Net Neutrality

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:24 pm

https://news.sky.com/story/net-neutrali ... s-10945518

While the UK ISP market is far more competitive than that in the US, some issues still need to be ironed out on this side of the pond.

"We have lots of companies that sell both internet access and online content like TV shows and films," said Mr Johnson-Williams.

"They have an incentive to prioritise their own content as it travels to customers through the internet connections that they control. It's really important content and services are delivered equally and fairly."

For instance, he said: "Virgin Mobile doesn't charge its customers for data used on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger.

"While this might sound like a great deal, it's bad for everyone in the long-run. It makes it harder for new messaging companies to build a user-base and break into the market. This reduces innovation and competition.

"Regulators like Ofcom in the UK need to make sure they enforce net neutrality rules properly so ISPs don't take advantage of their position to the detriment of their customers."

Not relevent, he says.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:29 pm

No, I say it's not relevant, having spelled the word correctly.

And I do differentiate between deliberately slowing down access (I'm against) and offering free service to certain sites (I'm in favour).

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:30 pm

Rowls wrote:No, I say it's not relevant, having spelled the word correctly.

And I do differentiate between deliberately slowing down access (I'm against) and offering free service to certain sites (I'm in favour).

So you're opposed to net neutrality!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:39 pm

This is EXACTLY why I'm opposed to the stupid and divisive cultural US political wars that you're determined to import:

You have now conflated two entirely separate issues.

1. Should ISPs be allowed to give free access to certain sites?
2. Should ISPs be allowed to slow down access to certain sites?

The first is a carrot. The second is a stick.

The US are only debating the stick.
The stick is not relevant to the UK.
I'm in favour of the carrot.
I'm opposed to the stick.

Why does everything need explaining to you using glove puppets?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:46 pm

So you don't even know what net neutrality is, do you?

Net neutrality is being neutral about network traffic. Hense the ******* name.

There is nothing neutral about giving free access to only some websites while charging money for access to all the others. If you support that then you don't support net neutrality. That is literally what net neutrality is intended to stop.

Edit: Let OFCOM help you (you know, the British communication's regulator who have a web page dedicated to something you think isn't relevent to British people).

Net neutrality, also known as ‘open internet’, is the principle of ensuring that you control what you see and do online - not the broadband provider that connects you to the internet.

It’s about people being free to access all lawful internet content equally, without broadband providers discriminating against particular services or websites.

By providing unmetered access to Facebook and whatsapp, Virgin Media are discriminating against all the other services similar to Facebook and Whatsapp. If you are OK with that then you are not a supporter of Net Neutrality.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:51 pm

"Net Neutrality" is the name given to the Democratic Bill covering the subject which is only relevant to the US.

It has since been adopted as the name to describe various issues surrounding internet access - hence why I described this issue as "politicized" in my opening post.

Giving free access to certain sites is not "neutral". No action is "neutral". Neutrons are neutral.

Unlike yourself I am perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between deliberately slowing down certain sites and offering free access to certain sites.

What you are now advocating is that nobody should be allowed a phone contract that gives them free access to facebook etc. These deals are actually very popular with the general public. I am happy for people to be able to negotiate these kind of contracts and to get free access to facebook, instagram, twitter or whatever else makes them happy. You, apparently, want to stop this.

However, it is important to note that this is NOT the same thing that is being discussed in the US.

As I have repeatedly told you, none of the debate currently being undertaken in the US is relevant to the UK.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:56 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:By providing unmetered access to Facebook and whatsapp, Virgin Media are discriminating against all the other services similar to Facebook and Whatsapp.

Ahhhhh, here's what you're doing.

You're conflating blocking or slowing sites with offering free access.

Please see my post concerning carrot and stick to explain the difference to you and also explain my position.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:57 pm

I'm just not getting Rowls' angle here

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:00 pm

Rowls wrote:Ahhhhh, here's what you're doing.

You're conflating blocking or slowing sites with offering free access.

Please see my post concerning carrot and stick to explain the difference to you and also explain my position.

They're both antithetical to the principle of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about ISPs providing equal access. Not free access to some. Not paid access to some. Equal access. Do you understand now?! No, of course you dont.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:01 pm

Sounds like we need separation of ISPs and content - unbundle the two separate services. Then ISPs compete with each other on the quality of their services: speed, availability and security. In "security" I'd include anti-hacking, protecting youngsters from inappropriate material and protecting all of us from the terrorist inspired material and protecting all of us (including our politicians) from threats of violent abuse. Given recent events, I'd also judge quality on controlling/identifying all the political "trolls" and "fake news" stuff.

