Re. Peter's item on defining net neutrality:

A reasonable definition is:
  a) non-discrimination by content (e.g. the ownership of, or meaning conveyed by, a given quantity of information: such as the meaning of spoken or written words, the identity of an author, the subject-matter of a video, the genre of music),
  b) while maintaining QOS (quality of service) standards appropriate to type or category of communication. 

Thus, all "conversation" categories (text chats, phone calls, videophone conferences) should be treated the same way (high QOS, low latency), regardless of who is speaking and what they are saying.  All "file transfer" categories (email, uploads/downloads including music and video) should be treated the same way (greater latency or delay is allowed) regardless of ownership, authorship, meaning, opinion expressed, etc.

Originally, carriers were legally forbidden to have any financial interest in "content."  Thus the telephone company could not give you a better or worse connection depending on whether they did or didn't like you or the words you said in conversations.  These arrangements were worked out during a period of time in American history when progressive and equalitarian values governed public policy.  This is what Peter is referring to by the term "common carrier laws."  If you build a network along the public right-of-way (such as wires along roads, or their wireless equivalent) you are obligated to treat all members of the public equally, and charge them the same rates for the same services.

The development of the internet coincided with a period when laissez-faire and social darwinist values governed public policy.  Thus the carriers were "deregulated" and allowed to have direct financial ownership over "content."  It logically followed that carriers would seek to privilege the content they owned, over the content they did not own.  For example Comcast has a primary stake in cable TV, and thus an interest in giving its own programs better connections than "competing" video from other sources it does not own.

As long as carriers are allowed to have ownership stake in content, they will behave that way.  This is the key "conflict of interest" as Peter describes it, and the origin of the entire problem of network neutrality.  And, once carriers are entitled to meddle in content, they will use that power to its full extent and begin to engage in subtle manipulation of the public (keyword "nudge"), and overt censorship, as we have seen.   

The only long-term solution that will work "naturally" (as distinct from using a "Rube Goldberg contraption" of overly-complex indirect regulation that can be corrupted), is to once again split carriers from content, such that neither can have ownership over the other.  This is hardly as difficult as it may seem, since we already did something similar in the 1980s by breaking up the Bell System (AT&T) under competitive pressure.

There's also a deeper problem inherent in the architecture of technology itself, about which more if anyone's interested to hear it (and this also gets at what Peter was referring to about "bundles"). 

-G


=====



On 13-11-25-Mon 6:04 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
To delve a little into specifics:

The DSL speeds I typically get (fairly close to Vicky geographically, so likely similar) are 3 Mbps download, 1Mbps upload. (An easy way to check your speeds is http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ -- be sure to shut down other computers/devices on your network to get an accurate reading.)

For day-to-day use this is usually fine, but it's pretty frequent that I encounter problems. I've had Sonic since July, and have been able to manage; but since Internet is a vital part of my work, and I work from home, I do unfortunately feel the temptation to "sell my soul to Comcast."

The upload speed is the bigger problem. When I am uploading something big, typically a video or collection of photos, other activities can grind to a halt. Uploading a 500MB video at these speeds can take over an hour, so this is significant. Contrary to common belief, if you max out your upstream bandwidth, your downstream bandwidth is maxed out as well. I share my connection with a roommate. Higher bandwidth activities include Skype and various other videoconferencing/screen sharing applications (which require both upload and download bandwidth); and streaming stuff video (Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo) and music (Amazon, Pandora, iTunes). Much of the streaming is done on a Roku.

One thing I have tried is replacing my router with one that has Quality of Service (QoS) functionality -- a Belkin N750. Unfortunately, when I received it I found that it does not permit specific settings by MAC address -- I had intended to just throttle the upload speed for the computer I usually use for uploads -- but instead has a simple "on/off" checkbox for QoS, so I guess it's just prioritizing stuff according to somebody's (obscure) idea of what traffic should be prioritized. In the simple tests I have run, though, things do seem dramatically improved: a Skype call during an upload connected quickly and sounded fine.

In troubleshooting this stuff, I've found Sonic tech support very happy to look at my usage patterns, in my case confirming my hunch that uploads are the thing that maxes out my connection, but that I'd never maxed out the download when an upload wasn't in progress. I strongly recommend asking tech support about this before making any big decisions -- it's possible that more intelligent routing, or just saving your big uploads for overnight, might solve your problem.

