India's Telecom Regulator Backs Net Neutrality (reuters.com) 42
From a report on Reuters: India's telecom regulator has made recommendations to ensure an open internet in the country and prevent any discrimination in internet access in a long-awaited report (PDF), after debating the issue of net neutrality for more than a year. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) said it was not in favor of any "discriminatory treatment" with data, including blocking, slowing or offering preferential speeds or treatment to any content. The Indian regulator's support of net neutrality stands in contrast to the recent stance taken by the chair of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Last week, Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump in January, unveiled plans to rescind so-called net neutrality rules championed by former President Barack Obama that treated internet service providers like public utilities.
Time for another round? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of us have at least a vague understanding of why some companies wanted NN destroyed, and how it will negatively affect American Internet services from the perspective of the average user.
How many liars will come out of the woodwork this time to support the NN repeal by sharing 'alternate facts' and tell us history didn't happen the way it's documented?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many liars will come out of the woodwork this time to support the NN repeal by sharing 'alternate facts' and tell us history didn't happen the way it's documented?
Even though your post is just flamebait, how about you address the actual timeline, stop pretending the repeal is about "long standing rules", and stop pretending that they are as black and white as you put it. There's a lot wrong with the 2015 FCC regulations, and the FCC Commissioner of the time, appointed by Barack Obama, wrote a long dissent against them.
The current proposal is also not exactly a Net Neutrality repeal as people put it disingenuously, it's a return of power to the FTC, and contains lang
Re:Time for another round? (Score:4, Informative)
No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid Prioritization
Feel free to point out where exactly in the proposal it bans blocking, throttling or paid prioritization: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... [fcc.gov]. Hint; it's not on page 134, chapter 235 where all three are explicitly no longer banned.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Sure thing.
No Blocking is discussed on page 83 (para 142) :
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is,if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
AKA : FTC should take care of it, and Transparency rules should be in place.
No Throttling ? Prior paragraph, page 81 (para. 141).
Again, it seems clear that the FCC here is not saying "No Net Neutrality" as people are attempting to depict this order as. They are simply saying that it should be taken care of by the FTC, as it was prior to 2015, and successfully at that.
The Comcast Bit Torrent case often sighed by the "FCC should enforce Net Neutrali
Re: (Score:3)
Sure thing.
No Blocking is discussed on page 83 (para 142) :
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.
Weasel words. "Many" (not "All") have "committed" (not "are obligated"), and those commitments "can" (not "will") be enforced ...
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon argues, "[i]f broadband service providers' conduct falls outside [the FTC's] grant of jurisdiction" - that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive - "then the conduct should not be banned in the first place."
Anticompetitive is a judgment call, and this essentially opens up a lot of what would otherwise be clear demarcations of what is acceptable and what is not to litigation. And when it comes to deep pocketed and well represented corporations versus consumers, only a complete fool would think the consumers have a shot in hell. Handwave away, but these arguments aren't the least bit reassuring.
Re: (Score:3)
Net Neutrality, is an easy set of rules to follow. Treat every packet like any other one.
Getting rid of Net Neutrality opens the door for a bunch of laws and complex sets of regulations. How far is too far, can a competitors website be blocked entirely, or slowed down to a point where it takes hours to load? If an ISP is unfairly treating someone, would this be considered a violation of free speech. Then you have truth in advertising so if they advertise 1gbs speed, and that is only via premium content pr
Re: (Score:1)
Net Neutrality, is an easy set of rules to follow. Treat every packet like any other one.
Including DDoS packets? Why are you making arguments that are childlike and simplistic to the point of dishonesty?
When did Net Neutrality become a religion?
Re: (Score:2)
This discussion implicitly centers around LEGAL Internet traffic. DDoS packets are not part of lawful or legal Internet activity. That should be clear to anyone possessing a thinking mind and basic English literacy.
Please wake up, stupid, and stop trolling.
You're conflating "legal" and "lawful." In the context of FCC (and FTC) regulations, they are not the same. "Lawful" means that there is no specific law banning it. During a DDoS attack, the attack itself is against the law, so clearly that can be stopped. However, the FCC's original network neutrality regulations only protected "legal" protocols and traffic - meaning it had to be specifically allowed. That allows ISPs to deem bittorrent traffic as blockable, because although it may be lawful, it's not expl
Re: (Score:2)
In short if you want government out of your internet, then you should support Net Neutrality, because without it, they will be a bunch of complex set of laws behind it.
The problem is that the 2015 are already much more than the 3 "Bright line rules" of Net Neutrality. They already are a bunch of complex set of "not even laws" (which is another issue with them, they literally are just agency regulations, never codified as actual law, which is why the FCC can now just repeal them).
Want actual Net Neutrality ? Codify the 3 Bright line rules into Consumer Protection law. By the Legislative branch. You know, the proper way to do it. Shoehorning Title II unto ISPs with all
To the extent that's true, it's horrible (Score:3)
> Net Neutrality, is an easy set of rules to follow. Treat every packet like any other one.
Treating low-bandwidth flows that extremely sensitive to jitter (ex VoIP) the same as you treat high bandwidth flows that don't care about jitter (ex Netflix) would make everything work poorly. If all packets were treated the same, 1960s-style, your video would stutter so bad it would be unwatchable in 352 Ã-- 288 and your VoIP would have sounds arriving in the wrong order, so "hello jellomizer" would arrive
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. A shame it couldn't be shoved under the appropriate politician's noses (perhaps with a bit more dumbing down... I doubt they understand 'packet', 'jitter', etc.).
Then we need another post like yours to describe in very simple terms why it's a bad idea to let ISPs discriminate based on source and willingness to pay fees.
Re: (Score:2)
JUST QUIT IT
If an ISP is unfairly treating someone, would this be considered a violation of free speech.
Free speech addresses citizens speaking out about the government.
You get a do-over.
Re: (Score:2)
So say a company like AT&T who wants a government grant, or do some business. Now some behind the door deals with a President or Congressmen may sweeten the deal if AT&T customers have a hard time access to a popular news site like CNN (or Fox News if it is a Democratic leadership) just happens to run at 2400 bps. Ending Net Neutrality, can open the door for citizens access and free speech being blocked, because we are putting blocks to information that we don't want to give to the customers.
I as t
Re: (Score:2)
So say the original post didn't say anything about a government grant ...
Role reversal for a change (Score:2)
Re: Role reversal for a change (Score:1)
No, he's referencing that the head of the FCC is an Indian (from India, not NA native)
Re: Role reversal for a change (Score:2)
Re: Role reversal for a change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I have no doubt that you and most of the rest of Slashdot nerds want cheap Netflix streaming. But you don't represent "the rest of us", you represent a group of people with special interests.
Indeed, that is what net neutrality is.
"Capitalism" and "crony capitalism" are left wing terms i
India has the best laws in the world. (Score:2)
What it chooses to enforce is so haphazard.
And it enforces it using a highly corrupt insanely inefficient bureaucracy
Still it manages to be a sort of functioning democracy. No doubt it is very bad. But given the circumstances, it is way better than one would expect.
I can't think of a better recommendation (Score:1)
I can't think of a better recommendation for repealing net neutrality.