#networkneutrality

[bringmetoquiznack]

GUYS PLEASE

WE ARE SO CLOSE. TODAY IS THE LAST DAY. GUYS PLEASE. YOU CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. IF YOU CAN JOIN AND HELP, THEN DO IT. DO IT FOR YOURSELF. DO IT FOR ALL OF US.

https://www.change.org/p/save-net-neutrality-netneutrality?recruiter=842332146&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

THAT'S THE LINK. NOW GO!!

PLEASE

[fortunatelycoldengineer]

Image Steganography . . . . for more information https://bit.ly/3CaeAgK check the above link

[fortunatelycoldengineer]

Network Neutrality . . . . for more information https://bit.ly/43kX3Pd check the above link

[fortunatelycoldengineer]

Onion Routing . . . . for more information https://bit.ly/42nfr8A check the above link

[hamishmacewan]

The practices at issue are known as “zero-rating” and are the most recent frontier in the battle over “network neutrality”, but which I prefer to refer to as common carriage in line with the more formal terms of telecoms law and history.

Hallelujah!  And if zero-rating was offered non-discriminatorily to users, like 0800 was in telephony, does the absence of discrimination make that legitimate?  I say yes, and CRTC says maybe like:

[T]he CRTC’s new Differential Pricing Framework leaves some wiggle room for making decisions on the margins with respect to services that escape the Commission’s general ban on zero-rated plans. It will base its judgements on whether or not to grant an exemption to such services when they offer exceptional public interest benefits, are open to any content, app or service provider, are ‘content agnostic’, have minimal to no impact on the interoperability of all of the internet’s interlocking parts, and are not based on payola schemes (paras 126-129).

Close enough.  I think these are wiggles for the carrier, a customer should be able to do what they like, right, legitimate uses include users offering free use.

[hamishmacewan]

Most notably, Canadian consumers and creators will benefit in the long-term from the net neutrality policies. The CRTC noted that the evidence showed that zero rating offers were typically limited to high-end plans, thereby doing little to increase affordability of wireless services. Moreover, the European experience indicates providers that do not zero rate offer better prices and larger data allowances.

Zero rating by the carrier is the only violation.  If a user wants to make zero rating for users within their purchase, not a problem.  0800 numbers were fine under Title II because there was not network layer discrimination.  Market predictions (”zero rating will kill innovation”) are not an interest of the transport layer, only when the layer operator discriminates in this way is it an issue.

[digitalsocialite]

[hamishmacewan]

Facebook says an "appetite" for solutions to tackle Nigeria's "connectivity challenges" has seen the service embraced.

The controversial free service has been criticized for its “walled garden” version of the internet to users meaning they could only accept select websites on the service. But Facebook responded by opening up the platform to a wider range of sites which met “technical specifications.” While it has drawn the ire of net neutrality advocates globally, it has also faced stiff opposition from some national regulators. India effectively banned the service earlier this year despite intense lobbying from Facebook. The move was expected to spur critics of the service to seek similar bans in other countries but across Africa, the service has been largely welcome. In Tanzania, where internet penetration stands at only 5%, the country’s regulator said the possibility of increased “adoption of data services” by Tanzanians was more beneficial to the market.

Again, unless Facebook’s arrangement with Airtel is exclusive, this isn’t a violation of network neutrality.  Does a free bus with limited stops violate the neutrality of the road network, do 0800 numbers which allow free calls to a limited set of customers?

No, and it’s going to make those who think “free” (which it isn’t, viz Om Malik) a per se violation of network neutrality think again.  The patronising condescension that suggests poor brown people need smart white people to save them from mistaking Free Basics for the internet is revolting.  And hanging on the words of wealthy ex-patriots as authorities is worse. 

Appropriating network neutrality as a club to beat a company whose success you don’t approve of is the quickest way to corrupt its value in protecting from the real threat.

If you don’t like Free Basics, and it’s not exclusive, make your own instead of taking this dog in manger approach of all or nothing.  Let’s see how Nigeria progresses on half a loaf, for now.