
TorrentFreak: Don't bash Google for Net Neutrality, it never existed anyway - nervechannel
http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-and-att-ban-bittorrent-on-wireless-networks-100813/
======
jacquesm
Anything that inspects packets past the transport layers should be illegal
unless a warrant has been served.

Just like in the good old post days you should be able to rely on all your
packets arriving without 'inspection' by any carriers.

The obvious solution to the whole net neutrality problem is to encrypt
everything and to run the various protocols on every port imaginable after
some form of handshaking.

I think that would work.

~~~
alecco
Yes, but that wouldn't be enough. The DNS system is also controlled by an
oligopoly and ISPs. With DNS server data ISPs can easily deduce what is a
packet doing. AFAIK, the DNSSEC system doesn't solve this, either.

The stakes are high, I'd love to see a change of paradigm. But it's very hard
given the immense economic and political interests against anything fair.

~~~
PidGin128
I first thought of a solution, whereby we share distributed lists of
hostnames, in the same way torrents are tracked.

I then remembered that you can switch to alternative DNS providers. Google's
comes to mind, because its 8.8.8.8 address is easy to remember.

~~~
alecco
Google is the largest advertising and user-tracking system online. I would
only use those DNS servers as last resource.

Also your DNS request travels unencrypted through your ISP and a likely drop-
in solution to packet inspection would just be a passive listener (typical
solution with 0 configuration). So in this case, alternative servers don't
help.

~~~
bitskits
While the Google argument is an easy argument to make, it happens to not have
merit.

From: <http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html>

_We don't correlate or combine your information from the temporary or
permanent logs with any other data that Google might have about your use of
other services, such as data from Web Search and data from advertising on the
Google content network._

~~~
alecco
You are diverting the discussion. The main point of that comment is the ISP
can inspect those packets just like if you use their servers (and probably by
exactly the planned way to do it in the first place.)

With regards of privacy, Google's definition of what's identifying or not is
very dodgy. From your own link, the permanent record includes the timestamp,
domain, geolocation and ISP. That's a lot of information if you aggregate it.

~~~
bitskits
Down-voted for posting a link to a privacy policy? Hmm. Ok.

My point had nothing to do with your ISP packet inspection argument (notice I
didn't address it). I was providing a counter-point to the "Google is the
largest advertising and user-tracking system online. I would only use those
DNS servers as last resource." My comment was simply to refute your indication
that Google might be associating DNS with advertising or user tracking. They
don't.

Edit: Can someone explain why the down-votes? Do you just disagree?

~~~
alecco

      > My point had nothing to do with your ISP packet inspection argument
    

That's why my comment said you were diverting the point of the discussion. We
are discussing ways to hide content from ISPs.

------
alecco

      > Even the most troubling part of Google’s proposal – that wireless networks
      > would be excluded for the time being – is not much different from
      > what the FCC suggested. 
    

That doesn't make it right. I'm sure P2P voice providers like Skype are very
upset about this agreement. And customers should be, too. If my 3G/4G provider
selectively blocks my voice calls they should state it very clearly on the
marketing material. Something like "X GB per month for everything but voice,
peer-to-peer, and any other service that competes with our own services." Of
course they will never say that because they don't want the public to be aware
they are being _deceived_.

Even for the rest of the corporations the wireless situation is very bad. They
won't be able to have inexpensive communications over IP if it goes through
wireless, like conference calls. They'll be forced to use oligopolistic and
overpriced services for something already paid for.

This isn't bad just for end users and I think Torrentfreak missed the point.
This proposal initiates a terrible false dichotomy of wired vs. wireless. It
helps current use of peer-to-peer (the bait) crippling wireless (the real deal
in the very near future.) Google doesn't care, or even worse, is against P2P
services (private or commercial) because their core business is at odds with
it. In som ways Google CEO want it to be the new IBM, the new central
mainframe.

[Don't get me wrong, I love the technical people behind Google including its
founders, but their higher management is out of control, and IMHO, "evil".]

~~~
ZeroGravitas
How can it _initiate_ that dichotomy when it's the basically the same as a)
the FCC proposal and b) reality as we've lived it for the last few years?

TorrentFreak aren't saying it's great, they're saying it sucks just as much as
the status quo, so piling onto Google is stupid because you're attacking the
one person pushing for progress in one area because they aren't making
progress in a more difficult area, double that stupid if you're acting like
Google is dismantling something that doesn't exist, rather than just not
fighting to have it created.

~~~
alecco
Perhaps I shouldn't have used "initiate." But the proposal by Google/Verizon
states a position while the FCC document "seek[s] comment." It's new that
Google, a content provider, answers that question jointly with the 2nd largest
telecom. And both companies are partners in the mobile business.

[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf)

------
spinchange
It's refreshing to read more of reality-based examination of last week's
announcement.

