Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

55

This influences/involves SE because they are not a large internet provider in the U.S., which means their provider could say "you need to pay us _______ additional or you might start mysteriously losing service."
– Der Kommissar
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:24
48

Even better: competing sites could bribe (legally!) ISP's to prioritize their traffic rover SE.
– Der Kommissar
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:28
6

Both, in this case.
– Der Kommissar
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:35
33

At some point every single request has to pass through our Internet provider wherever our servers are. So if that provider decided to do something mischievous, it would affect every single user, all over the world.
– animuson StaffMod
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:38
23

@PatrickHofman Unfortunately that's not a reality Americans can enjoy. Many places in the US only have one or two options for who they get Internet from. If your provider doesn't want to sign contracts, then you don't get Internet because there's no one else to go to.
– animuson StaffMod
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:39
21

This is, admittedly, a difficult topic to explain in a way that is particularly understandable (much less compelling). The immediate danger is that ISPs (companies that provide service to businesses or individuals) will either block access to sites or artificially slow down access in hope of garnering more revenue (from either/both the site owner or those connecting to the site). The broader danger is that if you stop thinking of ISPs as "common carriers" - akin to, say, a postal service - then you eventually end up with a series of walled gardens where everyone has to negotiate access.
– Shog9
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:40
8

@PatrickHofman Because those are all restrictions on the provider end. Classifying them as Tier II allows the FCC (our communications governing body) to restrict these companies from creating an SLA, for example, that would provide 'Experts Exchange' with a higher priority than Stack Exchange. If we reclassify as Tier I, then that is a legal SLA/contract. By considering them 'common carriers' the risk for abuse is reduced slightly.
– Der Kommissar
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:41
18

It also gives the ISP the ability to not only block or slow access for monetary gain, but to do so to serve their own political agenda. They could, for example, block or slow access to any site that advocates for a free internet, or anything else that isn't in their own interests.
– Servy
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 20:43
21

@GaneshSittampalam Of course there's a contract, but having no other competition means that the provider can give you whatever contract they want under whatever terms they like, and you can either agree to it or not have Internet. Trying to negotiate more favorable terms that prohibit the provider from doing something you wouldn't like just isn't an option in most cases.
– animuson StaffMod
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 21:03
17

@GaneshSittampalam I'm not aware of the options in the locations where our data centers are, but yes, many places in the US do only have one or two options and they tend not to care about creating custom contracts. They certainly don't compete with each other.
– animuson StaffMod
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 21:13
5

@GaneshSittampalam That's mostly for consumer-facing communications. My city, for example, has two providers that service the block I live on (which is in the centre of the city!), and I'm not a fan of either. (They shall both rename nameless.) If the one I use (which is a 50/50 guess, so pretty damn easy) were to be bribed to service SE lower than something else, well that's a problem for me, but maybe not you. Or it could be? Who knows. The biggest issue is that this would create unreliability across the board, domestically and internationally.
– Der Kommissar
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 21:15
11

@GaneshSittampalam Of course "just move to a new data center" is easier said than done. Such a move would bear a financial cost of 8 or 9 figures, probably. And that's not considering the technical load and workers they have to have to manage such a thing.
– TylerH
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 21:27
8

@GaneshSittampalam A small number of providers service the entire country, and in most cases they each have their own geographic region(s). Likewise, that ISP that you just choose to spite (that may well provide access to tens of millions of people) could still limit traffic to your site for any of their customers, or any traffic going to you that goes through them (likely quite a lot of it) for being unwilling to play ball. The small handful of providers are also highly incentivised to cooperate, rather than compete, in such situations.
– Servy
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 21:28
8

I'd originally written something much, much longer @Ben - there's a ton of history here, both directly (the 1996 revisions to the communication act attempted a different compromise which was later partially dismantled) and indirectly (predicting outcome based on hypotheticals is dodgy, but we can look at predecessors to the Internet and similar markets to gauge how current actors will likely behave). That's when I realized I'd rather put this up for discussion: listening to me ramble on about Compuserve isn't nearly as engaging as encouraging folks to share their own stories.
– Shog9
Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 22:47
10

@BenCollins You say, "costs associated with changes" and yet the current regulations are for the net to be free. The people arguing for changes are the ones who are arguing for the ability of ISPs to engage in abusive behavior. You are the one arguing for a change, and a change that has no benefits. (Your "best case scenario" is nothing happens and ISPs don't actually leverage their ability to discriminate against people, as opposed to them deciding to use the permission you're proposing giving them to legally engage in such actions.)
– Servy
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 2:09

| Show 18 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »