Net Neutrality

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:28 am

This one should be easy but with the current trend of certain types opposing things just because liberals support them makes me question everything, but Net Neutrality. We're all in favour of it, right?

For those who don't know what it is, Net Neutrality laws force Internet Service Providers to treat all internet traffic equally, as opposed to unequally that would allow them to deliberately make some websites load faster while throttling the traffic of another site. eg., Sky Broadband deliberately making Netflix, their competitor, unusably slow or inconsistent while allowing Sky Video on Demand to work perfectly.
Another thing that would be legal without NN laws would be the sale of packages that allow you to access certain whitelisted websites and web services. So you could be charged, for example, an extra fiver a month for access to social networking sites. Another fiver if you want to access video streaming websites. A seperate £5/month package for news websites. Another £5 if you want to play games online, or make video calls to your family in Australia (instead of using your ISP's phone package).

And because all these sites and services are whitelisted it prevents competition from emerging new sites and services.

Like, imagine you were forced to get your news from fearmongering, sensationalist news sites that are profitable because they're fearmongering and sensationalist, because the honest and trustworthy news sites don't exercise those practices and so aren't profitable enough to afford the fees that ISPs will charge for being whitelisted?

So, we all agree - right? If not, why?

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:05 am

I'll be honest - I don't know much about this. But isn't there some talk of the Yanks getting rid of net neutrality? It sounds like a bad thing if this happens... which means it probably will.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:09 am

"Net Neutrality" is the phrase invented in America. It's down to how they were legislating to provide internet services in the USA and does not relate to content.

It really is not a relevant phrase for internet use outside of the USA. The phrase itself was politically motivated - I mean, who could argue against neutrality????

But it isn't what you think it is. It's a boring bit of US legislation.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:09 am

If you want to be bored, read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutr ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:26 am

In the EU mobile broadband isn't regulated the same way as fixed-line broadband and so net neutrality regulations don't regulate mobile broadband providers. This allows them to charge their customers for unmetered access to specific sites and apps.

Here's a genuine advert from a Portugese mobile ISP. Imagine this but for your home broadband.

Some people might want you to think that net neutrality isn't relegent to the UK, or that it's only relevent to the US and therefore it's boring, but those people shouldn't be listened to. They're liars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:32 am

Hmmmm, you're using a Portuguese advert to explain why it's relevant to the UK?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:38 am

Rowls wrote:Hmmmm, you're using a Portuguese advert to explain why it's relevant to the UK?

Yes. Because some mobile ISPs already offer unmetered access to some Video on Demand websites but not others. The portugese advert is just much clearer and upfront about it, so it gets the point across better.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:39 am

Rowls wrote: But it isn't what you think it is. It's a boring bit of US legislation.

It been made to sound boring, so you don't find it interesting

This is a good video to sum it up - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:41 am

claptrappers_union wrote:It been made to sound boring, so you don't find it interesting

No, it just IS boring.

Here's yet another video of it which (unsurprisingly) is American. Just like yours was!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:45 am

Rowls wrote:No, it just IS boring.

Here's yet another video of it which (unsurprisingly) is American just like yours was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's "unsurprisingly" American because America is where's it's most immediately, and most significantly at threat. It's not under immediate threat in the UK because we have the protection of EU regulations. But my understanding is that that's about to change soon.

If i showed you a video of how climate change was going to threaten the United States would you be arguing that climate change isn't relevent to the UK because the only video i shared was about the US?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:49 am

Oh, thank goodness for the EU!!

Where would we be without the blessed EU!!!!

Perhaps, if you want to discuss how Net Neutrality is an important and pressing issue in the UK (as opposed to the US where it is apparently problematic to people who post a lot on the internet and are annoyed their Netflix is slow) you should demonstrate it?

With some knowledge of how it might be interesting or relevant to the UK.

So far you've spoken very vaguely about how it works in the US and praised the EU with none of your usual demands for "proof", "evidence", "links" or "FACTS".