~~~
alecco
I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral? There have
been plenty of crazy situations related to throttling (like Comcast) and deep
packet inspection and content modification (like the big case in UK.)

It's a legally grey area where different groups are asking different things.
EFF, EPIC, and other civil rights related groups worldwide want content non-
discrimination and permission of tethering for wireless devices. The telcos
want carte blanche to block or throttle as they please. And I bet 3 letter
agencies (and their counter-parties in other countries) are siding with the
telcos for their own reasons.

Google changed their stance at least on content discrimination on wireless. A
very meaningful example Skype calls or competing video distribution platforms.
Google can't represent those competitors on this discussion. In particular if
they are partners with telcos with their Android system. That's where the
outrage comes from.

~~~
nervechannel
"I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral?"

Err, that's exactly the point. Net neutrality already doesn't exist in a lot
of ways, the Google proposal is seen by some (e.g. TorrentFreak) as an attempt
to regulate something that can already be arbitrarily done in an unregulated
way.

You can't take away a freedom or right that doesn't already exist.

~~~
alecco
As I said in another comment, if my 3G/4G service provider sold me the service
as "X GB per month" without clarifying it can't carry voice or competing
services currently it's unlawful and other companies affected could sue them.
Or a class action for deceitful advertising.

Telcos want to have legal cover for that. That's new.

~~~
spinchange
They do clarify in the fine print of their terms and conditions which
customers agree to if they're using the service. So, it's not unlawful just
because you don't agree with it, because you've already agreed to it.

There is nothing new here in the Google / Verizon proposal. They can't be both
killing wireless net neutrality and seeking 'legal cover' for already doing
it, especially when it didn't exist because the current status quo of 'packet
discrimination' on those networks isn't illegal.

------
rickmb
I find it interesting to see how so many people try to sound "reasonable" and
find value in "compromise". Which is a good thing, 99% of the time. Except
when the issue falls into "you can't be a little bit pregnant" category. IMHO,
that is the case where Net Neutrality concerned. You can debate how to enforce
it, or even if you should enforce it, how important it is, if it should be
law, the ethics of it, whatever, but there is no such thing as "a bit of" or
"an improvement in" Net Neutrality.

Any law or proposal that leaves gaping holes to manipulate traffic at will is
_against_ Net Neutrality. And so, apparently, is Google.

And btw, Net Neutrality did exist, for the longest time in the Internet's
history. That's kind of the whole damn point, it brought us to where we are
today. The fact that it wasn't enshrined in the law doesn't mean it didn't
exist. All of which means that Google's proposal is a proposal to bury it, not
defend it.

~~~
antics
So your proposal to fight one of the biggest lobbying forces in the world
[<http://www.freepress.net/node/62059>] is to demand that everything just be
fixed all at once? You are out of your mind.

~~~
gamble
Yeah, who would ever do something that crazy? It would be like demanding
automakers build safe cars or telling the tobacco industry not to market their
product to children.

~~~
jokermatt999
Both those examples had a nice emotional component to them: automobile deaths
and cancer patients. Try showing someone the harm of non-neutral networks
without resorting to hypothetical situations or abstracts. I don't mean
someone on HN, I mean the "average Joe" voter.

------
petercooper
And it's not just BitTorrent. Net neutrality hasn't existed in a broad sense
for SMTP for years now. Anyone's who maintained a mail server will know of
seemingly arbitrary IP filtering between data centers, network wide tarpitting
and throttling, and all sorts of hoops you need to jump through to reliably
deliver mail.

Further, many ISPs over the years have blocked port 80 in or transparently
proxied port 25 (or even port 80) through their own servers. I'm not
necessarily against this but I think it should be a legal requirement for ISPs
to share information about _what_ they're doing so we can choose ISPs that fit
in with our requirements.

------
benbeltran
Hey, but don't you know it's chic to hate google right now?

