital authentication, things get very difficult......... "Yes. Valid points.  Second para: "The principle is more or less the same, first of all ISPs are connected to a backbone usually in one or two points which can be easily controlled,................." Yes. Valid points. I'm interested in what you are saying. I'd like to explore this further.

What I have noticed in what you wrote is that I think the points you make might rely on believing ISPs are the only way to gain access to the backbone. I am interested in why you have this belief (if I am correct in thinking you do have it). Perhaps if you do have this belief, then explaining to me why you have it, might help me understand more about all this. I could focus on the points you have made about digital stuff, but from the way I have understood what you have written, that is secondary, so I think I'd like to start with the ISPs. If I can understand more about why you have this belief (if I am correct in thinking you do have it) that ISPs are the only way to gain access to the backbone, then some of what I might otherwise want to discuss about the digital stuff may become irrelevant to the whole discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know if that is any better or worse now ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trying to progress along the lines I was thinking, in your next reply you said:

"In some cases (like mine) the ISP is 'independent' from the backbone provider, but in others (those on ATT or Sprint or Verizon[UUNET]) the parent company owns both your local access and the backbone network."

That seems to be an answer to my wondering about why you have the belief aforementioned which is of interest to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again..... I don't know if that is any better or worse now ?

If it is any better, then I would be happy to go on discussing   - in fact I think it would be interesting.

If I have made it worse, in any way (possibly several) - then I apologise. Unreservedly.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To my knowledge, links to the backbone are purchased (to the owner of the closest node) by governments, universities and ISPs. A link to the backbone is usually a very fat pipe therefore in most cases high level ISPs (or resellers, or simply large ISPs) are the ones purchasing the link. In principle it sounds easy for a 'free' ISPs to purchase access and offer it to disgruntled customers from the 'restricted' ISPs. The thing is that in many cases the owner of the node is one of those large companies (again UUNET/verizon come to mind), but more interestingly, at some point you'll have to pass over their network.

If you know something different or complimentary regarding infrastructure, please tell me, I'm starting to feel like you know something obvious and I'm just an idiot building a card castle.

[Griffin NoName]

I don't know something obvious. I'm certainly not wishing to make you, or anyone else, look like an idiot. All I wanted to do was discuss it.

I wanted to discuss it because I don't believe it will happen, and I don't think it is likely that it will happen. That was my instinctive response to the video. I've no other agenda than why I had that response.

I don't have any cast iron answer to back up "it won't happen" - but I enjoy thinking about these kinds of things. I could have gone off and looked for stuff to formulate my own "it won't happen" reasoning.... but it's more fun to discuss it. For me. I like thinking outside the box. Discussion tends to promote that. For me.

I'm not wedded to "it won't happen" and asking you to clarify your thinking on it helps me in questioning my own instinctive response. I've always tended to work intuitively and then fill in the logic - with the logic backing up my original thinking or showing it to be a cul de sac. I make leaps in my mind and then I question them.

I'm sorry I have misjudged this.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To be fair the claim is extreme, but then again the fact that despite the suit against comcast they keep throttling down torrent traffic. About a year or two there was a fight between level3 and qwest (or someone else, I don't remember) and one of them decided to unplug the link because they claimed that they their traffic going into their network was less than the  traffic coming in. A third of the US was isolated from the rest of the net for a week or so. I understand that the internet would lose its usefulness in such drastic split, but the other point I've been trying to make is that there is a somewhat genuine complain on part of the owners of the networks when they pay by kb but collect a flat rate, and most traffic comes from outside sources like say youtube and sometimes its destination isn't even inside their network.

And the last point is just my natural cynicism: if they think they can get away with it they will try.

[Griffin NoName]

I didn't know anything about Comcast or any of that. Shows how out of touch I've got.

Thanks Zono.

[Sibling Chatty]

Can someone translate the content of this thread to REAL D-U-M-B and then tell me the simplified version of that? "Cause I'm on teh good druggies about 2 nights out of 7 now...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'll try Chatty (good to see you!).

Currently every piece of data (email, pages, videos, music, files, etc) over the internet is (or should be) treated in the same way, regardless of where the data originated and where was requested, that principle is called Net Neutrality. Example: you are in TX and the monastery is in FL and it is likely that for you to see these pages the information had to travel by the network of a company that isn't your provider nor the monastery's. That is possible thanks to net neutrality.

Some big companies that own big pipes of the internet, consider that it's not fair for them to allow data that wasn't requested not originated in their networks to cross through their turf.

The people in the video claims that a number of the big companies are getting together to charge a fee for traffic that wasn't originated or requested in their networks (like charging a tax to your provider every time you go to the monastery because it isn't in your provider's network).

I hope that is easy enough.