Go ahead - it's your big opportunity. Get in there first!

Toddle off and learn how it works in the UK and come back and tell us if it's problematic in the same way the US is having a brouhaha about it all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:55 am

That's not just how it works in the US. That's how net neutrality works everywhere. Including here.

And i've already explained how it will be problematic here if we lose net nutrality protections. I explained that in the OP. Did you not bother reading it?

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:03 pm

Are you American IT or just American obsessed?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's not just how it works in the US. That's how net neutrality works everywhere. Including here.

And i've already explained how it will be problematic here if we lose net nutrality protections. I explained that in the OP. Did you not bother reading it?

You've explained nothing relevant to the UK whatsoever.

You've praised the EU (without your usual demand for evidence and you've provided a very basic description of a problem that exists in the USA.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:07 pm

KRBFC wrote:Are you American IT or just American obsessed?

I don't think he's American.

I think he just reads a lot of US forums and soaks up the same issues as them - whether they are relevant to the UK or not.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:09 pm

I thought Turtle was scottish?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:11 pm

Rowls wrote:You've explained nothing relevant to the UK whatsoever.

You've praised the EU (without your usual demand for evidence and you've provided a very basic description of a problem that exists in the USA.

I refer you to post #1.

If you think that post #1 is about the US then please quote the parts of post #1 that are about the US.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:17 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I thought Turtle was scottish?

I am. They're trying to discredit the message by making it about the messenger. Eventually they'll then criticise me for making it about me. It's how things work on this site.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I refer you to post #1.

If you think that post #1 is about the US then please quote the parts of post #1 that are about the US.

The fact that you think it's relevant is a US position.

If you posted this to help US-based Clarets then fair play to you.

Otherwise you might as well have posted a warning not to blaspheme in case we get punished with stoning to death.

Think that's not relevant to the UK? Well you're wrong! OK, so we're currently protected (Thanks to the EU's anti-stoning directive) but it's highly relevant because it happens elsewhere on the planet.

That's your basic argument as to why this is relevant. I just substituted "net neutrality" with "stoning to death as a punishment".

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:22 pm

Fair enough, if you want to have a boring discussion about an issue niche to the USA go ahead.

It just demonstrates how obsessed you are with that foreign country's internal politics.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:23 pm

Rowls wrote:The fact that you think it's relevant is a US position.

If you posted this to help US-based Clarets then fair play to you.

Otherwise you might as well have posted a warning not to blaspheme in case we get punished with stoning to death.

Think that's not relevant to the UK? Well you're wrong! OK, so we're currently protected (Thanks to the EU's anti-stoning directive) but it's highly relevant because it happens elsewhere on the planet.

That's your basic argument as to why this is relevant. I just substituted "net neutrality" with "stoning to death as a punishment".

If there were multi-billion pound companies in the UK who would lobby our government to relax anti-stoning laws then you'd have a point. But there aren't, so you don't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:23 pm

Rowls wrote:Fair enough, if you want to have a boring discussion about an issue niche to the USA go ahead.

It just demonstrates how obsessed you are with that foreign country's internal politics.

Who was it that brought America into this discussion thread?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:25 pm

... but we had a voluntary agreement to abide by "net neutrality" before we adopted the EU directive to enforce net neutrality anyway.

I don't know why you don't just admit you're obsessed with internal American politics?

It's quite obvious.

I'm happy to admit I like Dr Who.

Just admit it's not relevant to the UK and that it's boring.

You'll feel better.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:27 pm

KRBFC wrote:Are you American IT or just American obsessed?

He's trying to convince Bill Maher he's actually his love child.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:29 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Who was it that brought America into this discussion thread?

