Leaked: Mobile operators' SCARE campaign against net neutrality Europe’s mobile phone operators are so worried about the effects of a proposed net neutrality law on their businesses that they appear to have planned to scare politicians out of passing it. A leaked document from the GSMA, the global mobile phone operators' association, reveals a campaign strategy that plays on people's …
I hope your trying to get peoples backs up with this DAM, either that or you are wilfully ignorant. Anyone that works in or around computers and the interconnected networks of the world knows what it is about.
They may have different versions how it should be implemented. But they all boil down to one core thing, all data should be treated equally. Not hard to define is it?
>><"They may have different versions how it should be implemented. But they all boil down to one core thing, all data should be treated equally. Not hard to define is it?"
Actually, that's not a good definition. A better one is that all PROVIDERS of data should be treated equally. There are good reasons why you might want to prioritize packets of streaming video or voice calls over an email or a torrent of a GNU/Linux distro. It's okay for different TYPES of data to be treated differently. What's not okay is if Google's streaming video gets treated as a priority over some other video sharing website.
Hey h4rm0ny, this is what I was on about in my post.
This is a different implementation. You are just saying here that all data of the same service type should be treated equally. This is no different than saying all data must be treated equally, it is just a different way of doing it where everyone should treat different services each in a different but equal way.
As I said it is the implementations of the core idea that people's opinions differ over, not the idea itself.
I got that wrong. Since he did say, "on a voluntary basis", he is technically correct. The IWF 'ban list' has no force in law and so ISP blocking is voluntary on their part. They block because the government threatened to wrap them up in legal red tape if they didn't.
So, it's purest twisted weasel-logic bullshit.
An up vote for you Sir, as you are right.
Sadly though, they could well win with this sort of strategy.
Just think what the Daily Mail can make of this, "save the children," is right up their street.
You must know, everyone believes, every thing, that is printed in the Daily Mail.
The European Parliament proposals would therefore have rendered the UK Internet Watch Foundation's voluntary scheme unworkable.
I have to say... Good!
While I obviously don't agree with child porn being freely available on the internet, the IWF volutary system is a bad system. It relies on a bunch of unaccountable people effectively breaking the law (by downloading/possessing/viewing CP) to build a list which ISPs must "voluntarily" block in full. They cannot correct mistakes themselves. These busy bodies also are not legal authorities, so can (and have) banned legal images, which then affect legitimate sites who have very little recourse.
So, if the IWF is stopped, we should get an accountable, legal framework to do this properly.
Of course, this could end up being even worse, but at least it would be accountable.
I assume this misinformation campaign will fail. If the below is too long to read, in short Verizon (and AT&T) have tried misinformation campaigns here to try to charge companies to provide decent access to their services, and make it out like it's those companies fault if their videos buffer or whatever. Those companies have responded by refusing to pay, and popping up information making it clear it's Verizon's or AT&T's fault and showing comparative speeds of other local ISPs that are maintaining their internet connectivity properly. I don't know if it's been long enough for people to flee AT&T and Verizon yet, but in the longer term that's what would happen.
Verizon has recently failed to buy an adequate connection at at least one internet exchange, because Netflix is a large customer at this IXP. Verizon claims "Netflix isn't paying their fair share". Verizon wants people to ignore the fact that Netflix *is* paying for their access to the internet exchange points just as Verizon is, and that Netflix is NOT Verizon's customer. Verizon wants to double-dip by continuing to charge their customers full price (who are after all paying for *internet* access, not just access to Verizon's private network), while charging Netflix a second time for the Internet access Verizon's actual customers are already paying for.
This has failed spectacularly, Netflix and Youtube (among others) have refused to pay up since they already pay for their internet connectivity. People with any knowledge of Internet connectivity know Verizon isn't owed a penny, Verizon is the one cheaping out and Netflix *is* paying their fair share already. Those *not* in the know just know that Verizon's service has started to suck recently. Netflix and Youtube (among others) now helpfully have a little bar pop up if a video starts buffering that is like "Buffering? Click here to find out why", which explains the Verizon situation and then shows your speed along with typical (much much higher) Netflix and Youtube speeds from ISPs in your area. I don't know if there's any significant churn from this yet but it hasn't gone the way Verizon wanted for sure.
AT&T was planning to artificially degrade service of services who did not pay their double-dip (rather than failing to upgrade a connection to an internet exchange point), with similar result -- a few companies paid, but now the rest have drawn a line in the sand are making it clear to everyone that service problems are AT&T's fault.
I propose a law on free speech neutrality, whereby actual voters speaking in a personal capacity get their speech prioritised over anyone who uses "think of the children/terrorists" as an argument and corporate disinformation campaigners for businesses that stash all their money in the Cayman Islands. Oh yeah, and Old Etonians.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
