Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 15:07 | comment | added | Shauna | @Benjol -- HBO, NBC, and Starz have historically had issues with their streaming services on Comcast, to the point that users couldn't access the services the paid for. It's part of what took HBO so long to come out with a fully independent streaming option. And yes this matters, because it highlights the conflict of interest we currently have with ISPs and why it needs to be codified that internet access be common carrier. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 12:23 | comment | added | Mark K Cowan |
@EBrown: Even better: competing sites could bribe (legally!) ISP's to prioritize their traffic rover SE. — Oh no, does this mean ISPs forcing us to remember ExpertSexChange.com again?..
|
|
| Jul 4, 2017 at 6:46 | comment | added | Benjol | @Shog9, this battle is a philosophical one. Which side you fall depends on who you trust the least: the corps that will screw you over, or the state that will screw things up :) | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 17:17 | comment | added | Shog9 | The last question is the critical one, @Benjol: and the answer is, I don't know. I want to believe that's just not plausible, but the truth is that even with relatively low bandwidth requirements for any individual user there are enough users in aggregate to potentially make us a target should one company happen to end up serving a large chunk of them. This is where you look for comparable situations in history, and end up finding them in both the telephone and cable industries, doubly unsettling given who currently operates most of the US consumer ISP market. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 9:42 | comment | added | Benjol | @Shog9, but are there any examples anywhere of ISPs price gouging random non-abusive sites for extra money completely arbitrarily? (i.e. not ones that are super-high-bandwidth?). Or of ISPs shutting down websites they "don't like"? Do you really honestly in your heart believe anyone is going to try to limit access to SE? | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 6:20 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 2:09 | comment | added | Servy | @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.) | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 1:52 | comment | added | Wildcard | @Eric, perhaps, but we do know that horrible things can happen in pursuit of "preventing bad things from happening." Did you know that the Holocaust was based on a psychiatric theory and movement (eugenics) which sought to arrest the impending deterioration of the human race due to poor genes? Your argument could be applied verbatim in favor of that preemptive measure, also. Reread your comment. Apply it to the supposed danger of gene pool deterioration. Then reconsider your rationale for taking action: do you measure the possible harm as well as the possible avoided harm? | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 1:37 | comment | added | Ben Collins | @Eric It's often a good reason to not accomplish something when you can't point to imminent or concrete issues (not totally unlike the YAGNI principle). Correspondingly, there are costs associated with changes. Increasing regulation increases the chances of regulatory capture, for example (which in this case we already have, but the "Net Neutrality" rules are prone to make it worse, in my view). There is more besides that, but the point is nothing is without its own set of tradeoffs. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 23:53 | comment | added | Eric | "Whether or not this outcome is, in fact, an immediate danger is one of the points of contention between the various views" - This is the reason we can never accomplish anything. Arguing over wether a bad thing will happen is pointless, no-one knows. What we do know is if we block the ability to have the bad outcome, well, no argument there, it shouldn't happen. I fail to see the side of the argument that says "That won't happen". If we agree with that side and it does happen they get to say, "Sorry, I did not think it would happen" and we are stuck with it cause it is not going to change. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 22:47 | comment | added | Shog9 | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 22:33 | comment | added | Paulw11 | @EBrown it is much worse than that. SE already pays their provider for bandwidth, and that provider can ask for more if it wants; but there are standard commercial pressures . Without net neutrality, other providers, such as my provider could go to SE and say, "unless you pay us as well, our subscribers won't be able to access your site (or it will be slower whatever)". SE isn't likely to be affected directly in the short term, but e.g. Netflix might find that it's streaming doesn't work as well as the subscriber's ISP's streaming offering unless the pay. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 22:27 | comment | added | Ben Collins | @Shog9 this kind of gets into what I say in my post about framing points of fact, but it's relevant to point out here, too: you say "the immediate danger is that ISPs will either block or artificially slow down access in hope of garnering more revenue" as though it's a fact, but without supporting evidence. Whether or not this outcome is, in fact, an immediate danger is one of the points of contention between the various views. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:28 | comment | added | Servy | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:27 | comment | added | TylerH | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:25 | comment | added | GS - Apologise to Monica | @animuson I can understand that being the case for home ISPs particularly in less populated areas, I'm just really surprised that it's the case for the hosting business - particularly as you could just move to a new data centre. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:19 | comment | added | TylerH | @animuson Indeed. The largest carriers even have legal non-compete agreements (in some cases they've even managed to swindle legislation out of politicians in their pockets) so that they don't have to worry about serious competition. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:17 | comment | added | Kendra | @GaneshSittampalam To add a bit to what animuson says, even in a small town (think less than 1.5k people), your ISP options can vary from people down the street. While a company proudly claimed to service my area when I moved here, I found they didn't actually service my specific street in town, so I was stuck with a small, low-speed ISP and no possible way to get better internet. (I was stuck on 1.5 gig bandwidth for 3-4 years!) Go figure it was the specific section most college kids lived in... | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:15 | comment | added | Der Kommissar | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:13 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:07 | comment | added | GS - Apologise to Monica | @animuson you mean StackExchange has only one option for its own hosting? That's quite surprising. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:03 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:02 | comment | added | GS - Apologise to Monica | @animuson but you must have a contractual relationship with your own provider that would stop them doing that. Isn't the issue here other carriers, whether backbone or users' ISPs? | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:44 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Okay. That is clear @ebrown and shog. If that can be the bottom line of the blog I think that would be clear for everyone. Please include samples like the ones above to make it clear for everyone. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:43 | comment | added | Servy | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:41 | comment | added | Der Kommissar | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:40 | comment | added | Shog9 | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:39 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:38 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:38 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | In the Netherlands you can fix this things with contracts and SLA's. Why not in this case (for the company). | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:35 | comment | added | Der Kommissar | Both, in this case. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:31 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | You mean their connection to the hub or from the hub to consumers? @ebrown | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:28 | comment | added | Der Kommissar | Even better: competing sites could bribe (legally!) ISP's to prioritize their traffic rover SE. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:24 | comment | added | Der Kommissar | 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." | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:22 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 61 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2017 at 20:17 | history | answered | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |