Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

EU just ended Net Neutrality (oops)

Options
  • 27-10-2015 4:51pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭


    Important for all EU internet users:

    http://gizmodo.com/the-eu-tried-to-end-roaming-fees-and-ended-net-neutrali-1738918545
    The internet is a global network. That means if one part of the world decides to start pulling the wrong levers, we could be dealing with the consequences. And the European parliament just pulled a very big lever by voting down amendments to net neutrality rules that include dangerous loopholes.
    The European Union’s net neutrality rules are wrapped in a bundle of seemingly well-intentioned regulations that will do good things like ban roaming charges. However, the net neutrality debate ended up siding with the interest of big telecom companies. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) today voted in favor of the new rules—and all of the awful loopholes they allow. The saddest part of the whole ordeal is that only 50 MEPs out of 751 bothered to show up for the debate.
    Now about those loopholes. What makes them so worrisome is the simple fact that they’ll allow exceptions to the principle of net neutrality, which folks like world wide web inventor Tim Berners Lee insist is the best way to preserve a free and open internet. The Guardian explains the various loopholes concisely:
    Advertisement




    Among the exceptions opposed by net neutrality supporters is one which allows providers to offer priority to “specialised services”, providing they still treat the “open” internet equally. Many had seen the exception as allowing providers to offer an internet fast lane to paying sites, leading to the Italian government to propose removing the exception from the draft regulations.
    So fast lanes are okay as long as the rest of the internet is open. That’s like saying assault is okay as long as you’re not violent most of the time. What other crazy ideas are in this hugely important piece of legislation? Here’s the Guardian again:
    A different exception is aimed at situations where the limitation is not speed, but data usage. The EU’s regulations allow “zero rating”, a practice whereby certain sites or applications are not counted against data limits. That gives those sites a specific advantage when dealing with users with strict data caps such as those on mobile internet. The new regulations allow national regulators to decide whether or not to allow zero rating in their own country.
    This is a lot like Mark Zuckerberg secretly sinister plan to create an internet for poor people: Internet.org. So Facebook could pay lobbyists to convince the government of a European nation to give it a zero rating. It’s been clear for a while that Zuck and company don’t understand net neutrality. Now it’s obvious that lawmakers in Europe don’t get it either.
    Sponsored




    The Guardian saved the best exception for last:
    Other exceptions include an allowance for ISPs to predict periods of peak demand and introduce “reasonable traffic management measures”, and to group some services into traffic “classes”, which can be sped up or slowed down at will.
    In other words, just go ahead and create a caste system for internet traffic. That kind of approach has worked great for Europeans in the past.
    It’s easy to feel like these rules don’t matter for non-Europeans. It will take at least six months for each EU country to begin adopting the new rules, and even then, it’s safe to say that different leaders will interpret the new regulations differently. Nevertheless, once it’s all in place there will be reverberations throughout the world.
    It seems likely that anti-net neutrality lawmakers in the United States and other countries will be able to use Europe’s disregard for the free internet as a precedent to argue for their own misguided rules. The good news is that the United States has a good plan to build a better internet. God knows we need it.
    [The Guardian, Ars Technica, BBC]
    Y'all screwed up, largely because the decision makers apparently lacked the understanding of how the internet works.


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mother Brain


    Was only a matter of time before corporate interests dictated the direction the web would develop in future.

    Sad but basically inevitable. Where there's more money to be squeezed out of people you can bet your backside you will be squeezed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

    Basic Package
    - Google
    - Bing

    Social Package
    - Facebook
    - Twitter

    Streaming Package
    - Netflix
    - Youtube

    etc etc


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Thread title is overstating it a bit. :)

    What's been voted in is not yet regulations, and doesn't specifically allow for the loopholes stated, it just doesn't specifically rule them out.

    Yes, it's a pretty big oversight, but there is still plenty of time to correct it, and doesn't actually spell an end to net neutrality unless the regulators and the entire EU apply the entire thing in entirely the wrong way.

    Unlike the US where the FCC has effectively absolute power to define US-wide rules, it's not quite so simple in the EU. Ending net neutrality in France, for example, might do more harm for France than for the rest of the EU as other EU networks start isolating French networks and routing traffic around them to avoid their rules.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    smash wrote: »
    I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

    Basic Package

    - Google
    - Bing

    Social Package

    - Facebook
    - Twitter

    Streaming Package

    - Netflix
    - Youtube

    etc etc

    Basically that's what the loopholes would allow, you'd buy your internet/data plan based on which sites and services were zero-limit (eg. ESPN/Sky Sports that doesn't apply to your data cap). Once you start throwing sites in to that like reddit for instance, you seriously impact the popularity of other sites, like boards.ie. Users would spend more time on sites that don't affect their data caps.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Overheal wrote: »
    Basically that's what the loopholes would allow, you'd buy your internet/data plan based on which sites and services were zero-limit (eg. ESPN/Sky Sports that doesn't apply to your data cap). Once you start throwing sites in to that like reddit for instance, you seriously impact the popularity of other sites, like boards.ie. Users would spend more time on sites that don't affect their data caps.

