Saving Net Neutrality in US

[Cosmik]

Just contributing to our common knowledge, the technology used to prioritize certain applications is called Quality of service (QoS). Implemented this a few years back on a Nordic banks WAN.

"In the field of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks, quality of service refers to traffic prioritization and resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

This is what has confused me. The (or at least a) literal definition of net neutrality doesn't allow this, because it says:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication

I am just naive, and assume that if people say they are fighting to keep net neutrality, we must already have it! The reality is that everyone (but me) seems to know that net neutrality is only about the ability of corporations to buy advantage over other corporations. The other fine words in the definition are just for show, and obviously optional. ISPs can unilaterally choose to do what they like, based on "user, content, platform, application, type of attached equipment or method of communication".

Basically, if I thought that my remote weather station (if I had one) would not have its packets delayed in order to make way for Netflix video, that would be a naive hope based on a literal reading of the definition of net neutrality. In fact, the ISPs already do hold my packets up for Netflix. What they don't allow (yet) is for Netflix to pay my ISP to do this in preference to someone else's streaming video. Have I got this correct?

 

[Deleted member 65]

This is what has confused me. The (or at least a) literal definition of net neutrality doesn't allow this, because it says:

I am just naive, and assume that if people say they are fighting to keep net neutrality, we must already have it! The reality is that everyone (but me) seems to know that net neutrality is only about the ability of corporations to buy advantage over other corporations. The other fine words in the definition are just for show, and obviously optional. ISPs can unilaterally choose to do what they like, based on "user, content, platform, application, type of attached equipment or method of communication".

Basically, if I thought that my remote weather station (if I had one) would not have its packets delayed in order to make way for Netflix video, that would be a naive hope based on a literal reading of the definition of net neutrality. In fact, the ISPs already do hold my packets up for Netflix. What they don't allow (yet) is for Netflix to pay my ISP to do this in preference to someone else's streaming video. Have I got this correct?

Yes.

 

[amirm]

QoS if used as a technical term, requires that the packets be marked with their priority. Then intermediate devices can look at that and treat them as such. This is used frequently in Voice over IP in local area networks for example to allow telephony packets to get priority over general data traffic as we don't want interruptions in voice communications. Whereas momentary slowdown in data is not obvious to any user.

The general traffic on the Internet does NOT implement QoS. If it did, then everyone would game the system by setting their traffic to the highest!

What the ISP does is use equipment that examines content of each packet of traffic and can identify it as Youtube, Netflix, etc. Once that categorization is done, then a policy can be applied to them to limit their bandwidth. Or otherwise. This is how mobile careers for example can allow data-limit-free streaming of say, Netflix but not other sources. The technology and tools are in their hands right now to apply this prioritization. This is the threat we face with elimination of net neutrality.

As an example of this Netflix was complaining bitterly a couple years ago that major carriers like Comcast were detecting their traffic and only giving them a few channels to their customers as opposed to much larger pipes available for general traffic. On threat of sanctions from FCC, such practice has become rare. But it is likely to come back now.

 

[RayDunzl]

What the ISP does is use equipment that examines content of each packet of traffic and can identify it as Youtube, Netflix, etc.

How does the ISP inspect packets for content when https is in effect?

 

[amirm]

I am just naive, and assume that if people say they are fighting to keep net neutrality, we must already have it! The reality is that everyone (but me) seems to know that net neutrality is only about the ability of corporations to buy advantage over other corporations. The other fine words in the definition are just for show, and obviously optional. ISPs can unilaterally choose to do what they like, based on "user, content, platform, application, type of attached equipment or method of communication".

Part of the problem here is obscurity. How do any of us know what is going inside of massive ISP's communication network? We don't. But with threat of violating the law, access can be granted to dig into their systems and figure out if they are violating net neutrality. Take that law away and there is no basis anymore to sue them to get that information. All they have to do is deny it and that is that.

In other words, the law is a deterrent because they know they can be sued and truth will come out if the play favoritism. Take that away and they can do things that we can't discover easily.

 

[amirm]

How does the network inspect packets for content when https is in effect?

Good question. Https means the packet content is encrypted. But the header information used to communicate over the Internet is in the clear or none of the intermediate nodes would know how to deal with it.

The destination address then can be used easily to determine where the packet is going. Here is the output of my system as it attempts to reach youtube.com for example:

Note how Comcast in the middleman here as that is my ISP. Similar thing works for Netflix, etc. and per above, is trivial to do.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

As an example of this Netflix was complaining bitterly a couple years ago that major carriers like Comcast were detecting their traffic and only giving them a few channels to their customers as opposed to much larger pipes available for general traffic. On threat of sanctions from FCC, such practice has become rare. But it is likely to come back now.