Content wise, I'd like the creators of content to be identifiable - in the way newspapers and other printed material have to identify themselves.

I believe there is also an argument to be made that message board posters should be identified by their "real world" identities - though I guess that might slow one or two debates...

So, "net neutrality" .... I'm not sure..... the internet is becoming more and more like the bad lands in the wild west (yes, that is the North American wild west).

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If you are OK with that then you are not a supporter of Net Neutrality.

DONG! And here we have it!

The divisive, US culture war trap you've fallen into:

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" Black & White
"You're either for 'net neutrality' or your against us" Black & White

Y;know, maybe this issue IS relevant to the UK public....

Ladies & Gentlemen!

Beware!

ImplodingTurtle wants to stop you being able to get free access to Facebook and Whatsapp and he has begun lobbying on this website to have a law enacted into the UK to stop you getting free access to these services!!!

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:05 pm

Still not getting Rowls' angle

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:06 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:I'm just not getting Rowls' angle here

No surprise there. Don't worry about it. IQ is 60% hereditary so don't beat yourself up too much.

Imploding Turtle wrote:They're both antithetical to the principle of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about ISPs providing equal access. Not free access to some. Not paid access to some. Equal access. Do you understand now?! No, of course you dont.

I now understand entirely that you are conflating these two separate issues. This explains a lot. Knowing this, I also now understand why you did not understand why it is important not to import the US culture war on this issue starting with the phrase "Net Neutrality" - because you think that these two separate issues are just one "thing".

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:10 pm

Rowls wrote:DONG! And here we have it!

The divisive, US culture war trap you've fallen into:

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" Black & White
"You're either for 'net neutrality' or your against us" Black & White

Y;know, maybe this issue IS relevant to the UK public....

Ladies & Gentlemen!

Beware!

ImplodingTurtle wants to stop you being able to get free access to Facebook and Whatsapp and he has begun lobbying on this website to have a law enacted into the UK to stop you getting free access to these services!!!

Yeah. Great idea. Compare George Bush using a non-binary to criticise my pointing out of a binary.

Supporting net neutrality is a binary thing. You either do or you don't. If you express that you suppose treating some traffic with a higher priority/ease of access than other traffic, then you do not support net neutrality. You can't say that you support net neutrality one minute, and then that you also support the exact opposite of net neutrality the next minute.

As so often happens when you get involved on this site, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

If you support net neutrality you support the ISPs being neutral about internet traffic. If you support ISPs being unneutral about internet traffic then by definition you don't support net neutrality. If you can't understand that then you're not worth anyone's time on here. Not even Ringo's.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:10 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Still not getting Rowls' angle

How about this to help simplify it for you?

This subject is something which only matters if you live in America. If you live in the UK it won't affect you.

Hope this helps.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Supporting net neutrality is a binary thing. You either do or you don't.

No.

To explain it again. There are two distinct issues:

Rowls wrote:1. Should ISPs be allowed to give free access to certain sites?
2. Should ISPs be allowed to slow down access to certain sites?

The first is a carrot. The second is a stick.

The US are only debating the stick.
The stick is not relevant to the UK.
I'm in favour of the carrot.
I'm opposed to the stick.

Why does everything need explaining to you using glove puppets?

You can call them the same thing but it won't make them the same thing. They are different things.

I'm in favour of the carrot, opposed to the stick.

You are opposed to both the carrot and the stick. You don't want people to be able to access Facebook or Whatsapp freely. You want them to have to pay for those services.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:17 pm

Rowls wrote:No.

To explain it again. There are two distinct issues:

You can call them the same thing but it won't make them the same thing. They are different things.

I'm in favour of the carrot, opposed to the stick.

You are opposed to both the carrot and the stick. You don't want people to be able to access Facebook or Whatsapp freely. You want them to have to pay for those services.

You've no idea what you're talking about. I've explained to you how you're wrong using simple words and you still don't have a clue. So either you're just trolling or you're incapable of understanding what net neutrality actually is. I don't know why I expected you to be capable of understanding something as complex as the definition of "neutral" but that's my mistake, not yours.

I'll try one last time.

It doesn't matter if you support the carrot and not the stick. Neither of them are compatible with net neutrality because the ISP isn't being neutral about the traffic.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:22 pm

Happy to let people to decide that for themselves.

Under "Net Neutrality" as you've described it anyone who currently has free access to Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter etc as part of their contract would have to start paying for what they currently get for free.

But just to say it one more time, the debate in the US is not about that and it does NOT affect people in the UK.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:24 pm

Rowls wrote:Never done that. Never will.

Rowls wrote:OK guys!

Believe it or not I'm off out to hang out with, among others, a girl from Catalonia.

And there's at least one other post where you reeled off the gender, sexuality and ethnicity of your broad range of 'friends' you were off out with.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:27 pm

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:27 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:And there's at least one other post where you reeled off the gender, sexuality and ethnicity of your broad range of 'friends' you were off out with.

Not to my knowledge - because I don't do that. I have said that if we were to do that, I reckon my social circle would be amongst the most diverse in these terms.

I once mentioned the nationality of a girl I was going out with but that's different.

Besides, I don't care about any of these things. I only hang around with my friends because I like them. I mention these things simply to shut up people who do think these things are important.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:27 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:I'm just not getting Rowls' angle here

he doesn't have one.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:29 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:he doesn't have one.

Re-posting just for you quoon:

Rowls wrote:This subject is something which only matters if you live in America. If you live in the UK it won't affect you.

Hope this helps.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:30 pm

It's not for people to decide for themselves. It's a fact. You're not entitled to your own facts. There's nothing subjective about it that means opinions about it can be different AND equally valid. Neutrality has a clear definition. If ISPs prioritise certain traffic over other traffic then by definition they ISP is NOT being neutral about the traffic. It doesn't matter whether they're slowing some traffic down, or whether they're making some traffic free. The point is they're treating some traffic differently to other traffic by making some sites easier to use than others.

If you support an ISP doing that then you don't support net neutrality.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not for people to decide for themselves. It's a fact. You're not entitled to your own facts. There's nothing subjective about it that means opinions about it can be different AND equally valid. Neutrality has a clear definition. If ISPs prioritise certain traffic over other traffic then by definition they ISP is NOT being neutral about the traffic. It doesn't matter whether they're slowing some traffic down, or whether they're making some traffic free. The point is they're treating some traffic differently to other traffic by making some sites easier to use than others.

Mmmm. Yeah.

What I meant was that people can decide who is talking sense and who isn't.

I've already pointed out the difference between blocking/slowing access and offering free access.

People can decide for themselves whether that is the "same thing" or whether it is two different things.

People can also decide for themselves whether this is not an issue in the UK or whether it is only relevant in the USA.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:37 pm

Whether they're two different things or not doesn't matter. Neither is compatible with net neutrality.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:39 pm

Rowls wrote:
People can also decide for themselves whether this is not an issue in the UK or whether it is only relevant in the USA.

The thing is though, is something happens in the USA, sometimes, but all the time, but sometimes it comes to the UK

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:40 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Whether they're two different things or not doesn't matter. Neither is compatible with net neutrality.

It matters very much that they are two different things. I'm sure it matters to people who currently get Facebook for free on their phones that people like you are advocating making that illegal. Of course, whether you class them as two things or lump them together depends on your definition of "Net Neutrality".

Either way, fortunately for people in the UK who do have those kind of contracts this issue is not relevant to the UK.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:41 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:The thing is though, is something happens in the USA, sometimes, but all the time, but sometimes it comes to the UK

But there are no plans I know of to bring it to the UK and we already have legislation which enforces it.

If you know otherwise post what you know.

Until such time...

This is an issue which affects the USA. It is not relevant to the UK.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:44 pm

Rowls wrote:Re-posting just for you quoon:

already read that but thanks anyway.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:44 pm

You're welcome.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:45 pm

There is not mroe than one definition of net neutrality. My definition isn't any different to your definition because neither of us have a definition. There is net neutrality, where ISPs treat lawful internet traffic equally, and there is literally not net neutrality; where ISPs do not treat lawful internet traffic equally.

Both of those things you describe are examples of ISPs NOT treating internet traffic equally. They are not examples of ISPs being neutral about their traffic.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:47 pm

OK

OK

OK

I'm off to look for the glove puppets again for you.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Whether they're two different things or not doesn't matter. Neither is compatible with net neutrality.

Although I am for Net Neutrality like you, surely you can still have that when some sites are paid for and some aren't?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:54 pm

Foshiznik wrote:Although I am for Net Neutrality like you, surely you can still have that when some sites are paid for and some aren't?

No. If an ISP is making it easier for their customers to access one social media website than another then they are not being neutral about the traffic they serve.

Edit: Or one news site than another. Or one Video on Demand site than another. etc.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. If an ISP is making it easier for their customers to access one social media website than another then they are not being neutral about the traffic they serve.

Ok, so if it's done by the ISP its not net neutrality but if, for example, Facebook decided to start charging us, it wouldn't be the same thing?

Sorry for the stupidity, just trying to get my head around it as I thought this was the law that Wikipedia et al were campaigning against, by arguing that government would be able to spy on it's citizens and stop them from using certain news sites.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:04 pm

Foshiznik wrote:Ok, so if it's done by the ISP its not net neutrality but if, for example, Facebook decided to start charging us, it wouldn't be the same thing?

Sorry for the stupidity, just trying to get my head around it as I thought this was the law that Wikipedia et al were campaigning against, by arguing that government would be able to spy on it's citizens and stop them from using certain news sites.

It's not stupid, it's a fair question.

The answer is that it isn't the same thing. Net neutrality is a principle that ISPs remain neutral about the lawful traffic that crosses their network. It has nothing to do with whether websites that their customers decide to visit charge their visitors to access their website because the ISP has nothing to do with that.

However, if Facebook decided to buy an ISP and then gave their broadband customers faster access to Facebook than to Google+ or Linked In then that would be contrary to net neutrality.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:04 pm

Interesting fact, when Netflix had to shell out to Comcast and Verizon to ensure that their videos weren't being throttled they put up prices worldwide (including the UK) to fund it.

In terms of the UK, the UK regulation is very light touch and it is mainly voluntary, the legislation is mainly from the EU directive. Soon there will be the opportunity to amend this without it going through Parliament as part of the Great Repeal Bill.

As an aside, I also hold the view that Rowls doesn't understand what Net Neutrality means. It's pretty difficult to be neutral whilst supporting certain companies.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:18 pm

aggi wrote:In terms of the UK, the UK regulation is very light touch and it is mainly voluntary, the legislation is mainly from the EU directive. Soon there will be the opportunity to amend this without it going through Parliament as part of the Great Repeal Bill.

There will be the opportunity for us to pass any damned law we want to. But it doesn't make sense to start worrying about stuff based on stupid American culture wars. As I said earlier you may as well worry about stoning to death being brought in.

aggi wrote:As an aside, I also hold the view that Rowls doesn't understand what Net Neutrality means. It's pretty difficult to be neutral whilst supporting certain companies.

What do you mean by this? Which company am I supporting?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between providing open access to the internet (a much better term than the Democrat-sponsored "Net Neutrality" bill) and the aforementioned partisan US politicking surrounding the issue.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:20 pm

In what way is net neutrality in the US a part of a culture war?

And Aggi's not saying you're supporting certain companies. He's talking about ISPs supporting certain companies by making it easier for that company's customers to access their services than the customers of other companies to access theirs.

Rowls wrote:(a much better term than the Democrat-sponsored "Net Neutrality" bill)

Why are you trying to make this about Democrats and not Democrats? Were you earlier whining about it being partisan?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:In what way is net neutrality in the US a part of a culture war?

And Aggi's not saying you're supporting certain companies. He's talking about ISPs supporting certain companies by making it easier for that company's customers to access their services than the customers of other companies to access theirs.

Why are you trying to make this about Democrats and not Democrats? Were you earlier whining about it being partisan?

It's best for Aggi to respond himself rather than you second-guess him.

I'm not going to answer your question because you haven't understood a lot of very simple concepts I've told you about (for example here you have made the mistake of thinking I'm trying to make a partisan point rather than pointing out that it is already being used as a partisan issue) so describing a difficult concept like American culture wars and how they manifest themselves into dull and boring topics like this would be an even greater waste of my time.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:24 pm

[quote="Rowls"]Partisan, divisive political rhetoric - that is exactly what this issue has become in the US.[quote]

That's probably because republicans took a shed load of Comcast cash before the last election. Suddenly Ted Cruz was very much in favour of ending NN.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:26 pm

Rowls wrote:I'm not going to answer your question because you haven't understood a lot of very simple concepts I've told you ...

A projection so bright it can be seen from space.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:27 pm

SonofPog wrote:That's probably because republicans took a shed load of Comcast cash before the last election. Suddenly Ted Cruz was very much in favour of ending NN.

Which is exactly the kind of nonsense why I'm fully in favour of Open Internet access.

Do keep up.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:A projection so bright it can be seen from space.

Hahaahahah. Ahhh.

What was your degree in and what did you get?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:33 pm

Rowls wrote:Hahaahahah. Ahhh.

What was your degree in and what did you get?

Computer Science.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Computer Science.

Which uni and what did you get?

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:35 pm

Rowls wrote:Which is exactly the kind of nonsense why I'm fully in favour of Open Internet access.

Do keep up.

Eh, didn't say you weren't, just pointing out why it had become such a "divisive" issue.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 pm

UCLan. like 30% or something. Numbers are hard but i'm assured that 30% is a really good number.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 pm

Apologies SonofPog