Foulthrow

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:31 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:.... For those who don't know what it is, Net Neutrality laws force Internet Service Providers to treat all internet traffic equally, as opposed to unequally that would allow them to deliberately make some websites load faster while throttling the traffic of another site. eg., Sky Broadband deliberately making Netflix, their competitor, unusably slow or inconsistent while allowing Sky Video on Demand to work perfectly.
Another thing that would be legal without NN laws would be the sale of packages that allow you to access certain whitelisted websites and web services. So you could be charged, for example, an extra fiver a month for access to social networking sites. Another fiver if you want to access video streaming websites. ...

Imploding Turtle wrote:If there were multi-billion pound companies in the UK who would lobby our government to relax anti-stoning laws then you'd have a point. But there aren't, so you don't.

Mmmmm. Yeah.

There's a lot of "would" and "could" and perhapsiness to your thinking here, isn't there?

There are a lot of people in the world who would like to bring in stoning to death as a penalty for blasphemy and no doubt they would do so if they could. EVEN IN THE UK!!!!!!

So yeah, I see how both these pressing issues are highly important and relevant to the UK.

I take it all back - it hasn't been boring at all.

It's been highly interesting and highly relevant.

Goodbye!

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:37 pm

Just need a 'That's really it for me this time, I'm off out now' from Rowls and a link to some diagram on Reddit from Turtle and we can wrap this up.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:42 pm

The 'I'm off out now' from Rowls also has to include details of how broad a friends network he has, with details on the colour and country of origin of all his 'friends'

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:45 pm

I'm nore than happy to admit that i have a keen interest in American politics and history. But when you call it an obsession you're doing it to try to discredit my opinion without actually debating against it. Why do you do that?

Yes, net neutrality is relevent to the UK. If we lost the EU protections we'd only have our own government to protect us from corporations bleeding money out of us, or enacting anti-competitive practices such as throttling their competitor's online services.

And yes, when/if net neutrality is removed in the US it WILL affect us here. How? Using one company as an example, Netflix, here's how:

Netflix is an ad-free streaming service that streams TV shows and films for a monthly subscription of £xx.xx/month. These subscription fees are then used to purchase the rights to certain TV shows and movies, while also allowing Netflix to fund the creating of other TV shows and movies which they then provide to their subscribers at no extra cost.
If ISPs in the US are allowed to charge Netflix a fee to provide smooth connections to their customers, they will (and in some cases already do). This means that Netflix will have less money available to purchase/produce TV shows and movies for their subscribers everywhere, including the UK.
On top of that if ISPs in the US are allowed to charge their own customers extra $$$/month for smooth connections to Netflix servers, they will. This will mean fewer Netflix subscribers, which means Netflix will have less month available to purchase/produce TV shows and movies for their subscribers everywhere, including the UK.

To account for this Netflix will be forced to either provide less content, or increase their subscription costs. Or a combination of both. So that's how Net Neutrality repeal in the US will affect consumers in the UK.

My OP wasn't about the US. It made no mention of the US. You made it about the US and you claimed that because it was about the US it had no relevence here. You are wrong. Again.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:46 pm

Chobulous wrote:Foulthrow

So, not me.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:56 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm nore than happy to admit that i have a keen interest in American politics and history. But when you call it an obsession you're doing it to try to discredit my opinion without actually debating against it. Why do you do that?

....

My OP wasn't about the US. It made no mention of the US. You made it about the US and you claimed that because it was about the US it had no relevence here. You are wrong. Again.

No discredit at all. I'm very happy with how it works in the UK and the rest of the EU. It works exactly how you and I both want it to.

All I'm pointing out to other people is that this is a debate specific to the USA.

If you're talking about it in relation the UK or the rest of the EU then you are talking in purely hypothetical terms. The whole debate in the US (ie. the debate you want to discuss here) is highly politicized across the US political spectrum so I simply want other posters who may not have the knowledge we have that this is purely of interest to those with an interest in US politcs.

You might not have mentioned the US by name but you really ought to have done so because that's where this debate is relevant.

That's my only point here.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:57 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:The 'I'm off out now' from Rowls also has to include details of how broad a friends network he has, with details on the colour and country of origin of all his 'friends'

Never done that. Never will.

I've told people that my outlook on life, my politcs, my friends are probably as "liberal" as anyone else's but you won't catch me justifying or attempting to prove that assertion. You can believe it or not.

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:01 pm

Not sure if it's net neutrality or not but when I was with eircom I received skygo, at home, with an excellent, unbuffered picture. Since I changed to Vodafone the picture quality is awful and it buffers at least once a minute. My speed is unchanged.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:04 pm

Rowls wrote:No discredit at all. I'm very happy with how it works in the UK and the rest of the EU. It works exactly how you and I both want it to.

All I'm pointing out to other people is that this is a debate specific to the USA.

If you're talking about it in relation the UK or the rest of the EU then you are talking in purely hypothetical terms. The whole debate in the US (ie. the debate you want to discuss here) is highly politicized across the US political spectrum so I simply want other posters who may not have the knowledge we have that this is purely of interest to those with an interest in US politcs.

You might not have mentioned the US by name but you really ought to have done so because that's where this debate is relevant.

That's my only point here.

I've explained how it's not purely hypothetical. It's already happening in the UK in areas of broadband services not regulated by net neutrality. That on it's own proves that it's relevent to the UK. It'd be less relevent if we weren't leaving the EU because corporations would have to successfully lobby 28 governments to repeal our non-mobile net neutrality but in two years they'll only have to lobby one government successfully to repeal them. So this is going to be a fight we're going to have to have, and you know it, so why are you trying to convince people not to pay attention?

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:06 pm

Net neutrality is very very important.

In a sentence:

If a website cant afford to pay your internet service provider, or doesn't want to, to be on the "freeview" internet, then that website would become a premium website in which the customer would have to pay to have access to.

I imagine it to look something like:

£19.99 a month - Access over 400 websites, including Facebook, Netflix and youtube,
+£9.99 a month - Message board pack - access every message board in the world!
+£9.99 a month - Podcast pack - stream or download podcasts
etc etc

Basically it gives the Telecomms companies carte blanche to severely overcharge for the internet which we have had full access to for over 20 years.

Do you think tony could afford to pay every ISP to be on their free list? Obviously not. So that leaves us signing up for the message board pack then.

Net neutrality = the internet as it is now. No net neutrality = think Chinese internet, but instead of state controlled, it is corporate controlled.

It really really matters.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:08 pm

piston broke wrote:Not sure if it's net neutrality or not but when I was with eircom I received skygo, at home, with an excellent, unbuffered picture. Since I changed to Vodafone the picture quality is awful and it buffers at least once a minute. My speed is unchanged.

If Vodafone were deliberately throttling Skygo then that would be a breach of net neutrality regulations. Unless you're talking about mobile broadband and not home broadband. Mobile broadband regulations are much weaker which is why Three can get away with providing unmetered access to Netflix but not other, non-whitelisted VoD sites.

But it might just be Vodafone being ****.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: It'd be less relevent if we weren't leaving the EU because corporations would have to successfully lobby 28 governments to repeal our non-mobile net neutrality but in two years they'll only have to lobby one government successfully to repeal them.

You mean our own sovereign government will be in charge of it again like we were before the EU directive on internet providers which has applied since ... erm ... April 2016?

And we, The People, will be directly in charge of electing the said UK government?

Crumbs! Come back Manuel Barosa! Come back Jean Claude-Junker! All is forgiven!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:21 pm

Rowls wrote:You mean our own sovereign government will be in charge of it again like we were before the EU directive on internet providers which has applied since ... erm ... April 2016?

And we, The People, will be directly in charge of electing the said UK government?

Crumbs! Come back Manuel Barosa! Come back Jean Claude-Junker! All is forgiven!

2002, but close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutr ... pean_Union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:24 pm

Rowls wrote:"It's a boring bit of US legislation.