Yes, it will come back, Netflix and other content providers will pay the ISPs for increased bandwidth and pass that cost on to us along with a profit markup for their heroic efforts. So, everybody benefits, whoopee, except us, of course, the consumers. Ain't Trumpian supply side economics wonderful?

 

[Deleted member 65]

QoS if used as a technical term, requires that the packets be marked with their priority. Then intermediate devices can look at that and treat them as such. This is used frequently in Voice over IP in local area networks for example to allow telephony packets to get priority over general data traffic as we don't want interruptions in voice communications. Whereas momentary slowdown in data is not obvious to any user.

The general traffic on the Internet does NOT implement QoS. If it did, then everyone would game the system by setting their traffic to the highest!

What the ISP does is use equipment that examines content of each packet of traffic and can identify it as Youtube, Netflix, etc. Once that categorization is done, then a policy can be applied to them to limit their bandwidth. Or otherwise. This is how mobile careers for example can allow data-limit-free streaming of say, Netflix but not other sources. The technology and tools are in their hands right now to apply this prioritization. This is the threat we face with elimination of net neutrality.

As an example of this Netflix was complaining bitterly a couple years ago that major carriers like Comcast were detecting their traffic and only giving them a few channels to their customers as opposed to much larger pipes available for general traffic. On threat of sanctions from FCC, such practice has become rare. But it is likely to come back now.

Sorry to correct you Amir, as of now QoS is not implemented on the Internet even though the tech is available.

However QoS is the technology to be used when it eventually will be, applications requesting QoS have the possibility to identify themselves (in the ip packet).

Implemented this myself as Network Manager on Cisco routers (Core, Borders aso) for a Nordic bank, each application provided identification and business decided on the priority. Worked as charm for the bank in their WAN,

 

[amirm]

However QoS is the technology to be used when it eventually will be, applications requesting QoS have the possibility to identify themselves (in the ip packet).

That technology has been around for year as has been the application for it: streaming of audio and video. It is not used because there is no practical policy to enable it.

The problem is that the Internet is built on an honor system. I as an end-user, can create any packet I want. I can set the QoS bit for browsing this forum. Or checking my thermostat in the shed. There is no authentication to state that is a valid use. Nor is there a payment system to reward an intermediate host to treat those packets better. What is the beauty of the system is its own problem in this regard.

What you did in the context of a closed system is done all the time and I gave an example of it with VOIP. It simply is the case that it cannot be extended to the open Internet. Can you imagine all the attacks on servers having the to option to even set the QoS bit to get higher priority???

We have bigger needs than QoS. Imagine I and 10 of my neighbors are all watching the same live stream on CNN. Right now, all of get a private stream even though what we watch is identical! Internet protocols exist for "multicasting" that would allow us all to share the same stream. For the same reasons as QoS, it has never been enabled on the Internet and will not be. Inside a corporate network you could use it but not outside. There is no incentive for any ISP to cooperate and obey multicast traffic that way.

So while you are right that the technology is there, it will never be implemented. Instead, packet sniffing will be used to prioritize based on who is at the end points of it, and the type of packet.

 

[Deleted member 65]

That technology has been around for year as has been the application for it: streaming of audio and video. It is not used because there is no practical policy to enable it.

The problem is that the Internet is built on an honor system. I as an end-user, can create any packet I want. I can set the QoS bit for browsing this forum. Or checking my thermostat in the shed. There is no authentication to state that is a valid use. Nor is there a payment system to reward an intermediate host to treat those packets better. What is the beauty of the system is its own problem in this regard.

What you did in the context of a closed system is done all the time and I gave an example of it with VOIP. It simply is the case that it cannot be extended to the open Internet. Can you imagine all the attacks on servers having the to option to even set the QoS bit to get higher priority???

We have bigger needs than QoS. Imagine I and 10 of my neighbors are all watching the same live stream on CNN. Right now, all of get a private stream even though what we watch is identical! Internet protocols exist for "multicasting" that would allow us all to share the same stream. For the same reasons as QoS, it has never been enabled on the Internet and will not be. Inside a corporate network you could use it but not outside. There is no incentive for any ISP to cooperate and obey multicast traffic that way.

So while you are right that the technology is there, it will never be implemented. Instead, packet sniffing will be used to prioritize based on who is at the end points of it, and the type of packet.

That's what QoS is doing, i.e. packet sniffing identifying the QoS bit.

"Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Each sought to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's quality of service level,..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

Some further reading here from Cisco on QoS, VoIP used as an example, could be any app identifying itself in the ip packet.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2298533/lan-wan/mpls-and-quality-of-service.html

Anyway, there are different turfs, home and away. This is my home turf ... ;-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[amirm]

I was surprised that FCC chairman Ajit Pai was going to attend CES. Yes, FCC chair normally attends CES but given what Pai had done, I thought he would be crazy to show up. Well, I guess he realized that and cancelled his visit: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/3/16846932/ajit-pai-ces-appearance-canceled

FCC chairman Ajit Pai cancels CES appearance a week before show

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has canceled plans to appear at CES next week, missing the show for the first time in five years and what would have been his first appearance as head of the commission.​

Pai was scheduled to appear next Tuesday, alongside the FTC’s acting chairwoman, Maureen Ohlhausen, as part of a “candid conversation” moderated by Consumer Technology Association president Gary Shapiro. Shapiro supported Pai’s move to reverse the 2015 net neutrality rules, so it’s not like Pai would have been in for a tough interview here.

The FCC declined to comment on Pai’s cancellation. The CTA announced the cancellation in a brief email, writing, “Unfortunately, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is unable to attend CES 2018. We look forward to our next opportunity to host a technology policy discussion with him before a public audience.”

 

[FrantzM]

Too early to tell but the way people perceive the Internet is that of a "neutral" InterneT, it is very entrenched. His stooooooooopid decision will affect this person, the current FCC chairman standing in history but may not make much of a dent in real terms.
I know many will not be pleased by what I am about to say and the moderators can just erase it ... This is a sad time when the Government of the Greatest Country the World has known is so anti-Science and anti-progress ...

 

[amirm]

More on this: https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/04/ajit-pai-cancelled-ces-death-threats/

Ajit Pai reportedly cancelled CES appearance due to death threats
His net neutrality rollbacks have prompted a lot of negative pushback.

Yesterday, CES announced that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai would no longer be appearing at the trade show where he was scheduled to take part in a conversation with FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen. No reasons were given by CES or the FCC at the time for the sudden change in plans, but Recode now reports that the cancellation is due to Pai receiving death threats. Two FCC sources said the threats were the cause and that law enforcement had become involved with the issue.

Pai has come under fire for a number of the decisions he's made since taking over as chairman, but none have garnered as much negative attention as his rollback of net neutrality protections. Pai has stated that he and his family have been threatened both in public and online and he and the rest of the FCC were forced to briefly suspend their December 14th voteon the net neutrality rollbacks after a bomb threat was issued. The person claiming responsibility for that threat was also allegedly responsible for a swatting hoax last week that ended in the death of a Kansas man. A congressman also received a death threat regarding the net neutrality decision.​

You would think getting death threats would be a solid sign that the public are not agreeing with what our public servants are doing. But apparently not.

 

[Don Hills]

Conveniently, "death threats" plays into Pai's hands by discrediting the opposition.

 

[Cosmik]

I don't know whether the title of this thread is all that meaningful when a bloc like the EU can throw a spanner in the works that affects the whole WWW. Any views on this?

The EU’s ... new copyright policies threaten the open internet and, by extension, the open society.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/no-more-memes-the-eus-latest-threat-to-the-net/
https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763

In tin foil hat mode, do we really believe that

The law is intended to crack down on the streaming of pirated films and music.

??
Or is it, in the long term, really about killing the web's 'populist' political power?

Edit: As a passive observer of politics, the more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes. We have a conflict of 'values':

• 'Nice people' (e.g. those who read the Guardian) are pro-EU, and imagine themselves to be hostile to Big Business - a conflict, because Big Business strongly influences the EU and is very grateful for their support.
• 'Nice people' have now been familiarised with the term 'populism' and are persuaded to be against it (if not, in the last couple of years, democracy itself) and see the EU as a bulwark against it
• the neutral web is the most powerful tool ever devised for bypassing official political channels and promoting populism.
• Big Business is very happy for the EU to bring in draconian content monitoring ostensibly for copyright reasons. (It's almost as if the EU was doing their bidding...).
• 'Nice people' would be against the loss of net neutrality in favour of Big Business, but would be happy for the EU to crack down on political populism if it was explained to them in those terms e.g. the suppression of the wrong types of 'Fake News'.

My conclusion: we should expect less vehement net neutrality activism from the 'nice' official news channels (e.g. the Guardian and BBC in the UK) from now on.

Another edit:
As author Howard Jacobson said last week:

We’re coming to the comeuppance of democracy. You can’t trust the people… you can be certain that the people will get it wrong. They’d already done it, as far as I was concerned, in Brexit… And then with Trump again. The people given this new confidence in their own opinions. Their inability to distinguish true from false.

Surely, under this widely-held view the internet will inevitably be placed under official control.

 

[svart-hvitt]

If the tighter law on internet traffic in EU were about copyrights of music and film, we have research indicating that the whole picture is not entirely clear on this issue:

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537

Whole EU report in piracy:
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf

What the report finds, is that some piracy may indeed be a good thing for rights holders. Recommended reading.

 

[SIY]

The EU looked at the trainwreck caused by DCMA and said, "Hold my beer..."