Net neut supporters CRASH FCC WEBSITE with message deluge A protest campaign in support of net neutrality provisions has overwhelmed the the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) website. The commission briefly saw its public comments service go down on Monday, one day after comedian John Oliver delivered an extended rant in support of net neutrality on his evening program Last …
...but the Realist in me says they'll ignore all us mere peons in favor of their Corporate Overlords & Masters.
I mean, just because the public got in nearly Sixty-Five THOUSAND comments before crashing the FCC's comment system, the majority of which probably amounted to "Keep Net Neutrality! No ''Fast Lanes''! F*$ Comcast!", and demanding Wheeler's head on a spike. The FCC admits publicly that it's the largest public response they've *EVER* had, so The Public's Opinion on this should matter, right?
The Optamist sees all those comments & burbles happily "Net Neutrality is a done deal! We've won!"
Pessamists see the fact that Wheeler's still at the helm & wonder how badly he's going to run the ship into the rocks.
Realists know the comments won't amount to shit, Wheeler will do as Ordered, and not only will the WORLD get fucked over in the process, but we can start ordering lube in bulk for the inevitable raping we're about to receive.
*Sigh*
The fact their servers crashed is a pretty fair indicator that users are aware of the situation and pretty hot about it. What they just experienced is merely a taste of what's to come if they continue to rile the Internet-connected public. NOW they have something else to worry about. I mean, toading to the monied interests is nothing if all your services suddenly get slammed in a popular protest. This wasn't even an intentional DoS attack: just an overload of commentards. Imagine if people start REALLY railing the FCC.
" I mean, toading to the monied interests is nothing if all your services suddenly get slammed in a popular protest. This wasn't even an intentional DoS attack: "
This is all well and good, until the vested interests explain to the FCC that this is what happens when you allow the great unwashed to have da fast internets and it wouldn't have happened if all the peons were all stuck on a trickle feed unless they stumped up the $$$ for a premium service.
I think the resolution to this should lie in the original decision (2002) by the FCC to classify cable providers as 'information services'.
Now, I don't mean for a second that that original decision should stand.
No, what I mean is that the FCC should analyse that decision and re-connect with their original reasoning. In the end, it was ambiguous whether cable providers fell under 'common carriage' or 'information service' definitions. Indeed, it is this very ambiguity that allowed the FCC to make that decision in the first place. After all, they doesn't have the authority to go against the statute, only apply it.
The FCC, in ruling that cable providers were not 'common carriers' did so not for technical reasons (as that could be argued either way) but with an eye to the outcomes and their goals.
As, they stated, the aim was to: ". . . promote broadband deployment, which should result in better quality, lower prices and more choices for consumers."
So, those of you in the US tell me - do you feel that you have lots of choice, low prices and high quality?
As, they stated, the aim was to: ". . . promote broadband deployment, which should result in better quality, lower prices and more choices for consumers."
I guess the question now should be "Did the decision to regulate broadband services as "information services" achieve the desired outcome?"
I would answer that question for many parts of the US with a firm NO.
I would contend that in many places, better quality, lower prices and more choices for consumers. does not exist. You have either a monopoly or a duopoly, with no real price competition.
As long as the telcos and cablecos can "own" the last mile, customers get fucked. That portion of broadband needs to be regulated as a common carrier.
The time to do so is long overdue.
I think the Left has found its very own Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly - a ranting populist paranoid. This is probably the most moronic interpretation of network architecture I have ever seen.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/09/net_neutrality_explained_and_how_to_get_a_better_internet/
Anyone want to guess what this luvvie would make of the ToS headers in RFC 791?
Again... the issue is not "Can we prioritise packets based on type of service", but, "Are we allowed to prioritise packets based on who has paid us extra," and the follow on, "who would pay us extra for good service if we provided good service anyway?"
The cynical might say the providers might run the service into the ground so people and corporates will support any hope of improved service, but I wouldn't, no Siree!
@Andrew Orlowski
Your post could be read as you suggesting your own 'special report', as linked, was "probably the most moronic interpretation of network architecture [you] have ever seen"
However, taking it instead to mean that John Oliver's presentation was, in fact, "probably the most moronic interpretation of network architecture [you] have ever seen", I have to ask the question - really?
That video was really that bad?
What, then - specifically - in that video did you find so overwhelmingly moronic to earn such a statement? I've just watched it again to refresh my memory and he says almost ZERO on 'network architecture'.
Here, are the actual points he makes:
* The Internet is great
* Net neutrality discussions are, largely, boring
* Net neutrality is important and allows startups to challenge establish brands
* The Internet is not broken
* Telcos/cable providers are greedy, can't be trusted and are more-or-less monopolies
* Wheeler's appointment to the FCC is not ideal
* Broadband in the US is expensive and not overly fast, by world standards
* Comcast and TWC are hated by their customers
So, out of those moronic statements - none of which are an 'interpretation of network architecture' - which do you disagree with and why?
As to what John Oliver would make of a flexible field described in 1981 when the 'Internet' was being used solely inside the government - defence and universities/research institutes - for select purposes and groups, well I can't say but perhaps he might reply that the existence of an option does not necessarily make exercising that option a good idea.
@Andrew Orlowski
Just another question - do you use "luvvie" as a derogatory term? If so, what does it mean and what criteria did John Oliver (whom I presume you've not met) have to meet before earning it?
Okay, three questions.
Make that four - does John Oliver's status as a "luvvie", per your judgment, lend weight to your argument or undermine his?
Fast lanes, slow lanes. Conspiracies (that we can't quite see - but they're there, I tell you! they're there!). Analogies to the mob...
You have omitted everything that made his contribution - or more accurately, his scriptwriting team's contribution - quite so moronic. It's technically illiterate. It's an Alex Jones / Bill O'Reilly perspective on the world.
In that piece I explained why the net has never been neutral, why the analogies don't work, and offered half a dozen suggestions for constructive citizen action. You could actually surprise us all, and attempt to address the substance of the internet regulation debate.
The thing at issue here is that yourself and John Oliver are talking to two separate audiences, although no doubt there is some crossover.
His show has to make an an issue digestible for a TV audience who turn on his show to laugh for 20-odd minutes. As this is probably the first time most of that audience will have heard of net neutrality he has to go for the big picture and I have to say that he's done a pretty effective job if he managed to inspire enough people to respond and crash the comments. He outlined the problems with the general approach that has so far been taken and made a compelling argument based on principle rather than detail.
Your article is a great in-depth piece that anyone who is inspired by that show's monologue and wants to know more should definitely read. It certainly dispels the arguments that are being made, but out of the choices being presented publicly I think most would choose to not let big companies hog the limited bandwidth available to them. I think you overstate the solutions you offer though as they aren't as detailed as the problems set out earlier in the article.
I wouldn't knock the ability of John Oliver to connect with people of a Left-leaning nature, as you mentioned there are plenty enough spokesmen for the Right. You don't have to know how the internet works to be able to use it, so saying the argument is technically illiterate, misses the point. If it shines a light on something the telcos hoped they could brush under the carpet because the general public wouldn't be interested in something so technical, then it's done a good job and it's up to the rest of us to follow up that interest and educate further without inducing another snorefest before their attention wanders back to those cat videos.
I don't think it matters that the battleground chosen for public debate is not representative of the underlying technology. The argument for Net Neutrality is basically to maintain the status quo, whereas the argument against does essentially change the playing field to the advantage of established players. I don't think Google et al could be accused of not understanding how the internet works yet they choose to fight the battle as it is presented. At this point I don't think your going to be able to reframe the arguments to be technically correct.
If you're concerned that the public really do need to know more detail I would suggest you put your article up on Buzzfeed (it has a suitable title) or try and get the show to retweet your article out to their followers so that they can 'get schooled'.
Keep up the good work and perhaps do some follow up on those solutions you sketched out at the end of your article!
@Omniaural Thanks, and thanks also for an interesting post.
The audience for John Oliver / The Daily Show is overwhelmingly college-educated and “progressively inclined”, so I don’t think this is the first time they will have heard of it. Many may actually be sick of it and/or not give a crap.
"The argument for Net Neutrality is basically to maintain the status quo”
Not at all. In two ways:
- It’s about planting a regulatory flag on virgin territory: the private agreements that make up the internet. Regulating publicly-paid for pipes, and infrastructure created out of government contract - is fair game, and is not controversial. Taxpayers should see where their $$$ is going after all. For much of the past decade the goal has been to introduce pre-emptive technical regulation of these private contracts. (Compared to introducing regulation that mandates MS-DOS in 1983). Now the focus in the US is specifically on Class 2 reclassification. This appears to be the big prize.
- Since the net has never been neutral - it was a word an academic pulled out of his backside one day - this cannot be true.
"Maintaining the status quo" means using other regulation - antitrust law, and other competition law - to ensure competition is maintained and investment is encouraged. Strengthening this competition law and actually using is a start. There are other things people can do and I listed some of them.
"At this point I don't think your going to be able to reframe the arguments to be technically correct.”
I don’t know what this means, sorry. Similarly, “… I think most would choose to not let big companies hog the limited bandwidth available to them.” is not something I can map onto reality. I have never heard this one before.
The problem with allowing irrational arguments to be made with challenge, because they’re made for what somone feels is a “worthy" cause, is that pretty soon everyone is doing the same thing. They’re advancing proposals that don’t make any sense, that can’t be rationally justified. Laws are then passed on the basis of who has the biggest sense of entitlement or shouts the loudest.
Who gives a shit about 'technically'. The internet and all the protocols and equipment that hum away in the background are irrelevant.
Please indulge me in a diversion at this point.
Here in Australia, we are not really soccer* mad. Now, I happen to be of European descent and I care for it. I have teams in most leagues and I get up in the early hours of the morning every four years**. I watch the local league, quaint though it is, with interest. Roll back to the 2011/12 final between, well - it doesn't matter. Short version is that there was a penalty awarded in the dying minutes that decided the game.
In the wake of that, there was outrage and debate and some rather impolite things were said. It turned into a bit of a stoush between those who like soccer and those who refer to it as 'that namby-pamby game they play in every other country'.
So far, so boring. My point, however, is that the argument from the soccer folk kept coming back to whether it was technically a penalty or not, which was completely besides the point. The point, to be clear, was that the rest of the country viewed it as bloody soft and so if that, technically, was a penalty, then they were justified in their dislike of the game.
That's a long way to go for such a simple point so let me frame it better - whether 'neutrailty' is a fundamental concept of the Internet or not and whether it is supportable by the technology or not, that is not the issue. The ONLY important questions are whether it is better in the long run and whether the people want it.
Neither a telling of the history or the Internet, nor a comprehensive understanding of every RFC changes that. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS.
End of story.
It is great that you can write about the technical aspect of it. It is also irrelevant.
* - You guys call it 'football' but we have other, more popular sports called that so it's called soccer. No big deal.
** - Thank god we have the Olympics to tide us over in the middle.
Not meaning to go on a political rant, but Obama's got bigger issues than Wheeler to deal with. Seems his appointees and minions are running amok and even he is in the "amok" part.
For example, the backlash over the prisoner swap for an alleged deserter and the negotiating with terrorists (Disclaimer... He seems to be a real deserter and not alleged if accounts are correct - and they probably are - but I'll use alleged since he hasn't been tried and found guilty yet.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
