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

18

The problem is at the other end. Say you get your Internet service from Comcast. And say they decide that they want you to buy your streaming video from them, not from Netflix So they slow down the traffic coming from Netflix to your house. This has nothing to do with where Netflix's servers are. If you're Netflix you can probably pay the fee that Comcast demands to let your traffic through unhindered; if you're some indie video site, you probably can't. And while that much is a US problem, the secondary effects -- like Netflix raising fees to cover that cost -- affect everyone.
– Monica Cellio
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 2:28
@MonicaCellio, but that doesn't cover the other side of the coin. If Comcast wants to set up new, faster infrastructure to stream their own video service (which would be a much lower cost than setting up faster infrastructure for everyone), would they be able to legally do so? I think not. Even if the end result would have been (a) sufficient profits from their streaming service to (b) incentivize the creation of the accelerated infrastructure in the first place and (c) enough money and experience in dealing with the new infrastructure at small scale to (d) make it available broadly.
– Wildcard
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 3:08
2

@Wildcard yeah, I don't know those answers either. I was just trying to explain why it's not as easy as moving servers.
– Monica Cellio
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 3:59
@MonicaCellio, ah, well that is certainly true. :) It's really an amazingly multifaceted issue—the least clear-cut of any modern hot button, in my opinion.
– Wildcard
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 4:03
3

@MonicaCellio so, you're saying that no matter what kind of means of obfuscating where I'm trying to download my traffic from (VPN/Tor), if it's not from the "approved" places by my ISP (assuming I'm in the US, and it may be very well Comcast), it will get slowed down? Sounds to me like the only screwed citizens in this scenario are US citizens, as we're talking FCC which has no power outside US (granted, their decision might affect other countries, but not as much as US). Other countries may still have their own regulations in place against this kinda stuff.
– user1306322
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 7:43
4

"if you're not a USian, you can donate to EFF, but I'm not sure about that either." It's certainly possible to donate (a single time, or recurring) to the EFF even though you have nothing to do with the USA.
– user
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 11:24
2

@user1306322 remember that the internet has many layers, and some of them are kind of the only route between both points. If someone along the line wants to, they can screw anyone that pass through their network.
– Braiam
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:29
1

@Braiam then we should strive to have more than just 1 route of communication between important points? Wifi or similar close-ranged mesh networking comes to mind as a potential solution, in absence of alternative high-speed wired connections.
– user1306322
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:59
1

@user1306322 which would be a cost and management nightmare. On infrastructure, it's recommended that the state regula.. nay, control it, like electricity, health, transport, etc. You cannot trust private interest to not use the leverage that brings natural monopolies to further their benefits.
– Braiam
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:30
5

@MonicaCellio It's a problem at both ends (and in between). The ISP can not only stifle a competing services just before it reaches the consumer, but also between that competing services' servers and the backbone, or any time traffic from that competing service goes through any part of the network they control (even if they aren't directly servicing either endpoint). That means that this is most certainly relevant for foreigners, because access to those competing services can still be impacted before they leave the country (unless the competing service has servers outside the US).
– Servy
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:45
2

I wonder if there's a completely decentralized solution, like a mesh of a huge number of nodes with a long range and no dependency on wires. Where the users don't rely on a single or even as little as <10 connections. Wifi seems too weak for achieving that. Maybe a mesh of LTE/4/5G wireless routers and access points? Latency and bandwidth aside, I'd like to learn about such potential options in case a local ISP goes rogue.
– user1306322
Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:36
3

Strange to think that back when ARPANet was put together it was designed to maintain as good as possible as much as possible of the interconnectivity between the connected Hosts - so that should some links fail in, say, the unfortunate occurrence of something like a nuclear war the remainder would still get their packets through what remained in the network via even a tortuous route. Now it seems the FCC is trying to work exactly in the opposite direction - at least for those who are unwilling/unable to pay for "enhanced" access to the system.
– SlySven
Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 4:52
1

On a personal note I am seeing this sort of effect here in the UK! I have an Internet Connected PVR from YouView however my ISP/Cable TV Virgin Media operator is not one of the Media companies involved - they have their own Cable TV receivers which duplicates most of the functionality in a different way that YouView provides. However because of "differences in interpreting" a protocol or something the on-line functions of the PVR are totally crippled & useless with neither taking the blame/or fixing it.
– SlySven
Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 5:07
@SlySven: I'm on BT and they hijack DNS requests, rewriting all A-record requests to point to two of their servers, unless you use BT's own DNS which has censorship, and which redirects you to adware sites for non-existent domains instead of giving error/no response (breaking some software that expects RFC-complaint DNS). After weeks of phone calls BT have still not "been able to find the problem"...
– Mark K Cowan
Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 12:20
1

@cr0 there is apparently a way to use wifi with special towers to make a mesh network with flat hierarchy and thus low latency. The real world examples I've read about are still dependent on the existing bigger ISPs' backbone, but theoretically you could interconnect such wifi mesh towns with optic cables, if you ever got a permit to place the cable. Wifi doesn't seem to require permissions, but as always, local radiotelecommunication laws differ.
– user1306322
Commented Dec 1, 2017 at 8:41

| Show 4 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 »