
FCC's Pai, addressing net neutrality rules, calls Twitter biased - joeyespo
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pai/fccs-pai-addressing-net-neutrality-rules-calls-twitter-biased-idUSKBN1DS2LB
======
mc32
>“When it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai
said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”

I think the implication that while net neutrality to some degree[1] ensured
neutrality in carrying much data indiscriminately, it did very little to
ensure neutrality at the edge (that is, Twitter could decide it wanted to
silence any minority or majority with impunity). So if an edge provider can
discriminate what is allowed, does that undermine the ideal of net neutrality?

With Goog-Twitt-Face being the triumvirate of gatekeepers I think this concern
deserves some consideration.

[1][https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-
tha...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535371/five-loopholes-that-could-
undermine-net-neutrality/)

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
There are two different concepts, internet neutrality, and network neutrality.

Network neutrality is "treat bits agnosticly"

Internet neutrality is "treat opinions agnosticly"

Which one "net" neutrality refers to is anyone's guess.

~~~
doctorless
Both are also independently contentious battles, too. We can’t treat bits
agnostically; otherwise we have to accept DDoS attacks and do nothing to route
around them/block bad nodes. We can treat opinions agnostically, until said
opinions/speech start to infringe on the freedom of others. But we’ve always
had a struggle in drawing that line. Likewise, what constitutes a bad node,
ultimately? From the perspective of an ISP, that opinion ranges from the
aforementioned DDoS, to Netflix for consuming the majority of their bandwidth.
What about end users? Their opinions can differ too. A heavy torrent user can
weigh down a local hub. Should an ISP just let them? The internet is far more
a finite resource than some people are willing to accept.

~~~
chucky_z
I'd be totally fine if we were charged like datacenters. e.g.: pay for a
minimum of 10mbps, but burstable to 100mbps, and if you average over
10mbps/mo, pay some fee. It's typically different, but it ends up being a few
TB/mo of traffic at the most absolute 'base' plan.

Then you can pay more for "unmetered" 10mbps, 100mbps, 1000mbps, 10000mbps,
etc...

There's also plans for "minimum + burst" e.g.: 20mbps->200mbps,
50mbps->300mbps, 100mbps->1000mbps, so on and so forth.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable method of billing and I really wish we
could just use this. As, in effect, if you pay for the '100mbps->1000mbps,'
this translates too... you get 1000mbps at all times you use the internet, but
you get 100mbps/mo worth of bandwidth.

That translates to ~8.75TB/mo of bandwidth or,

    
    
      ((100*24*30)/1024)/8
    

(someone please correct me if I'm very wrong here. I worked at a webhost
several years ago and this was basically our pricing model.)

------
westurner
No. Censoring hate speech by banning people who are verbally assaulting others
(in violation of Terms of Service that they agreed to) is a very different
concern than requiring common carriers to equally prioritize bits.

If we extend "you must allow people to verbally assault others (because free
speech applies to the government)" to TV and radio, what do we end up with?

Note that the FCC fines non-cable TV (broadcast radio and TV) for cursing on
air. See "Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts"
[https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-
pr...](https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-
broadcasts)

How can you ask social media companies to do something about fake news (the
vast majority of which served to elect the current administration (which
nominated this FCC chairman)) while also lambasting them for upholding their
commitment to providing a hate-free experience for net citizens and paying
advertisers?

"Open Internet": No blocking. No throttling. No paid prioritization.

It would be easier for us to understand the "Open Internet" rules if the
proposed "Restoring Internet Freedom" page wasn't crudely pasted over
(redirected to from) the page describing the current Open Internet rules.
www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet (current policy) now redirects to
www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (proposed policy).

ISPs blocking, throttling, or paid-prioritizing Twitter, Netflix, Fox, or CNN
for everyone is a different concern than responding to individuals who are
threatening others with hate speech.

The current policy ("Open Internet") means that you can use the bandwidth cap
that you pay for for whatever legal content you please.

The proposed policy ("Restoring Internet Freedom") means that internet
businesses will need to pay every ISP in order to not be slower than the big
guys who can afford to pay-to-play (~"payola").
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola)

