Net neutrality. Why is it important that everyone understands what is being said?
Good day to all! Recently , news appeared on RBC that providers have asked for the right to independently limit the traffic of individual sites. In fact, our Media Communication Union (ISS) is achieving the same thing that AT & T has already achieved with Verizon and Comcast in the United States. At this point, forced to quote himself. Fragment of a post in my channel after the decision of the Federal Communications Commission (US Department of Communications) to cancel net neutrality on 12/16/2017:
Against the cancellation of net neutrality in the United States were: Apple, Google, Amazon, Mozilla, Twitter, Reddit, YCombinator, Netflix, and many others. Wired has a whole collection of conflicting opinions. Here are some other examples of possible consequences:
But there is also AT & T, which has recently included Time Warner. It turns out that for telecom operators in the United States had the opportunity to form an oligopoly on the Internet market. The proud “Open Web”, which for so long and carefully guarded Mozilla on its page, becomes an oxymoron.
')
After the cancellation of net neutrality, there is a possibility that any Internet service in the future will have to pay the operator. Internet business will begin to exist on the model of cable television.
However, the essence of what is happening is much more important than terminology. For those who are interested in the explanation of Net Neutrality in the current paradigm, I recommend a couple of materials for reading.
Well, it can not be such that it was so frankly decided to saturate a certain group of people with all sorts of privileges! How do they argue the expediency of their actions in the FCC and what is the benefit of canceling net neutrality ?
The most popular explanation on the example of FedEx and Amazon is that it is so important for FedEx to serve a large client like Amazon that, if necessary, all the transport with couriers will work on Amazon, and the usual little person will be left without attention. There is even a video on WSJ . Maybe I’m badly understanding the principles of network equipment, but I didn’t immediately understand how to project it on the Internet.
Let me give you another example and I want to emphasize that I found this statement “open Internet is bad” on a site similar to the government one . They refer to the story in Gizmodo in 2010, when some buggy Android application overloaded T-Mobile in some small town and everyone had an Internet connection because of it. A hint that it would be very good if T-Mobile could block traffic to this application. But how does network neutrality prevent this? - Unknown. After all, AT & T easily blocked access to FaceTime in 2012. And Verizon generally blocked the communication channel for the opposition on the issue of abortion.δημοκρατία.
Given that the precedent has already been. And the overall conjuncture is surprisingly similar. I would also add a mirror reflection metaphor, for even from the legal side everything is symmetrical. Net neutrality is not a law for us, it is a principle.
It would seem that it is impossible to cancel what is not. But if this is a problem for someone, then it is a problem of formulation, not a problem of meaning. All their providers are now classified as “information services”, and previously they were “telecommunication providers” to be under the FCC (although Title 2 and other bureaucratic nuances existed there). And now we have members of the ISS made a proposal to the draft Infocommunication Code - a document that should replace the law "On Communications".
And most importantly: AT & T, Verizon, Comcast, and Rostelecom, Beeline, MTS and others advocated for their cancellation of net neutrality .
To be able to make the right conclusions on the mistakes of others is an extremely important skill. And there citizens are protesting: there are open letters that have spread on the Internet like a virus; convicting the FCC of forging a million comments in support of telecom operators; The collection of petitions was organized, in which more than 2 million people have already participated.
I talked with different people about this and for the sake of objectivity, for the sake of I want to share the opinion of a person known in the technological world, whose name will not be named:
Who can we have as an ambulance? - The whole Internet of things. Security cameras, sensors, drones also have no guarantees that the viewer is porn in case the channel is overloaded. And best of all, immediately present a self-managed ambulance.
But! All this is more about the techno-visionary thinking of the author of the analogy, and not about the position of network alliances. I read a lot of publications. I deliberately looked for, than the useful abolition of net neutrality . Eventually:
To draw attention to a possible problem and create a discussion. It is important that for the time being all discussions of the Media Communication Union are preliminary. In February 2018, the concept of the Information Code will be sent for approval to Roskomnadzor and members of the “Regulatory regulation” group of the Digital Economy program. The final version of the project should be ready in April.
I want to apologize for raising the near-political theme among the citizens of Habravchan. I admit, such a bulging of civil position is alien to me, even with all my love for my country and RuNet in particular. I am not a lawyer and do not consider myself a journalist. Perhaps I do not notice the reverse of the medal? I will be glad to your comments.
However, I am thinking about Change.org. I understand that a petition is not a tool of influence, it is more a kind of formality that can focus public attention on itself. And now there is nothing to protest, not drafts. Moreover, maybe our telecom operators will create such a document that does not at all untie their hands? Wait and see.
Imagine a situation in which Rostelecom underestimates the speed of Youtube and accelerates, say, Vkontakte. Yes, of course, you can achieve the same conditions, if you pay at additional rates for Youtube. At the moment, Rostelecom with other providers are becoming the most powerful technology companies. How do you?
Against the cancellation of net neutrality in the United States were: Apple, Google, Amazon, Mozilla, Twitter, Reddit, YCombinator, Netflix, and many others. Wired has a whole collection of conflicting opinions. Here are some other examples of possible consequences:
Comcast has a huge number of media brands, including NBC and Universal. Without regulation, a corporation will be able to block or underestimate the speed of services that are competitors of its shows, films and other content.
Source: DigitalTrends , article “What you need to know about net neutrality”.
But there is also AT & T, which has recently included Time Warner. It turns out that for telecom operators in the United States had the opportunity to form an oligopoly on the Internet market. The proud “Open Web”, which for so long and carefully guarded Mozilla on its page, becomes an oxymoron.
')
If you are a Comcast client, then you may have to pay more for video streaming from Netflix or Amazon than for NBC or Hulu. If you are a Verizon customer, then you may have to pay more for accessing Google news than Yahoo.
Source: BusinessInsider , article "The FCC voted to repeal net neutrality - this is how you pay for the internet"
After the cancellation of net neutrality, there is a possibility that any Internet service in the future will have to pay the operator. Internet business will begin to exist on the model of cable television.
So what is net neutrality?
Network neutrality is the principle by which telecommunications service providers do not prefer one target over another, or one class of application (for example, the World Wide Web) over others (for example, online games or IP telephony). Although the term itself is new, its fundamental idea originates in the era of the invention of the telegraph in the middle of the XIX century. Telegrams were delivered equally, on equal terms, without trying to distinguish their content and regulate their belonging to one or another technical delivery method. Such a network "from start to finish is neutral."
Source: Wikipedia
However, the essence of what is happening is much more important than terminology. For those who are interested in the explanation of Net Neutrality in the current paradigm, I recommend a couple of materials for reading.
What are the motives of telecom operators in the US?
Well, it can not be such that it was so frankly decided to saturate a certain group of people with all sorts of privileges! How do they argue the expediency of their actions in the FCC and what is the benefit of canceling net neutrality ?
The most popular explanation on the example of FedEx and Amazon is that it is so important for FedEx to serve a large client like Amazon that, if necessary, all the transport with couriers will work on Amazon, and the usual little person will be left without attention. There is even a video on WSJ . Maybe I’m badly understanding the principles of network equipment, but I didn’t immediately understand how to project it on the Internet.
Let me give you another example and I want to emphasize that I found this statement “open Internet is bad” on a site similar to the government one . They refer to the story in Gizmodo in 2010, when some buggy Android application overloaded T-Mobile in some small town and everyone had an Internet connection because of it. A hint that it would be very good if T-Mobile could block traffic to this application. But how does network neutrality prevent this? - Unknown. After all, AT & T easily blocked access to FaceTime in 2012. And Verizon generally blocked the communication channel for the opposition on the issue of abortion.
And here in general the USA?
Given that the precedent has already been. And the overall conjuncture is surprisingly similar. I would also add a mirror reflection metaphor, for even from the legal side everything is symmetrical. Net neutrality is not a law for us, it is a principle.
"Net Neutrality" by proponents, it is not followed by regulations.
Source: The Washington Post , a 2007 article “Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffict” (note the name).
It would seem that it is impossible to cancel what is not. But if this is a problem for someone, then it is a problem of formulation, not a problem of meaning. All their providers are now classified as “information services”, and previously they were “telecommunication providers” to be under the FCC (although Title 2 and other bureaucratic nuances existed there). And now we have members of the ISS made a proposal to the draft Infocommunication Code - a document that should replace the law "On Communications".
And most importantly: AT & T, Verizon, Comcast, and Rostelecom, Beeline, MTS and others advocated for their cancellation of net neutrality .
Do you want to bring this experience to Russia?
To be able to make the right conclusions on the mistakes of others is an extremely important skill. And there citizens are protesting: there are open letters that have spread on the Internet like a virus; convicting the FCC of forging a million comments in support of telecom operators; The collection of petitions was organized, in which more than 2 million people have already participated.
I talked with different people about this and for the sake of objectivity, for the sake of I want to share the opinion of a person known in the technological world, whose name will not be named:
I will give a superficial, but understandable analogy. Rules of the road should be the same for all? This is stupid when it comes to ambulance or fire truck. But in practice, we know that if you allow flashers as a class, then for some reason they most often fail to get into an ambulance. Here it is also. Therefore, protecting the position of strict net neutrality, it is useful to remember that this is the position in which the ambulance must move at a speed of flow and stand in all traffic jams.
Who can we have as an ambulance? - The whole Internet of things. Security cameras, sensors, drones also have no guarantees that the viewer is porn in case the channel is overloaded. And best of all, immediately present a self-managed ambulance.
But! All this is more about the techno-visionary thinking of the author of the analogy, and not about the position of network alliances. I read a lot of publications. I deliberately looked for, than the useful abolition of net neutrality . Eventually:
- I have never met mention of smart cities and similar thoughts for the benefit of the future.
- If the company or subscriber pays normally - then the speed is guaranteed. And do not care about the problem of consensus of the viewer of porn and some neurosurgeon's robot.
- I have never heard about the existence of the fundamental Internet problem and complaints about the existing ways.
- Net neutrality ( USA Today ).
What do we have to do?
To draw attention to a possible problem and create a discussion. It is important that for the time being all discussions of the Media Communication Union are preliminary. In February 2018, the concept of the Information Code will be sent for approval to Roskomnadzor and members of the “Regulatory regulation” group of the Digital Economy program. The final version of the project should be ready in April.
Apotheosis
I want to apologize for raising the near-political theme among the citizens of Habravchan. I admit, such a bulging of civil position is alien to me, even with all my love for my country and RuNet in particular. I am not a lawyer and do not consider myself a journalist. Perhaps I do not notice the reverse of the medal? I will be glad to your comments.
However, I am thinking about Change.org. I understand that a petition is not a tool of influence, it is more a kind of formality that can focus public attention on itself. And now there is nothing to protest, not drafts. Moreover, maybe our telecom operators will create such a document that does not at all untie their hands? Wait and see.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/358044/
All Articles