    Then RTE player should be covered by our TV license! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    I don't really understand the whole net neutrality thing but I'm guessing it'll be treated similar to many other EU regulations such as VRT and recent regulations governing Industrial
    Action by police forces and be completely ignored by the Irish government. It seems to me that EU regulators are simply a bunch of wasters who introduce proposals and then get exorbitant expenses to travel to Brussels several times to debate and vote on it and then add a get out clause so it can be ignored if need be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I don't really understand the whole net neutrality thing
    Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

    Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

    Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.


    http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

    And, we've had examples where non-neutrality has been in effect, like when Verizon and Comcast racketeered Netflix into paying for unrestricted bandwidth: http://www.crossingbroad.com/2014/06/netflix-and-verizon-are-pissing-on-each-other.html that was during a period in the US's rules where loopholes existed for a short time, I believe these have since been closed due to widespread backlash (you did piss off most of America by ****ing with Netflix, after all)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

    They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,537 ✭✭✭✭briany


    You talk to most people about 'Net Neutrality' and they haven't the foggiest of what you're on about. As Overheal points out, if you want people to care, mention that it'll (possibly) affect their Netflix.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    briany wrote: »
    You talk to most people about 'Net Neutrality' and they haven't the foggiest of what you're on about. As Overheal points out, if you want people to care, mention that it'll (possibly) affect their Netflix.

    A large number of Americans support getting rid of net netutrality because communism.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,694 ✭✭✭BMJD


    Cannot be arsed reading this. Can I still view girls who forget to put clothes on?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Enough already with the autopsy. Is free pornography going to be under threat or not damn it??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    The Guardian saved the best exception for last:
    Other exceptions include an allowance for ISPs to predict periods of peak demand and introduce “reasonable traffic management measures”, and to group some services into traffic “classes”, which can be sped up or slowed down at will.

    sound like my ISP contract! :)

    This stuff is so arcane to so many its hardly a surprise the law of unintended consequences kicks in.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,153 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I'm not too worried. As Seamus has said, there is still a lot of time to correct this. It's disconcerting that this was allowed to happen but given that we're talking about a basic freedom, I expect a lot of people would be willing to fight this if it even looks like going ahead.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    mad muffin wrote: »
    What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

    They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?

    People who have risen to the top of their profession don't tend to spend much of their personal time on the web.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    mad muffin wrote: »
    What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

    They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes



    Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was fortunately voted out in the 2008 general elections, but his legacy is the same, and many republicans have yet to really embrace technology though most display more knowledge of it now, in the "Oh no you did not just Tweet that" era. This was his argument on the Senate floor, rejecting an amendment that would have stopped ISPs from charging a premium for fast-lane content provision (2006):

    "Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
    […] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.[5]"

    while I can't find any smoking gun that he got money from the ISPs (Trust me, ISPs donate millions every cycle, but the 10 year old contribution data is hard to come by) he was later indicted on some pretty spectacular corruption charges for not disclosing gifts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens#Controversies as well as deliberately writing law and approving contracts for his business partners, willfully exploiting Senate procedural loopholes:
    In December 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that Stevens had taken advantage of lax Senate rules to use his political influence to obtain a large amount of his personal wealth.[59] According to the article, while Stevens was already a millionaire "thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help," the lawmaker who is in charge of $800 billion a year, writes "preferences he wrote into law," from which he then benefits.[59]

    AT&T themselves simultaneously pushed the narrative that "Net Neutrality" was a confusing term, hard to define, too complicated, etc. - until it suited them, then they whipped up the definition rather breathlessly: http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/att-concession-thoroughly-debunks-key-antinet-neutrality-myth/1226-att-concession-thoroughly-debunks-key-antinet-neutrality-myth (AT&T used it's merger agreement/neutrality commitment during the 2014 Net Neutrality issue to its advantage too: it claimed publicly that "AT&T will voluntarily enforce net neutrality no matter what the FCC decides" - without mentioning they were already obliged on paper to do so...)(AT&T is currently trying to merge now with DirecTV and is preparing to abide by even more NN rules to fast-track the approval)

    In short though, politicians don't care, and they are getting filthy rich by not caring.
    A large number of Americans support getting rid of net netutrality because communism.

    A large number will otherwise believe that "The Free Market" and "Capitalism" are being threatened by liberal "Net Neutrality." Fortunately anyone with access to said internet, usually filters through google who is an avid sponsor of Net Neutrality and not afraid to send unsolicited emails (specifically, Eric Schmidt) to its gmail users about the situations when they have arisen. Same with facebook and many other technologically forward-thinking sites.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    The corporatisation and subsequent monetisation of all our lives is very very annoying.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mother Brain


    To the people asking will pornography be affected, one possible (likely even?) scenario is that if net neutrality really goes away then you will find your regular free tube sites have been choked of bandwidth because they can't pay a large fee to the isp's.

