Dutch Net Neutrality Law Goes Too Far Say Critics (telegeography.com) 183
An anonymous reader writes: The Dutch Senate has passed the revised Net Neutrality Law as part of an amendment to the country's Telecommunications Act. The strict new law seeks to ensure that telcos and ISPs treat all internet traffic equally and cannot favor one internet app or service over another. Opponents, however, say the legislation, which was approved by the lower house of parliament in May this year, is overly severe and is out of line with the EU's own open internet standards. Afke Schaart, Vice President Europe at mobile industry body the GSMA, commented: 'We are greatly disappointed with the outcome of today's vote. We believe that the Dutch Net Neutrality Law goes far beyond the intent of the EU regulation. We therefore call on the European Commission to ensure the harmonised implementation of Europe's Open Internet rules.' The GSMA says the tighter laws in the Netherlands will 'hinder development of innovative services and consumer choice'.
Must be a good law (Score:5, Insightful)
Anytime I read that quote, I imagine its because they don't have any real objection other than "this will cost us money." If they said "this will prevent 5G rollout because X" I would think they had a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "It's really good for consumers!"
Kicks 'em right in the profits.
Re: (Score:3)
Anytime I read that quote, I imagine its because they don't have any real objection other than "this will cost us money." If they said "this will prevent 5G rollout because X" I would think they had a reason.
Given the only reason I don't have a 500/500 connection is because I didn't want to pay 35euro per month I would say the Netherlands can hinder development for a few years and still not drop off the top 10.
"Opponents" (Score:4, Informative)
And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
A group representing psychopaths issued a statement saying that the laws against murder had 'gone too far". They particularly complained that legislators focused primarily on the public interest, and failed to balance those concerns against the needs of killers.
How can you be too neutral? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you shape traffic based on type or not, how can you be tooooo neutral to the type of traffic. Packets are packets. You can't shape delivery and resell the artificial disadvantage you just created as a service. That's double dipping.
As to trying a reacharound via the EU Commission, yeh we get it, the unelected problem gets more influence from lobbyists than electorates.... if you have a valid argument why can't you argue against it in Holland?
Manuel Barrosso just joined Goldman Sachs, he undermined EU's privacy, commercial interests and finance. An Elop for the EU, and the mechanism by which these men get to the top isn't anything approaching a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard objections (Score:5, Insightful)
Objective rules means no opportunity of injection of subjectivity by the regulatory bodies.
No subjectivity means no opportunity for "rent seeking".
No rent seeking means no additional power or profit for politicians.
Therefore, simply "treat all traffic equally" is a definition of Net Neutrality that won't be tolerated.
Re: (Score:3)
exactly.
to the opponents, any NN law is too far by default.
Our. Hearts. Bleed. (Score:2)
Our. Hearts. Bleed.
Naaaat!
Data caps are a profit rush that need to stop (Score:2)
T-Mobile NL is complaining about having a music streaming service (such as Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap, and it helps them get users. We also have a lot of these stunts here in Portugal (e.g. for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly, I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ul
Perfect ! (Score:2)
'hinder development of innovative services...'
Usually when bullshit like this comes up one can be pretty sure that the nail has been squarely hit on it's head and that the law is exactly doing what it is supposed to do. Perfect.
Sounds Good (Score:2)
If the primary backlash is from industry lobbyists and their surrogates, the law is probably a good one.
Wake me up if the EFF criticizes the law.
This is a bad idea (Score:2)
Holland must be on the right track... (Score:2)
...if the GSMA doesn't like it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization:
1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP)
2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..)
3. Streaming Video
4. Streaming Audio
5. Web / Mail
6. Downloads
That's it. Realtime interactive communications get priority over non-interactive communications, which get priority over high latency operations, which get priority over ANY downloading. Of course, this should only kick in when the tubes are s
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
So next thing everyone shapes their packets to look like VoIP. Back to square one.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
How that yahoo uses HIS paid for bandwidth is up to him. He paid for it.This idea that you play customers off against each other, and or resell that tradeoff for profit is the issue here, it's why Net Neutrality laws are needed.
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working?
So what? They just have to fatten the pipe. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Content is nobody's business.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that there should be Quality of Service scenarios, but the services like VoIP should be sold separately with their own bandwidth in addition to "general" bandwidth.
Or perhaps more simply, you should be able to pay extra for a separate high QoS connection which would be useful for VoIP or real-time stuff, but *you* decide what the bandwidth is used for, not ISP routers. If you want to use your high QoS pipe for bit torrent, that's your business.
So yeah, if you want to use VoIP over a general Interne
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, nobody needs all the content of the Internet, so this is not a problem to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
What? That makes no sense.
The truth is that there is always more bandwidth then content. When I want to download something from the internet, the data is delivered to my computer at the speed of my internet connection(50mbit/sec) so there really is no need to prioritization anything.
And if there is not enough bandwidth, the solution is for my isp to buy more hardware to get more bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
If the problem is that there is more content then bandwidth then charge for bandwidth. But don't throttle my traffic to favor your traffic simply because you don't like the contents of my traffic. If we're paying the same then I expect to be treated the same and that include prioritization. Now if *I* deprioritize my bulk traffic at my point of egress in regard to my voip traffic feel free to honor that.
Re: (Score:3)
It's slightly more complicated than that, isn't it? You should guarantee every subscriber a sufficient amount of VoIP because that's become an emergency service. Then all other traffic should be served to customers in round-robin fashion, with no guarantees made, though yes it might be well to have some prioritization.
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet? If I build a private network with my own money and offer services on it the way I want to, the government has no business regulating what I do. Period.
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe I should vote with my feet and drop them all, set up some sort of packet radio link or use smoke signals.
Better yet, I will build my own network, it will be perfect, with cocaine and hookers, except the cost barriers and local regulation barriers are so high as to be impassable.
Tell me kind sir, how the fuck am I supposed to vote with my feet?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me kind sir, how the fuck am I supposed to vote with my feet?
Walk to the netherlands?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, at some point it is reasonable to make people choose between living away from everyone else and having the freedoms that provides and having shared infrastructure and the benefits that provides. It is a little ridiculous to
Re: (Score:2)
Stay the hell away from CenturyLink. In Yakima, WA, they've been completely taken over by numpties. They've also gone to usage-based billing; http://www.centurylink.com/dat... [centurylink.com]. Yakima, WA is circling the drain. For example: https://www.yakimawa.gov/counc... [yakimawa.gov]
The ACLU scammed the city (https://aclu-wa.org/cases/montes-v-city-yakima-0), but no one seems to give-a-dam.
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to not live in Yakima in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
"But how can you vote with your wallet, Mr. Anderson, when there are no competitors in your area?"
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of a race to the most bang for the least cost they are racing to the bottom of their cost barrel while hyping up taken ads and promotions to create the illusion they are somehow actually trying to beat each other.
None of these major isps would want to beat another, if that happened they would be the only provider in too many areas and risk
Re: (Score:2)
"But how can you vote with your wallet, Mr. Anderson, when there are no competitors in your area?"
That might be true in some parts of the U.S., it most certainly is not in The Netherlands.
That shithole has enough competition in the broadband ISP market to make this a viable option.
http://www.allisps.com/en/list... [allisps.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's normal in most of the EU, at least in the western countries. Austria, for example, until recently had 6 cell phone providers (I think 3 of them are left now, I didn't keep up with the consolidation), and we're talking about a country that's roughly the size of Maine. That's why cell plans with flatrates are suddenly possible for 20-30 bucks a month.
Most large cities have about as many major ISPs competing with some smaller resellers battling over the bottom of the barrel. That's why you can even get
Re: (Score:2)
Even with a larger number of competitors ISPs will have common interests that are anti-consumer and so areas they won't compete on. You see this with plumbers, just try to get a quote for a slab repair and find a single plumber among the dozens who doesn't charge a higher labor rate just be
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
Because that private infrastructure requires government participation. That's what happens when you have a shared resource that needs to be protected -- in this case, private property and public roads. You don't let any little company or startup dig up the streets on their whim to lay cables.
