SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the would-you-like-YouTube^WNetflix^WFacebook^WAmazon-with-that? dept.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times writes about Portugal's Internet which shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly. Basically, tiered services get in there through a loophole for zero-rating.
After paying a fee for basic service, subscribers can add any of five further options for about $6 per month, allowing an additional 10GB data allotment for the apps within the options: a "messaging" tier, which covers such services as instant messaging, Apple FaceTime, and Skype; "social," with liberal access to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and so on; "video" (youTube, Netflix, etc.); "email and cloud" (Gmail, Apple's iCloud); or "music" (Spotify, Pandora).
Portugal isn't the only country allowing tiering of internet services. In Britain, the internet service provider Vodaphone charges about $33 a month for basic service but offers several "passes" allowing unlimited video or music streaming, social media usage, or chat, at additional tariffs of up to $9.30 per month. [Ed's Note: This is not entirely accurate - Vodaphone's ISP home broadband offering (17Mbps) is £24/month unlimited usage, the additional figures quoted are for faster fiber connections (38 and 76 Mbps) where available. How you use your connection is irrelevant. This is the same for many European ISPs. Smart phone costs are entirely separate.]
Although both countries are part of the European Union, which has an explicit commitment to network neutrality, these arrangements are allowed under provisions giving national regulators some flexibility. These regulators can open loopholes permitting "zero-rating," through which ISPs can exclude certain services from data caps. That's what the Portuguese and British ISPs essentially are doing.
If the vote on the 14th of December repeals Net Neutrality then consumer options will be greatly reduced while increasing greatly in prices as we can see from Portugal's example.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday November 28 2017, @05:41PM (7 children)
Yea! And nobody should use Akami either, CDNs are a total scam, ISPs should simply build sufficient infrastructure that every website can be hosted in one single location! Netflix is a huge chunk of the internet's traffic needs. Putting local caches of the most viewed content at every major provider is what has allowed them to exist. Google also spreads their servers around the world, Amazon does, etc. If nothing else, putting local copies on every continent saves a lot of load on undersea cables. You are an idiot who has no clue how the Internet works right now. The threat of being charged is what caused Netflix to become so aggressive in offering "Netflix in a box" appliances to every major ISP but CDNs are a routine and required part of Internet infrastructure and have been for twenty years.
True but not important to my point. Realtime traffic isn't about bandwidth, it is about maintaining acceptable latency.
No, I'm saying Cisco and Juniper are not in the habit of discounting their gear based on where you are installing it. Same for all the other physical infrastructure bits. Their bandwidth costs to get traffic to popular U.S. destinations is higher, even if much of the bulk content is delivered from a local CDN. But third world customers can't and won't pay first world prices so an ISP operating there is operating on thinner margins. So they have huge incentives to experiment with their pricing models.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday November 28 2017, @06:00PM (6 children)
Having decentralized data centers is not the same as buying space in the ISP's data centers. And the market forces that have caused major Internet service providers like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Netflix to decentralize are mostly orthogonal to net neutrality.
Local caches are becoming untenable for licensing and security reasons. You can't universally cache Netflix's DRMed streams, and you can't universally cache SSL resources. CDNs are on the way out too because of CommonJS / ES6 development practices, which are only made possible by the increased bandwidth available for streaming. Since that's the direction the internet is going, ISPs are going to need to be prepared anyway. If their solution doesn't work within net neutrality rules, you can bet that it involves throttling, bandwidth caps, and/or tiered pricing structures a la cable TV. Most people would really prefer the cable TV way of doing business to die, not infect our internet service.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:29PM (2 children)
Free speech activists say this is just another vector to shut down freedom of expression on the internet. I follow progressive politics, and already Twitter and YouTube have been banning and demonotising content and accounts either silently or using "Russia, Russia, Russia" hysteria. Hell, they've attacked Wikileaks with the Russia thing so much people are actuallly starting to believe it... repetition (repetition, repetition, repetition) is the oldest form of mind control after all. (BTW, Jimmy Dore does a great job debunking the mainstream narrative : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9U6nKHJmk [youtube.com] ). If deprioritising political voices into oblivion becomes possible it WILL happen. Disagree with a companies interests? Piss off a government entity and the company has headquarters in its juristiction? If this becomes legal it WILL be used for censorship.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:21PM (1 child)
I can't tell what you're responding to. Did you put this in the wrong place?
Do I interpret you correctly that fast laning / zero rating / bundles will be "another vector to shut down freedom of expression on the internet"? It's an interesting point. However, "Twitter and YouTube" didn't obtain the power to censor their users for progressive purposes. They gain it for free by virtue of their decentralized infrastructure, unless they go out of their way to give us end-to-end encryption like Apple and Google sometimes do. And in YouTube's case, they have long used that capability to serve the MPAA/RIAA mafia.
If they are censoring unpopular speech, it's because that's what the market wants them to do with their power. But the fundamental problem is that they have that power to begin with. It's arguably worse if they never use their censorship powers the way they are now, because then the sheeple wouldn't know that they were capable of censorship at all. As it stands, censoring Russian propaganda etc. only makes it easier to make exactly the argument you are making.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:29AM
The argument I was making is if censorship became so bad on mainstream platforms that people tried moving to eg. Diaspora (federated Facebook replacement), Mastodon (federated Twitter replacement) etc... then these could (and probably would) be made to perform so badly as to be unusable (because Netflix!). You're right that the market wants mainstream platforms to censor speech... viewers aren't the customers, they're the product after all (the customers being companies often owned by oligarchs with a certain political views).
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:05PM (2 children)
Aren't they already doing that?
https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-with-isps-around-the-globe-to-deliver-a-great-viewing-experience [netflix.com]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
Netflix Open Connect is not a universal cache. It works specifically with Netflix streams. If these streams were universally cacheable, Open Connect would not exist. But Netflix streams never could be universally cacheable, because that would require them to be universally copyable. The owners that license content to Netflix do not want that content to be universally copyable. Therefore, Netflix needed to develop a domain-specific cache that keeps copies under Netflix's direct control.
The internet was designed for universally copyable content. That's what insecure HTTP is supposed to be - GET a URI, and any server between here and there can deliver its cached copy depending on the cache settings returned by the server (or in their absence, a predefined set of default settings). It only works when those servers are capable of owning a copy of that resource.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday November 30 2017, @10:06AM
Oh, right. I figured you meant 'universal' as in 'all of the Netflix content'.
Indeed. It's the same reason there are so many mutually incompatible Internet media-playing services: Spotify/iTunes/Google Play Music/Amazon music, or Netflix/Amazon video/Google Play video/iTunes video/Hulu/Now TV/Vimeo/Rakuten/Playstation Store/Microsoft Store/BBC iPlayer/the many different TV catchup services. It's the same idea each time, but they're always going to be incompatible because of the questions of DRM and control (and perhaps marketing and 'customer ownership').
I think you mean the web.
Indeed, and that sort of openness is at odds with the requirements of Netflix et al, and you say.