A friend also suggested installing a "whole home DSL filter" -- it installs where the phone line terminates *outside* your house, and then sends *two* lines into the house -- one for DSL, and another for voice. That way you don't need the little DSL filters on every phone. I've heard mixed reviews, and suspect these only make a difference where there is lots of internal wiring in the house -- and there's not in my place, so I haven't bothered with this.

Sonic offers a feature -- I can't remember the name, and consequently can't find the web page -- where you change your connection to drop your downstream speed and increase your upstream speed. So in my case, maybe I'd get something like 2Mbps in each direction (likely a little less, actually). This is a free switch, but obviously involves a significant sacrifice. It's probably worth trying before making a switch.

If you're willing to spend more each month -- like double -- Sonic does offer a service that bundles two ADSL lines. But that's *really* voting with your dollars ;) It also might be possible/interesting, if you have friendly neighbors, to explore bundling your Internet service with theirs, so you both share both connections. This would involve some fancy router setup, but I think is possible. Or, if you have to go with Comcast, you'll probably have way more bandwidth than you need -- so consider sharing it with a neighbor and at least not sending *two* households' worth of business their way! Or…maybe the occasional high-bandwidth need can be addressed by temporarily tethering your cell phone for any other stuff you have to do at the same time…?

OK, on to something a little more philosophical. (Apologies for the jargonese that follows, I can explain in more detail if people want me to.) Like others on this list, I think, I have four (interrelated) major complaints about Comcast. Some are specific to Comcast, some to cable carriers, and others apply to lots of big Internet carriers:
  • An FCC ruling that I consider a travesty, that exempted them from the "common carrier" laws even though they lease public rights-of-way to run their cables -- effectively establishing a monopoly in many areas on high speed Internet (There's a pretty good documentary here: http://barbershoppunk.com )
  • Their bundles and customer service that push you to sign up for stuff you might not want (like TV service) and enter into 2-year contracts.
  • Their bad record on sharing customers' info with goverment entities (compare Comcast and Sonic here: https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 )
  • Their abysmal record on net neutrality (see barbershoppunk.com )
I want to talk about the last one for a sec, and am really interested in what others think about this. It seems to me that the fundamental challenges in defining "net neutrality" has been a bigger problem than I previously thought. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have been better to acknowledge upfront that network management is a sophisticated and complex task, rather than telling the seemingly simpler story that the Internet, absent the meddling of service providers, is some kind of level playing field. Networks have always been managed to prioritize one kind of traffic over another; and we all benefit from intelligent and benevolent decisions being made in network design.

It seems to me that the simpler and more accurate way to frame the issue is around the "transparent and ethical management of conflicts of interest around network management decisions." It seems to me that the whole net neutrality issue has been driven by concern around conflicts of interest, but that the *term* conflict of interest is almost entirely absent from the rhetoric.

Curious what others think on this last point?
Pete


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Vicky Knox <vknoxsironi@gmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more, G. We are between a rock and a hard place.


2013/11/24 GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net>

How slow is it?  And "ultra-slow" for what purposes?

The corporate data combine wants to turn the internet into a new form of TV that watches everything we do, feeds us irresistible advertising, sells us "experiences," and keeps us busy playing games while their cronies harvest our labor and pillage the planet.  _That_, not producing & sharing personal and community content, is largely what's behind the "need" for speed. 

Along the way, the corporate data combine also has a direct stake in making us impatient, to the point where waiting a few minutes for a download or upload becomes intolerable.  Impatience plus the endemic narcissism of being surrounded by our "selves" in their digital representations of "personalization" and media bubbles, are key bricks in the wall.

Right now the primary choices are LMI/Sonic over copper, AT&T DSL over copper, AT&T over fiber, and Comcast via coaxial cable.  There are a few other options such as Telepacific and various wireless services, most of them intended for business users.

A dollar spent is a vote cast.  And a "fast" connection without network neutrality, has a speed of zero for censored content.

-G


=====



On 13-11-23-Sat 1:07 PM, Vicky Knox wrote:
PEOPLE.

Though I would like to support their local business, I am sick of LMI's ultra slow Sonic connection! :[ And I don't want to sell my soul to Comcast. Webpass has mixed reviews. Etc., etc. Where do I go? help!!!!! I just want to dust off poor old neglected Transmission and watch some thought-provoking films! D:

This all said, I'd like to get an initial temperature check on the idea of Sudo Room making official recommendations for IT services and publishing those recommendations on our websites as a public service. Thoughts? 


_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss



_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss