What does your actions mean for residents in other states who have fake comments posted in their name? Should they still report them to you and are those fake comments actionable in any other way?
Additionally, have you been working with any other state AGs regarding this issue?
AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
111–120 of 281 posts
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
There used to be a time when content companies needed to carefully select their network transit partners in order to make sure the bits their customers were paying them for had the best chance of reaching them (see: the existence of the CDN industry). It seems that those times are over, and the internet will be legislated to be 100% reliable and capacious..
CDNs are definitely still a thing. Not so much because of "chance of reaching", but because you can't change the speed of light, and having the content closer to the clients is both faster and cheaper.
Given perfect reliability, faster (lower latency) doesn’t matter for streaming video because all of the traffic is pipelined (even for live, encoding lag would dominate the few hundred ms maximum delay from light speed). And the user already paid their ISP for the bandwidth, so why would distance factor into the cost?
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#113For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…
My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" So Comcast shaping Netflix when Cogent won't pay their share to upgrade their peering point is probably still legal, but they would probably have to go to court to prove that it was "reasonabl…
"The outcome is that telcos lose a lot of negotiating power to content providers."
The percentage of content providers that deliver to telcos directly is almost zero. Netflix is one of the biggest notable ones, but even they don't always do it.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs charge their customers for access. They should not be able to then restrict that access based on their business needs. Just because Netflix competes with Comcast (NBC) doesn't mean Comcast should be able to ignore their customers' desire to consume Netflix content. Because that's what it is. It's not like Netflix is generating petabytes of unsolicited traffic. They're providing the traffic Comcast's (or verizon'…
There used to be a time when content companies needed to carefully select their network transit partners in order to make sure the bits their customers were paying them for had the best chance of reaching them (see: the existence of the CDN industry). It seems that those times are over, and the internet will be legislated to be 100% reliable and capacious..
CDNs are a neccesity for latency and distribution, little of it has to do with your origin provider's quality. There are still some pretty terrible providers out there, some of them are HUGE and have hundreds of thousands of satisfied customers.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would disagree. The first says that there is a concern both sides engaged in ballot stuffing while AG seems concerned by a single sides PoV. The other more importantly is concerned with guaranteeing a triumvirate of gatekeepers doesn't guide discourse in one direction or the other.
Your link says a lot of form letters were submitted. That's not the issue. There's nothing wrong with submitting a form letter with your name attached to it. The issue is using someone elses name and information to submit a comment -- ie: identity theft. Form letters and identity theft are not equivalent. One is an easy way to submit a comment. The other is illegal.
While troubling, i think this is more aptly described as impersonation. Theft implies direct benefit to the thief.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#116For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…
> Please explain how is the very same government who allows the communication monopolies to exist, supposed to also ensure that they are "neutral"? It seems awfully convenient that the solutions to problems that government creates is to have more government. The government "allowing" monopolies to exist is an example of the government NOT doing something. Besides the matter of conflating federal anti-trust, state gov…
I disagree that the it was inaction by government that allowed monopolies. The regulation the government put in in the first place have at a minimum contributed heavily to creating high barriers to entry.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#117Can you briefly expand on what congress is capable of doing to delay or stop this? I would like to be able to convey specific actions I want to see from my representatives, but I currently only feel comfortable asking "please do something!" Are we to demand that they require the FCC delay the vote until your investigation has concluded? Do they have that authority? I was under the impression that the telecom lobby wa…
On Congress: Many members of Congress have already spoken up and called on the FCC to halt the process until the problems with public comments can be investigated. I hope more of our elected officials in Washington take up that call. If enough members of Congress support net neutrality, especially if it is a bipartisan group, then I believe the FCC is less likely to repeal the strong Title II net neutrality protections that we know the overwhelming majority of Americans support.
On what you can do: I’ve called on the FCC to delay its vote. So has FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the leading champions of net neutrality. And so have at least 28 U.S. Senators. Americans absolutely have the right to make their preferences known to their elected representatives in Washington, and I encourage you to do so, especially if those officials haven’t already spoken publicly about net neutrality. If members of Congress – speaking on behalf of their constituents – speak out on any issue, their statements matter.
My interest in a pause in the process is to get to the bottom of the fake comments and misuse of New Yorkers’ identities, and to make sure real Americans are given the right to have their voices heard. At heart, what we're talking about aren't the merits of net neutrality -- it's the integrity of the democratic policymaking process and the rule of law. In that way, I believe such a delay would be very beneficial to any ultimate result.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#118For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…
They should treat the internet like they treat electricity. It doesn't matter if you're using it for a hair dryer or a work light or to charge your phone- you get it the same as everyone else for the same price. Why aren't we de-regulating power companies too?
Do you also extend this to allow for pay-for-what-you-use? I don't disagree with charging people more for how much they use, but a lot of net neutrality proponents lose their minds at the suggestion that somebody who uses 5 GB a month should pay less than the kid streaming 10 TB of torrents every month.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" Thanks for the points. A few further thoughts. 1. There are two sides to every connection. Couldn't Netflix itself traffic shape? 2. Can I pay for QoS from an ISP for elevated service (for in…
> actual technical discussion about the matter for the purposes of illustrating to others that its largely an undefined, impossible to enforce concept. In fact, the idea is impossible NN means an ISP cannot place artificial speed limits on packets that I send or receive, based on the contents of the packets; e.g. the protocol, the port, or the destination address. NN rules have already existed for several years, for…
This is illustrative of the main problem I've run into discussing NN. Everybody has a different definition of what it is, and many are not even close yet they both get the mental satisfaction of "being on the team for a free net"
To be clear, I don't disagree with your post. I just chose it as an outlet to vent my frustration that language and words are so hard.
Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government
#120For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…
4. Perhaps more competition would be a better option, but as the failure of Google Fiber has shown, competition is not allowed to exist. The ISPs own the infrastructure, and they will do everything in their power to prevent outsiders from threatening their regional duopolies. Personally, I think our bits and bytes should be treated as our other methods of private communication are (theoretically, anyway)--allowed to…
All they can do with their power is what the government allows them to do through manipulation of federal, state, and local laws, as well as zoning, ordinances, codes, etc.
Unless they own the land itself, they can't prevent others without the use of government as their tool.