    Then you'll have the one big porn company that can afford the fees pays them, and then charges you to access their content and in part, to cover the cost of the fees they pay to the providers.

    So it is quite possible indeed that free porn sites will become untenable / unusable because neutrality has been compromised. The tube sites operate on razor thin margins as it is and any significant growth in costs or decline in revenues due to fewer visitors is likely to send some of them under.

    I only hope that if or when it happens that all the apathetic folk out there who dismissed all this as none of their concern enjoy jerking off to the sight of a swirling load icon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Anyone know if our MEP's are attending these debates?

    Might be worth lobbying them to ensure they are. Especially your man Flannigan who hardly turns up for anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mother Brain


    TheDoc wrote: »
    Anyone know if our MEP's are attending these debates?

    Might be worth lobbying them to ensure they are. Especially your man Flannigan who hardly turns up for anything.

    I'm sorry, this isn't a snipe at you but Irish politicians hardly strike me as the most technically astute at the best of times. Probably not a lot they would be able to achieve.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Without net neutrality.

    You pay money to your ISP to get 100Mb/s or whatever.
    You pay money to Netflix to get their HD streaming option

    Netflix and your ISP fall out, because NetFlix refuses to pay for extra bandwidth. So they throttle Netflix.

    You get crap bandwidth from Netflix.

    Clearly this is a disaster for consumers.


  • Posts: 17,381 [Deleted User]


    Some of the most damaging laws have been passed with a small percentage of politicians present. I don't understand how they can keep their job.. I'm more angered by 51 showing up than the actual bill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43 braniganl


    Here is a list of those who voted against it. Fine Gael (no surprises there): Mairead Mc Guinness, Sean Kelly, Brian Hayes, Deidre Clune, Independent : Nessa Childers, Marian Harkin. I'll be emailing them all and asking them what the reasoning was for their no votes. I'm aware that it's ignorance and/or lobbying backhanders, but have to try sure.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Without net neutrality.

    You pay money to your ISP to get 100Mb/s or whatever.
    You pay money to Netflix to get their HD streaming option

    Netflix and your ISP fall out, because NetFlix refuses to pay for extra bandwidth. So they throttle Netflix.

    You get crap bandwidth from Netflix.

    Clearly this is a disaster for consumers.

    Don't I already pay for this stuff?

    Sorry I'm confused.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mother Brain


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Don't I already pay for this stuff?

    Sorry I'm confused.

    Exactly!

    The problem arises when you, the consumer are caught up in a beef between two services you already pay for and suffer as a result.

    Basically, if your internet provider decides to charge a fee to a service that separately charges you (i.e. Netflix), and they refuse, the internet provider can then throttle the bandwidth that service receives which means your Netflix service will suffer in quality regardless of what you pay because your internet provider is also their provider.

    It's rotten to the core.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Exactly!

    The problem arises when you, the consumer are caught up in a beef between two services you already pay for and suffer as a result.

    Basically, if your internet provider decides to charge a fee to a service that separately charges you (i.e. Netflix), and they refuse, the internet provider can then throttle the bandwidth that service receives which means your Netflix service will suffer in quality regardless of what you pay because your internet provider is also their provider.

    It's rotten to the core.

    Ah ok. So right now I'm paying for unlimited bandwidth. If I sign up to Netflix I pay for Netflix..., ok fine... But then my provider can charge me extra for using Netflix ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mother Brain


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Ah ok. So right now I'm paying for unlimited bandwidth. If I sign up to Netflix I pay for Netflix..., ok fine... But then my provider can charge me extra for using Netflix ?

    Well it depends on how they do it basically. This is still hypothetical.

    What's probably more likely is that Netflix has to charge you more in order to factor in the cost of paying the fees to the provider.

    As someone above pointed out it might also go down that providers end up offering different packages sort of like how the tv works where you pay x for a certain number of channels and additional or specialist channels are a higher price again like the movie or sports channels. Except that you are paying a premium for using Netflix or Youtube because they consume more bandwidth by streaming HD video.

    Either way the consumer gets screwed and infrastructure providers / existing huge multinationals prosper.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    braniganl wrote: »
    Here is a list of those who voted against it. Fine Gael (no surprises there): Mairead Mc Guinness, Sean Kelly, Brian Hayes, Deidre Clune, Independent : Nessa Childers, Marian Harkin. I'll be emailing them all and asking them what the reasoning was for their no votes. I'm aware that it's ignorance and/or lobbying backhanders, but have to try sure.

    I would like to think they voted against it because of the loopholes it contained that threaten net neutrality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,651 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    McGaggs wrote: »
    I would like to think they voted against it because of the loopholes it contained that threaten net neutrality.

    The loopholes would have been closed by the amendments they all voted against and because of their irresponsible voting now exist whereas before they did not, maybe go back and read up on this a bit more.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    smash wrote: »
    I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

    Basic Package
    - Google
    - Bing

    Social Package
    - Facebook
    - Twitter

    Streaming Package
    - Netflix
    - Youtube

    etc etc
    Which package gets me all you can eat porn?


Advertisement