@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.

So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.

So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.

So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.

There should be no competition, that's why the government alone should control the Internet connections.

Well until then, we can agree that I wish the law was still in place.

With Pai I am actually getting fucked if I am an ISP until he does something specific to change this. I was fucked the whole time mind you, but seemed like with NN there was hope and a potential future that I would get assistance.

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.

So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.

So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.

So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.

They just werent sure how they were going to do it, and made some statements about how they would make their mind up as they went. Making the actual law more of a starting point that didnt change much in the beginning.

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.

Why do you need to throttle it instead of charging like you do for any normal ISP connection? This isn't a hard problem. It's like a barter system with an imbalance, thankfully we have cash so no rational business can possibly have this problem unless they are trying to do something wrong and trying to cover it up. Just charge for usage, how obvious can it be?

And obviously it's charge for all usage, not picking and choosing for the purpose of extortion.

So if from 2000 to 2012 my interconnect costs were about $16,000 for 800 subscribers, and now it is closing on $50k because of media streaming with no increase in cost to subscribers (real number scenario here) what do I do?

I close the doors and go bankrupt or throttle that connection so I can afford it. This is something the NN law didnt address, which is why as an ISP you just threw your hands up back then and said "nothing is gonna change". Im gonna be throttling that interconnect so I can afford the bill.

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.

No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.

But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.

yeah.. that makes sense...

So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...

At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.

Ok I'm on board with that.

stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...

It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.

A little confused.

At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?

Interested in your logic @scottalanmiller from a blind perspective. Because that is one of the hot debates the FCC was staying out of for now as they wrote it in the recently repealed law, but also something Title II will give them the control to set in years to come once they decide.

I guess I'm missing something, how does what you are asking apply to what we are discussing? Each carrier gets paid by their customers for access, they have money to pay for imbalances from that charge. What more to it is there?

Your comment about double-dipping and Netflix.

So if a bunch of traffic is coming in from an interconnect that brings Netflix media, there is suddenly a massive imbalance in data exchange in that agreement. The ISP is taking on and not sending back. So in any interconnect agreeement there is a much bigger bill due at the end of the month to the ISP for that connection.

Before Netflix and the like there was no issue with a small ISP's backbone.

The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.

EDIT: And thats what this bill, section 30, specifically said they were not going to touch when this went into effect in 2015.

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.

No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.

But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.

yeah.. that makes sense...

So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...

At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.

Ok I'm on board with that.

stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...

It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.

A little confused.

At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?

Interested in your logic @scottalanmiller from a blind perspective. Because that is one of the hot debates the FCC was staying out of for now as they wrote it in the recently repealed law, but also something Title II will give them the control to set in years to come once they decide.

@tim_g said in Signal Group Chat:

@scottalanmiller said in Signal Group Chat:

@tim_g said in Signal Group Chat:

So if I'm registered on Signal with my phone number, as I am now, how is someone going to use my phone number to intercept my messages? Would they have to hack in to T-Mobile reroute things?

What if they get your SIM card? And, sorry, but I worked a job where they intercepted all phone calls and texts both for employees and the employees of GE who shared the building. Phone calls are not secured, nor are phone accounts. It's "whoever has physical access to the SIM card or the cellular node."

In the real world, I've known thousands of people with their phone calls and texts intercepted most of the time, and that was just the parts we knew about. It's now public that the police intercept that, too.

There is no need to hack T-Mobile or do anything crazy. Phones simply don't have that security to need to work around.

If someone steals me phone I have bigger things to worry about. They would have to know I'm using signal, then use my SIM card in another phone and set up signal again.

If someone stole my phone I would deactivate or disable my SIM card anyways.

Nobody is intercepting my signal messages. It's my personal number and my employer has no control.

I wouldn't consider your worries realistic for the majority. They are more niche that don't really apply to most people.

Its the only app I would trust if I wanted to break the law or do anything scrupulous.

I know a lot of politicians are using it these days, lol.

@stacksofplates said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

@bigbear said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

@jaredbusch said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

@bigbear said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

Is there a Telegram group chat for ML?

May be less secure but for this situation may be a better use case...

Yes. Just called MangoLassi. It is a public group.

Dash invited me in, he and I are just talking private chat at the moment.

Looks WAY better.

Ya I like it a lot. I’m glad I found it early last year. It’s nice for cross platform normal chat.

I think I downloaded it in 2014 or early 2015. Everything looked a lot weirder then. Now it looks a lot more polished.

@jaredbusch said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

@bigbear said in Install Telegram Desktop on Fedora 26 and newer with Cinnamon Desktop:

Is there a Telegram group chat for ML?

May be less secure but for this situation may be a better use case...

Yes. Just called MangoLassi. It is a public group.

Dash invited me in, he and I are just talking private chat at the moment.

Looks WAY better.

@scottalanmiller said in Signal Group Chat:

There is probably some security that I'm missing here. And I realize that you can often disconnect things after the fact. Which realy just makes it odd that you need a phone in the first place. But if the phone number is used for any ID and verification, that means that if someone gets your old number, and they just test out one of these services, it will hook up to your account automatically and authenticate directly to them, right?

There is an article on Signal website about changing numbers..

Once you sign up, you add all other devices using QR code from an existing device.

But Telegram as a chat app overall looks way better. Hadnt tried it in a couple years.

Is there a Telegram group chat for ML?

May be less secure but for this situation may be a better use case...

A caveat to group chat on Signal is that so far we all can see each other’s number.

There’s no group admin and anyone can add someone else - but if someone new joins who is it in my contacts it is a phone number.

As @Dashrender says it’s not great on privacy. Unimpeachable encryption, but that part kinda sucks...

@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:

The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.

I don't buy this theory. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. You never use more of a service and get worse and worse rates for being a bigger customer, you get either flat pricing or improved pricing based on volume. Netflix isn't the only data user on their ISP. Even if Netflix is the biggest single user, every user on the ISP is responsible for the imbalance together as a whole. If the prices are too low, then everyone needs to be charged more. It just means that Netflix' ISP accidentally billed too little to cover their costs (that seems unlikely.)

This is a nonsensical bit of BS that ISPs say to try to justify cheating. They want to double dip when they see a rich customer that they can extort.

Think about any other kind of business.... who charges their best customers extra? Who punishes people for being customers? It makes no sense unless they are extorting them. You don't go to McDonald's every day and get told that since you are such a regular, loyal customer that your burgers will cost more than those of less frequent customers! You already pay the same amount per sandwich as everyone else, you are already the highest paying customer.

Netflix already pays more than anyone else, they are already charged for their volume. There cannot be a need to charge them additionally. Any imbalance is caused by all cumulative customers and is supposed to be covered by the rate that the ISP charges to the customers.

Yeah you are right on this. And when I saw a long while back when this passed that it wasn’t going to apply to interconnect rules I really just threw my hands up in the air.

Reading the whole ting yesterday and the day before I realize that the FCC was trying to do the impossible and seemed to intend to return to this issue later when they had more experience.

So that is why I have changed my mind in the other new post I started. They didn’t need to repeal this, they needed to keep marching forward with it.

@scottalanmiller said in Signal Group Chat:

@bigbear said in Signal Group Chat:

Signal goes beyond that. But it provides an entirely integrated diaper experience if you turn it on.

Did you really mean to say diaper? If so, I have no idea what that means in this context.

Dialer

No coffee here yet

I don’t have a problem with a telegram. I just know that it is not as secure as Signal...

https://moxie.org/blog/telegram-crypto-challenge/

In my original signal project we used DNS instead of phone numbers.

andy.signal.org was my handle and you could call or text me there for example.

Also @Dashrender there was email support sometime ago for Signal setup and I’m not sure why it went away.

If you let Signal do so it will integrate with your phone like hangouts or iMessage/FaceTime - on it encrypts everything.

Regarding the use of phone numbers, they idea behind whisper system products was always to provider security on top of telco networks.

So TextSecure integrated with google to encrypt and decrypt actual text messages. RedPhone did the same for calls.

Signal goes beyond that. But it provides an entirely integrated diaper experience if you turn it on.

There is also an option you can enable if you are in a country and need to circumvent government censorship.

@scottalanmiller said in Signal Group Chat:

@tim_g said in Signal Group Chat:

So if I'm registered on Signal with my phone number, as I am now, how is someone going to use my phone number to intercept my messages? Would they have to hack in to T-Mobile reroute things?

What if they get your SIM card? And, sorry, but I worked a job where they intercepted all phone calls and texts both for employees and the employees of GE who shared the building. Phone calls are not secured, nor are phone accounts. It's "whoever has physical access to the SIM card or the cellular node."

In the real world, I've known thousands of people with their phone calls and texts intercepted most of the time, and that was just the parts we knew about. It's now public that the police intercept that, too.

There is no need to hack T-Mobile or do anything crazy. Phones simply don't have that security to need to work around.

Safety numbers are generated with every contact and of this happens it alerts you to the change...

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/115000267971

15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
telephone network.

14. Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
service.

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
devices, subject to reasonable network management.

13. Congress could not have imagined when it enacted the APA almost seventy years ago
that the day would come when nearly 4 million Americans would exercise their right to comment on a
proposed rulemaking. But that is what has happened in this proceeding and it is a good thing. The
Commission has listened and it has learned. Its expertise has been strengthened. Public input has
“improve[d] the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be ‘tested by
exposure to diverse public comment.’”15 There is general consensus in the record on the need for the Commission to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. There is also general consensus on the
need to have such rules. Today the Commission, informed by all of those views, makes a decision
grounded in the record. The Commission has considered the arguments, data, and input provided by the
commenters, even if not in agreement with the particulars of this Order; that public input has created a
robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable.

A. Strong Rules That Protect Consumers from Past and Future Tactics that Threaten
the Open Internet

1. Clear, Bright-Line Rules

12. In enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress instructed expert agencies
conducting rulemaking proceedings to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule
making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.”13 It is public comment that cements an
agency’s expertise. As was explained in the seminal report that led to the enactment of the APA:

• list itemThe reason for [an administrative agency’s] existence is that it is expected to bring to its
  task greater familiarity with the subject than legislators, dealing with many subjects, can
  have. But its knowledge is rarely complete, and it must always learn the frequently
  clashing viewpoints of those whom its regulations will affect.