Rowls wrote:If you want to be bored, read this:

Rowls wrote:No, it just IS boring.

Rowls wrote:Fair enough, if you want to have a boring discussion about an issue niche to the USA go ahead.

Rowls wrote:Just admit it's not relevant to the UK and that it's boring.

Rowls wrote:I take it all back - it hasn't been boring at all.

For someone who finds the issue of net neutrality boring, you've posted an awful lot on a thread discussing net neutrality.

If you find the topic so boring, why keep posting on the thread? Why even open it if it's so boring to you?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:32 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:For someone who finds the issue of net neutrality boring, you've posted an awful lot on a thread discussing net neutrality.
If you find the topic so boring, why keep posting on the thread? Why even open it if it's so boring to you?

I have a high boredom threshold and want others to understand that this whole debate doesn't apply to the UK.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:42 pm

Rowls wrote:I have a high boredom threshold and want others to understand that this whole debate doesn't apply to the UK.

If it doesn't apply to the UK then what's your problem? Why are you even bothering if it's irrelevent?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If it doesn't apply to the UK then what's your problem? Why are you even bothering if it's irrelevent?

I simply want to point out to UK-based posters that this is a US issue affecting the USA and the USA alone.

Just as they shouldn't worry about the government legalising stoning citizens to death, neither should they worry about net neutrality.

Have the debate if you like, but remember it is not of concern to the UK.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Rowls wrote:I simply want to point out to UK-based posters that this is a US issue affecting the USA and the USA alone.

Why?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why?

So that they don't incorrectly assume that it affects them.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Rowls wrote:So that they don't incorrectly assume that it affects them.

OK. Well it does. I've explained a number of times how it does. So my next questions is why is it so important to you that people don't pay attention to this issue that you would lie to them?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:53 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. Well it does. I've explained a number of times how it does. So my next questions is why is it so important to you that people don't pay attention to this issue that you would lie to them?

No, it doesn't affect them.

You've explained that it might. But it doesn't

I don't want people to unwittingly fall into the trap you appear to be caught in - believing that American cultural problems are relevant to the UK.

The cultural wars in the USA are dreadful and divisive. I care deeply that the UK doesn't import them and I care deeply for neutrality. By presenting a single side, in an irrelevant US debate you are currently acting as a conduit for this silly tribalism.

You are a one-man juggernaut at importing partisan, unregulated, un-neutral US-style divisive politics directly to those who read this board. You are a direct importer of exactly the kind of politics that got Donald Trump elected. I don't want that.

I want to simply point out to people that this US issue does NOT affect the UK.

Nobody should have nightmares about the government legalizing stoning to death and nobody should have nightmares about net neutrality either.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:59 pm

So in a thread i started that is about acknowledging that there is no party political divide when it comes to net neutrality here, and that we all agree that it's a good thing we have it here, you're accusing me of political tribalism and "partisan political propaganda" for expressing an opinion you claim to share.

You're special.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:03 pm

Partisan, divisive political rhetoric - that is exactly what this issue has become in the US.

And it doesn't affect the UK.

Yet you've still imported it to this board.

I want to point out to people that it isn't relevant to the UK.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:06 pm

It is relevent and we're going to have to defend it sooner or later. And I've got no doubt whatsoever that when we do, you'll be on the other side of this debate. Because there's no way you support net neutrality if you're this concerned with making sure others are complacent and apathetic about it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It is relevent and we're going to have to defend it sooner or later. And I've got no doubt whatsoever that when we do, you'll be on the other side of this debate. Because there's no way you support net neutrality if you're this concerned with making sure others are complacent and apathetic about it.

No it isn't relevant to the UK.
I doubt it ever will be.
I'd be (hypothetically) in favour of unrestricted internet access then (in your hypothetical future) as I am now whatever name people call it. But this is hypothetical.
You're worrying about something specific to the US.

And my point stands. It isn't relevant to the UK.