One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 363712 |
| Date de publication | 2017-05-10 01:52:09 (vue: 2017-05-10 01:52:09) |
| Titre | John Oliver is wrong about Net Neutrality |
| Texte | People keep linking to John Oliver bits. We should stop doing this. This is comedy, but people are confused into thinking Oliver is engaging in rational political debate:Tune in now to catch @lastweetonight with @iamjohnoliver on why we need net neutrality and Title II. https://t.co/muSGrItCp9- EFF (@EFF) May 8, 2017Enlightened people know that reasonable people disagree, that there's two sides to any debate. John Oliver's bit erodes that belief, making one side (your side) sound smart, and the other side sound unreasonable.The #1 thing you should know about Net Neutrality is that reasonable people disagree. It doesn't mean they are right, only that they are reasonable. They aren't stupid. They aren't shills for the telcom lobby, or confused by the telcom lobby. Indeed, those opposed to Net Neutrality are the tech experts who know how packets are routed, whereas the supporters tend only to be lawyers, academics, and activists. If you think that the anti-NetNeutrality crowd is unreasonable, then you are in a dangerous filter bubble.Most everything in John Oliver's piece is incorrect.For example, he says that without Net Neutrality, Comcast can prefer original shows it produces, and slow down competing original shows by Netflix. This is silly: Comcast already does that, even with NetNeutrality rules.Comcast owns NBC, which produces a lot of original shows. During prime time (8pm to 11pm), Comcast delivers those shows at 6-mbps to its customers, while Netflix is throttled to around 3-mbps. Because of this, Comcast original shows are seen at higher quality than Netflix shows.Comcast can do this, even with NetNeutrality rules, because it separates its cables into "channels". One channel carries public Internet traffic, like Netflix. The other channels carry private Internet traffic, for broadcast TV shows and pay-per-view.All NetNeutrality means is that if Comcast wants to give preference to its own contents/services, it has to do so using separate channels on the wire, rather than pushing everything over the same channel. This is a detail nobody tells you because NetNeutrality proponents aren't techies. They are lawyers and academics. They maximize moral outrage, while ignoring technical details.Another example in Oliver's show is whether search engines like Google or the (hypothetical) Bing can pay to get faster access to customers. They already do that. The average distance a packet travels on the web is less than 100-miles. That's because the biggest companies (Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.) pay to put servers in your city close to you. Smaller companies, such as search engine DuckDuckGo.com, also pay third-party companies like Akamai or Amazon Web Services to get closer to you. The smallest companies, however, get poor performance, being a thousand miles away.You can test this out for yourself. Run a packet-sniffer on your home network for a week, then for each address, use mapping tools like ping and traceroute to figure out how far away things are.The Oliver bit mentioned how Verizon banned Google Wallet. Again, technical details are important here. It had nothing to do with Net Neutrality issues blocking network packets, but only had to do with Verizon-branded phones blocking access to the encrypted enclave. You could use Google Wallet on unlocked phones you bought separately. Moreover, market forces won in the end, with Google Wallet (aka. Android Wall |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | 100 11pm 2017enlightened 8pm @eff @iamjohnoliver @lastweetonight about abuse academics access activists actually address again ajit akamai all already also amazon analysis android another anti any apart are aren argument around average away bad banned because being belief benefit between biggest bing bit bits bittorrent blocking bought branded broadcast bubble but cables can carries carry cases catch channel channels chasing chief city claimed close closer co/musgritcp9 com comcast comedy companies competing complicated confused contents/services could created crowd customers dangerous debate debate:tune delivers detail details didn disagree disingenuous distance does doesn doing down duckduckgo during each eff enclave encrypted end engaging engine engines entirely erodes etc even everything evil example experts facebook falls far faster fcc figure filter fixes forces free get give google government had hand has heavy here higher home how however https://t humor hypothetical ignoring important incident incorrect indeed intelligent internet issues its john keep know knowingly lawyers less like linking lobby long lot making mapping market maximize may mbps mean means mentioned miles misguided mistake moral moreover most nbc need net netflix netneutrality network neutrality nobody not nothing now occasionally oliver one only opposed original other out outrage over own owns packet packets pai party paths pay people per performance phones piece ping point points political poor possibility prefer preference preferred prime primetime private pro problems produces proponents public pushing put quality rather rational real really reasonable rebel right routed rules run same says search seen separate separately separates serious servers services shills should show shows side sided sides silly: slow smaller smallest smart sniffer some sound stop stupid such supporters sure tech techies technical telcom tells tend test than that then theoretical there thing things think thinking third those thousand throttled throttling thus time title tools traceroute traffic travels truly trumping two under unlocked unneeded unreasonable use users using verizon view wallet wants web week where whereas whether which who why will wire without won words would wrong your yourself |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.