People love complaining, but not so much helping. I see a lot of people saying
why it's wrong but I dont' see fewer people making proposals. And I think the
general message in the article is "hey, it's not perfect but at least google
is doing something".

~~~
jacquesm
I don't think that's what's driving this. The major powers behind this are
two-fold, the first google's apparent about face, the second that they seem to
act against their self applied motto.

So they're being held to the standards that they themselves set in the past,
hating google has nothing to do with it.

Net neutrality simply translates in to 'pipes are supposed to be dumb for
regular traffic'. Anything other than that and the net is no longer neutral,
and that's both what drove it to become what it is today and what will
continue to drive that growth in the future. Turning it in to a series of ISP
guarded walled gardens is not to anybodies benefit. Especially not the
wireless portion, since that is where the future growth will be, so the
current battle will draw the lines for one of the most important portions of
the net in the near future.

And I think we all hoped that Google would stay on the right side in this, and
feel disappointed that they didn't.

Hate doesn't enter in to it.

------
antics
Not inspecting packets is only the beginning.

I for one don't just want people to not snoop around my data, I want more or
less unbiased service. Remember, Comcast would throttle users who were
constantly uploading a lot of information, which by the way, actually is a
pretty good indicator of torrenting.

This is the reason you can't just encrypt everything (edit: as other users
here suggest). It goes deeper than that. It's not about people looking into
your content, it's about ISPs having to provide the internet as it is, and not
simply as they want you to see it.

------
gamble
This is BS. Net neutrality has been the status quo for the last 30 years, if
only because the network providers didn't have the ability to throttle traffic
they didn't like, and weren't concerned about squeezing every cent out of
their oligopoly position. Only in the last few years have the providers
possessed the network hardware and the concern about becoming dumb pipes that
they've actively attacked net neutrality.

Also, I think he's deluding himself if he thinks the Google/Verizon deal is
going to protect Bittorrent on wired networks.

------
andreyf
Getting rid of terrenting is what net neutrality is about for a lot of
players: it's a significant part of backbone traffic that can be eliminated
(de-prioritized to the point of being useless) overnight, given the right
legal setting. Frankly, the interests looking to get rid of peer-to-peer
bandwidth are so powerful and around invested long-term, I don't think there's
much anyone can do.

~~~
jacquesm
What goes on in _my_ packets is nobodies business but me and my 'peer',
whether it's a web server, a phone, an internet connected appliance, an ftp
site or a torrent server.

De-prioritizing (what a word anyway) is not what it is all about it is about
limiting. Prioritizing all the traffic is like selecting a volunteer by having
someone step backwards.

ISPs sell bandwidth, so bandwidth is what they should deliver. They don't sell
quality of service, at least, I've yet to see an ISP that offered me 250K down
for torrents, 32K for voice and 128K for web traffic as a single package.
They'll sell me 1, 4, 8, 10 or even 20 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up for X credits
per time unit. So that's what I expect to receive.

And once they start doing deep packet inspection where does it end? Some
websites have a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic at the expense
of others?

~~~
antics
I'm for net neutrality, but the argument that they are "selling bandwidth" is
ridiculous -- in fact that's the very argument ISPs have for disallowing it!
[Pete Ashdown is the president of a Utah ISP called Xmission:
<http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/>] As providers of a
service, they argue that they should be able to "deprioritize" garbage traffic
so that all their customers don't suffer, and you might argue that this is not
the real reason they de-prioritize, but regardless, your argument is just as
easily turned in the opposite direction.

Bottom line, is that net neutrality is about having an accurate picture of the
internet, and not a picture that Comcast (or whoever) decides I get. THAT, as
well as maintaining user privacy, is the goal here.

EDIT:

I should also add that ISPs have throttled upload-heavy traffic WITHOUT
inspecting the packets for a long time, so even if you didn't inspect packets,
the issue of net neutrality persists.

~~~
jacquesm
You are talking about bandwidth in the aggregate (to multiple users, aka
overselling) I'm talking about bandwidth on an individual basis.

Different things.

~~~
antics
I don't see your point at all. The fact that you want the bandwidth you were
supposedly "sold" is the very justification ISPs give for throttling the
traffic of, say, spammers, or torrenters. Why should those practices make for
a worse experience for everyone else? (edit: particularly if they are
illegal?)

Again, I'm for net neutrality, but you do it a disservice with that argument.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, you entirely miss the point. They do it by throttling _my_ traffic in
order to supply others the bandwidth that _they_ have bought.

Whereas I have just as much right to _my_ bandwidth (the bandwidth that I paid
for) as they have for theirs, which protocol is being used is irrelevant.

And you can't compare spam to torrents, spam is illegal, torrents are -
surprise - not.

So, ISPs will have to rely on statistical modeling to determine how much they
can oversell, not on throttling.

~~~
antics
Actually, that last part is not correct. Torrents are not always legal
[[http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.h...](http://ask-
leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.html)], and spam is not always
illegal [<http://spam.abuse.net/faq/>]. It's abusive to say otherwise. I
torrent also all the time, but that doesn't change the facts.

But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your
bandwidth all the time. In fact, most of them do not. If you are buying a
strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually
say that themselves?

Hence the argument that throttling your traffic betters other customers.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't know who 'Leo' is, but here is the way I understand it:

Copyright infringement is illegal. Torrent files are not (they don't contain
copyrighted information, they contain hashes).

Downloading a copyrighted work using any mechanism, including bittorrent is
illegal in many places, but not everywhere.

> But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your
> bandwidth all the time.

No, they have a best effort obligation to deliver what they'e sold. The fact
that most of them don't make that effort does not mean they're in the clear.

> If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that
> the ISPs don't actually say that themselves?

Because it is to their advantage.

~~~
antics
> No, they have a best effort obligation to deliver what > they'e sold. The
> fact that most of them don't make that > effort does not mean they're in the
> clear.

Well, Jacques, once again, that's actually precisely their argument: that they
are "making their best effort" to preserve the user experience. You say
they're not providing what you pay for and tell them why, and then they spin
around and tell you that they are providing exactly that, _because_ they are
doing what you don't like.

And on top of that, they're not promising what you tell them you were sold:
there is no bandwidth guarantee. It's like if you showed up to someone's house
and bought a stereo, and then after you paid, loudly proclaimed that you
actually bought their wife. Saying doesn't make it so, and since this is not a
promise they have actually given you, it's a bit unfair to expect that they be
held to it.

Remember, though before you head down that hole, that I'm not supporting them.
I love net neutrality. It think it's great. I'm just saying that your buying
bandwidth is _not_ a good basis for argument of the position you elected.

>> If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that
the ISPs don't actually say that themselves? > Because it is to their
advantage. You're right. It's to their advantage not to sell that guarantee.
That would be insane.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't think we're going to agree on this.

~~~
antics
No, I suppose not. It's been fun, though. :)

------
yanw
"We can’t help but note that Google’s proposal is in essence very similar to
the (widely praised) Net Neutrality regulations that were suggested a few
month ago by the FCC. On several points it’s actually an improvement, as the
EFF also noted."

I Wonder why none of the bigger news outlets tried to compare between the two
proposals.

~~~
alecco
FCC didn't make a proposal on Wireless, at least on the document they sent on
Oct 2009.

[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf)

~~~
yanw
How about the more recent "third way" proposition?

~~~
alecco
Even less clear:

    
    
      > [...] will seek input on important questions such as whether wired
      > and wireless broadband access should be treated differently
      > in this context, and will invite new ideas.
    

[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297944...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297944A1.pdf)

------
rquesada
People complain against google because: \- It has a "don't be evil" mantra,
wich is deprecated right now \- A few years ago Google was promoting the net
neutrality

Many people feel betrayed by the new Google behavior.

------
loewenskind
Talk about throw the baby out with the bath water. "We weren't allowed to have
our service sent mostly illegal data without being blocked, so net neutrality
was obviously a myth!". Does the author think that Google's "courageous
attempt at net neutrality" would be favorable to torrents on wired networks?

Google betrayed the trust of everyone who believed "Don't do evil". Full stop.
How ISPs dealt with illegal traffic on their networks has nothing to do with
any of this.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
Nowhere does it say that torrents are blocked because of illegal content. The
AT&T terms of service that are quoted in the article mention "certain uses
that cause extreme network capacity issues" as a reason. Given that torrents
are often huge, and that wireless networks usually are not as fast as wired
ones yet, that does not seem completely unreasonable.

Of course, it does mean that I cannot download, say, a Linux ISO via
torrent... now _that_ is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

(That said, AT&T did stop offering Usenet last year, supposedly because there
was too much illegal content.)

~~~
tomjen3
>that wireless networks usually are not as fast as wired ones yet, that does
not seem completely unreasonable.

But it is completely unreasonable. If they don't have enough bandwidth, they
can sell me a plan with a limit - then _I_ will decide what to use that plan
for (including, but not limited too, porn, terrorist activities and peer to
peer filesharing).

What the providers wont admit is that they are selling a commodity, which (in
the area of wireless communication) is completely fungible -- therefore they
get to charge no more than commodity prices, while everybody else gets to get
rich of their services.