What SHOULD be the case is that ISPs don't own the lines at all, that the lines are publicly managed and the ISPs can all use them. Then ISPs would have to compete on price and features, and consumers would actually be able to get the sort of consumer choice that would let them make the best decision for themselves. We don't live in that world, though, we live in a world where monopolies or duopolies are granted because of the shared land use considerations, and consumers usually have the choice between a steaming turd and a shit sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that just the point of net neutrality? That the gouvernment makes sure the way data travels over the internet does not get regulated?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Do not trespass on any public land.
2. Do not trespass on anyone's private property without their express permission.
3. Do not use any of the radio spectrum.
4. Do not use shell companies or sign deals with other companies that allow you to evade the above three restrictions on a technicality.
If you can somehow figure out how to do all of these things and still get me an internet connection to my house, then I (tentatively) agree that you should be free of
Re: (Score:2)
They do when you want to connect that business to a government created service like the internet. Feel free to create your own global network with your own rules though.
You clearly have no idea how the internet works.
Re: (Score:2)
You should guarantee every subscriber a sufficient amount of VoIP because that's become an emergency service. Then all other traffic should be served to customers in round-robin fashion, with no guarantees made, though yes it might be well to have some prioritization.
No you can't allow any prioritization. First, my traffic shouldn't suffer for the sake of your traffic.
Don't be an assbag.
Giving priority voip does slow down my download it just doesn't have as big of an impact as my download can have on your voip.
If some other user's voip slows down your download, then your ISP is grossly oversubscribed and your service is already shit.
Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping.
Re: (Score:2)
If some other user's voip slows down your download, then your ISP is grossly oversubscribed and your service is already shit.
Exactly. Are there any ISPs that *don't* massively oversell?
Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping.
Just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it less wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Are there any ISPs that *don't* massively oversell?
Probably not, because most people don't require an enormous pipe, and we have a stigma against pay-per-gigabyte or whatever for the people who use it. The guy on Bittorrent 24/7 is having his connection subsidized by grandma next door who checks in on her family on Facebook.
Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping.
Just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it less wrong.
"Traffic shaping" has been used since the dawn of the Internet and should not be confused with protocol throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic shaping (also known as packet shaping) is a computer network traffic management technique which delays some or all datagrams to bring them into compliance with a desired traffic profile.[1][2] Traffic shaping is used to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth for some kinds of packets by delaying other kinds. It is often confused with traffic policing, the distinct but related practice of packet dropping and packet marking.[3]
The most common type of traffic shaping is application-based traffic shaping.[4] In application-based traffic shaping, fingerprinting tools are first used to identify applications of interest, which are then subject to shaping policies. Some controversial cases of application-based traffic shaping include P2P Bandwidth Throttling. Many application protocols use encryption to circumvent application-based traffic shaping. Another type of traffic shaping is route-based traffic shaping. Route-based traffic shaping is conducted based on previous-hop or next-hop information.[5]
Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. I'll admit the possibility I'm confused on terminology, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I probably should have been more specific. Instead of protocol throttling, it's more like... "protocol combined with source" throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are all grossly oversubscribed. If there is contention on the link prioritizing any traffic slows down the rest of the traffic. None of my packets should have to wait for yours unless we are all getting equal slices at equal intervals (or equal within bounds of our relative respective paid link speeds).
"Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping."
Exactly, we have a major p
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic prioritization is get more bandwidth. NN laws need to be coupled with a requirement to grow the network to support peek demand, preferably with forecasting. QOS is great for constrained systems. Bandwidth is cheap at this point stop acting like it's a massive expense. There are also plenty of programs to make it cheaper netflix coloing cache servers at head ends for example. But for it to be truly neutral their internet connections and most importantly transit links must not be saturated.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea I do build networks as part of my living. If your ISP network has congestion save for dedicated last mile connections it's built and maintained poorly. A point of NN is to prevent them from ignoring connections the classic Comcast L3 were just going to let these saturate and not do anything about it. It's critically important that the comcast pay us for access to our eyeballs is not allowed to become the way things work. Not when comcast gets an artificial government enfoced monopoly.
QOS only solves
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about 'Go fuck yourself'. My bits are just as important as anyone else's. My downloads are as important to me as your voice conversation is to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that 90% of traffic, strictly speaking, can be considered downloading...
Re: (Score:2)
Call it "bulk downloading" above a certain file size, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Your downloads are not realtime-sensitive, it doesn't matter if there's a bit of latency here and there, as long as you get your bits at the expected speed.
VoIP and other realtime-sensitive applications however, do care about latency and not so much about outright speed, as long as it's above at certain minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
How in the hell do you know what my network is doing? More than anything else i take exception with the idea that only defined realtime services are given priority. What is to stop everyone from making their traffic look like VOIP? Again, your bits are no more important than my bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL if you really think people are going to stop talking to each other, in favor of text messages and email.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to realize this: you are a customer. If ISPs are allowed to traffic-shape, they will traffic shape according to THEIR list, not yours.
And you can bet they will prioritize packets according to THEIR friends. So, if they want you to use THEIR voip service, even though it may be so crappy it makes you puke, THEIR service will get priority over everything else. And your VOIP of choice, whatever it is, will be so crappy it will make you go nuts.
This is not about prioritization: it's about who gets the best service. If ISPs are allowed to choose, again, they will choose THEIR "friends", "partners" or "subsidiaries" over your choice.
What's more, if on your ISP VOIP gets crappy because everyone else is busy torrenting, it simply means your ISP is crappy and is not using its money to invest in infrastucture, which ISP the world over have been guilty of, at one point or another.
Educate yourself: https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ [savetheinternet.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Deep inspection is a breach of my privacy. How the hell do you logically separate VOIP from "streaming audio" in any case? Logically VOIP is nothing else but TWO streams of audio... But the very best, and really only important argument is; keep your prying snooping eyes and judgement out of my data.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with permitting this if the tubes are full, is that the ISPs will create a ton a virtual circuits, all running at 80% or whatever the cut-off is, and then implement whatever filtering profits them. So their true capacity may be at 10%, but in technical legalise they comply.
Even if it's as generic as real-time protocols getting priority... how long will it take bittorrent clients to just wrap their packets as RTP traffic so they move faster.
It's really an all or nothing problem, or it will get g
Re: (Score:2)
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization:
1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP)
2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..)
3. Streaming Video
4. Streaming Audio
5. Web / Mail
6. Downloads
That's it. Realtime interactive communications get priority over non-interactive communications, which get priority over high latency operations, which get priority over ANY downloading. Of course, this should only kick in when the tubes are saturated, otherwise it doesn't matter.
Why should you or anyone else dictate how *my* packets are ordered. If you look at your other replies, people are already arguing about what the order is. Give everyone an equal slice and let everyone take turns. If your slice isn't big enough for you to do VOIP then you need to request a bigger pie not for your slice to get priority over my slice. I have no problem giving incentives to people to deprioritize their packets but it should be completely optional and under the user's control. Many utility
Re: (Score:2)
Implementation differences of the algorithms can cause differences in the results, but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very naive to assume that ISPs should be running things by inspecting packets. Instead, if need be they could partition each connection into different-priority lanes each with their own separate cap rules, and let the OS and/or router figure out the proper QoS. Yes I know that's non-trivial, but otherwise you're go
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't understand why traffic shaping by ISPs is necessary.
My mental model is:
* their pipes are such that they can support N units of simultaneous traffic (MB/s or whatever that may be)
* they have m subscribers
* therefore each subscriber is entitled to N/m units (or whatever the calculation is, if some subscribers pay for more bandwidth)
* a subscriber may transmit more than N/m units IFF the total number of units being transmitted is less than N (i.e. they get to use some other subscriber's alloca
Re: (Score:3)
Basic prioritization:
1. Fire hydrants
2. Kitchen faucets
3. Other faucets
4. Toilets
5. Outdoor spigots
Except, that's not how it works, and the world still keeps spinning. All you need is a set of big enough pipes.
(something, something, California)
Re: (Score:2)
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization: 1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP) 2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..) .....
Re: (Score:2)
How about, everybody gets the same amount of time. If every yahoo fires up BitTorrent, they consume 'their' bandwidth with BT but not "my" bandwidth. If there is limited bandwidth, be honest about it and say "we can only provide you 1Mbps continuously unless someone else isn't using theirs, then we can provide you up to 100"
Re: (Score:2)
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization: ... ...
1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP)
2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..)
3. Streaming Video
6. Downloads
Except that my VoIP works just fine without any prioritization.
Prioritization will just be a way of making sure that just my kind of VoIP will become unusable.
And how are they going to determine which traffic is VoIP anyway? Port numbers?
Then again, my downloads through SSH-tunnels will be faster.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm billed a flat rate and capped on data. My traffic is important to me. Why should I subsidize your traffic by paying the same amount and getting worse service simply because your traffic is VoIP and mine is Downloads? If you want to pay to prioritize your data over mine I can understand that we might be treated differently. I also understand very well the need for prioritization of time sensitive packets like VoIP and streaming video. However, I still don't understand why I should pay the same and g
Re: (Score:2)
When every yahoo in your segment fires up bittorrent and your voip starts to stutter, your ISP is overselling too much and it's time to switch ISPs or it's time for your ISP to upgrade his connectivity.
Re: (Score:2)
A telco can buy in a few branded server systems with the most accessed media content for streaming.
That will stop the service "tubes are saturated" as the content is on the users network
Users are buying access every month. Given them a pipe to the world. If the user wants VOIP, offer it to them on the providers terms. Free but the bandwidth is accounted for.
Wants streaming, have a big fast se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, video streaming should be the bottom since it wastes the most bandwidth. Games hardly use any bandwidth but require low latency so they should be at the top.
And what is not grown up about games? Have you ever watched sports? The Olympics? Two old men playing chess in the park? All games, just like video games. I'll also leave you with this, since you seem too immature to get it:
“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
Re: (Score:2)
not important to economy and safety, other things properly of are higher priority in internet traffic
games can use immense bandwidth, I have gaming son
Re: (Score:2)
look at all the immature manlettes around here, hardly a surprise
there are more important data for the nation than games on the internet, it is of little import compared to those things. it properly should be of lower priority.
Re: (Score:2)
half the people in the U.S. are on government assistance to live, I'd say priorities are messed up because of your philosophy
Re: (Score:2)
Some interesting statistics that I read about research on bufferbloat is that a very small percentage of flows are "hogs" are any given instant. They tested link rates from 133Mb/s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do my VoIP with my Blackberry, I don't care about online gaming, but I want my downloads and uploads really fast. Do you want to impose your priorities over mine?
Prioritizing gaming packets is not going to affect your download and upload speeds, because it doesn't affect how much traffic will be going over the pipe overall. Game packets being delivered faster only changes the latency on the end client, but the overall bandwidth used is the same. Game traffic tends to require very very little bandwidth, but it does require low latency. Downloads and uploads do NOT require super-low latency, but they usually require a lot of bandwidth.
That's why traffic shaping as its
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of net neutrality is it is supposed to prevent ISPs from fiddling with my connection to promote lower bandwidth (aka more profitable) internet use practices, to prevent them from disadvantaging vendors as you said, which means not giving an advantage to any vendor
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree with this sans the profanity, but remember Slashdot articles are short "stories" and they always require a source link, and you should always use that if the article really gets your interest. Usually, I also expect a bit more detail but the source link presented here is also vague. They do provide, however, a very good example on what the critics address - T-Mobile NL complains about having a music streming service (such sa Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not
Re:100% content free (Score:5, Insightful)
...T-Mobile NL complains about having a music streming service (such sa Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap ...this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing.
Exactly. The practice that T-Mobile wants to implement would be anti-competitive vendor lock-in. If my service provider says its own music service doesn't count against my data cap, but other services do, then that's blatantly against Net Neutrality. Either there is neutrality, or there isn't - just as there is either discrimination, or no discrimination. There is no middle ground on this issue. If T-Mobile wants to launch a music service, let it compete on equal terms with ALL music services on ALL providers' networks. The Dutch have it right, and the rest of the EU should be following their lead, not vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if my ISP has a music streaming service that's free, as a part of the normal subscription? Should they charge data usage for that?
What if they offer a streaming content bundle, with HBO, Spotify and various online magazines, should they charge data usage on that, if they're already charging for the bundle? Couldn't the argument be made that data usage is included in the bundle price?
Re: (Score:2)
I would say no argument there: the bundle itself becomes anti-competitive as the company is no longer prividing an infrastructure service such as those found in normal ISP bundles: cable, TV, phone, internet, 3/4g, wifi hotspots, roaming packs and whatnot. They would be including a completely different form of business that is not justifiable to include in an internet service as it infringes itself in the now cardinal rule of internet policy: that the internet service has to be unbiased towards content.
The
Re: (Score:2)
But what if the ISP is not just an ISP, but also a telco, cable TV provider and other things?
Would it not be fair for them to bundle their products?
Strict NN causes bad, expensive service. Ex: spam (Score:2, Informative)
I should start by saying I support the CONCEPT of network neutrality. It's just very, very hard to write precise wording that accomplishes the NN goal without making it illegal to do basic network management required to have the service work well.
Strict, poorly thought out network neutrality means the service completely sucks, even as it gets more expensive.
One very simple example which doesn't require any understanding of networks is this:
Dumb NN says "all packets for the same protocol must be treated equ
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem is you are already absolutely wrong this early. If an ISP or a network sees some other host or network blasting out saturation levels of spam from a known botnet, they absolutely can block that traffic wholesale while accepting all other email traffic. I'm pretty sure that falls under the intelligent aspects of the "reasonable network management" clause.
Where do you see that clause? EU explicitly says (Score:2)
Where do you see that clause? In the Dutch law? In your own head? I sure see the exact opposite in the EU guidelines.
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/doc... [europa.eu]
The EU rules say that ISPs may *not* consider the content (Viagra spam is equal to a legit invoice) and it must all be non-discriminatory based on source or other factors, all parameters must be *objective* rules. Treating a Viagra spammer differently from a doctor's office would of course be discriminatory. It would certainly be *reasonable* to allow for blo
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easy, and self-defeating (Score:2)
You can easily lie about the type of data, and it's common for all sorts of things to "look like" http in order to traverse firewalls, etc. In general, it's self-defeating to have it appear to be anything other than what it is.
Suppose you have a flow that appears to be voip. You want to give that flow a steady 64Kbps, and low latency, but most importantly the lowest possible jitter. Quality is improved by *slowing down* any packets that would arrive more quickly than their neighbors*.
Suppose you have a N
Re: (Score:2)
Close, but not close enough for law (Score:2)
I'd say one could, if you wished, de-prioritize 80% of video services (95% of bandwidth), with almost no false positives. So you could match almost all video traffic.
However, I'd say a key word in your post is "legislators". There are over a billion web sites. Of those billion, certainly at least a thousand offer video that wouldn't be detected. A de-prioritized service complaining could point to 1,000 sites with video that's not treated and such by the ISP. So if it were ILLEGAL to classify one video sit
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Let me add - not about priority (Score:2)
I totally agree with what you said. There's a related standard called RFC 3514. It's worth a quick look.
I thought I'd add thing other related point to the discussion. Assume we have some high-priority traffic. It can be routed over either a T1 connection at 1.54Mbps or a 10 Mbps satellite connection. Which is better? Of course we know by know the answer is "it depends". The satellite connection is much higher bandwidth (good) and much higher latency (bad). For best service, we should choose the route bas
Re: (Score:2)
...what the worst possible outcome is for a business that has to operate under net neutrality rules that severely favor the consumer? The most I can come up with is limited investment possibilities.
I've read the Net Neutrality Act (skipping the cell phone entries), what they claim to of acted on (all sites treated equally) is in black and white already. The only servers allowed to adjust broadband traffic are edge servers.
Re: (Score:3)
The first round of net neutrality legislation in the Netherlands (2011) was adopted to stop mobile providers from charging subscribers extra for the "service" of not blocking instant messaging and VOIP applications like Whatsapp and Skype, which were eating into their revenues streams from calls and SMS (text messages).
The current round of legislation (May 2016) forbids zero-rating. It's strict only in the sense that, like the 2011 law at the time, it's ahead of what the EU is discussing at the moment. If c