Support NeoGAF

[Jasup]

Well, that is why not all rights are determined, but a basic set of worker's rights is. I think the EU only limits working hours for those working in transport, which isn't so much a worker's issue as much as it is a safety issue. It's not that member states have no room to maneuver, it is that they can't go overboard and take away fundamental rights, force unequal treatment or any such things in an effort to compete.

Well the Working Time Directive does set a maximum average weekly working hours. But it does leave an option to work more for some period of time. Like for people working on a summer camp or something where they're basically at work for 24h a day - working more just has to be compensated later.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205

 

[Kabouter]

Well the Working Time Directive does set a maximum average weekly working hours. But it does leave an option to work more for some period of time. Like for people working on a summer camp or something where they're basically at work for 24h a day - working more just has to be compensated later.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205

Fair enough.

 

[Jasup]

Fair enough.

But really, other than that I can very well agree with you on this issue.

 

[Dougald]

Every place I've ever worked has asked me to "opt out" of the EU working time directive by signing my rights away. Needless to say, I never have. Thank god that when the UK negotiated my right to be overworked, the condition was left in that nobody can force me to do so.


Not that I object to the odd bit of overtime in principle (and in my line of work its occasionally necessary).

 

[anonymous_abc]

Every place I've ever worked has asked me to "opt out" of the EU working time directive by signing my rights away. Needless to say, I never have. Thank god that when the UK negotiated my right to be overworked, the condition was left in that nobody can force me to do so.


Not that I object to the odd bit of overtime in principle (and in my line of work its occasionally necessary).

Employers in the UK can and do ask you to opt out of laws?
'Here pleas sign here, don't read the fine print it's something to do with selling your soul and agreeing to slave labor, standard stuff really.'

Man am I happy sometimes to not live in my forefathers homeland... -.-

 

[TheMaidenInBlack]

Great news. It's terrible to hear what's happening in America with regards to the internet. Here's hoping the UK prevents any of that nonsense (not that we don't have issues with the internet over here, far from it).

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well, that is why not all rights are determined, but a basic set of worker's rights is. I think the EU only limits working hours for those working in transport, which isn't so much a worker's issue as much as it is a safety issue. It's not that member states have no room to maneuver, it is that they can't go overboard and take away fundamental rights, force unequal treatment or any such things in an effort to compete.

I don't think that's the case, re: transport. In the UK, at least, when you sign an employment contract there'll usually be a caveat in there saying that you're waiving your rights as per the EU Working Time Directive (and that's our opt-out - not all countries can offer this in a contract). It's been that way in every job I've worked, and I've never worked in the transport industry. They could just be hedging their bets though, I don't know.

Actually having free movement of labor and goods across the EU would mean that yes labor and import laws to the member countries must be aligned on some level. Otherwise businesses would have the incentive to exploit such a system (imagine one country having lower import taxes than the other but there are none between them). Labour laws are a bit tricky though since people are bound by more than rational preferences in this case.

That already happens, and I think it's good that it happens, just like companies compete with each other to get the best employees by offering higher wages. It's still up to local electorates to hold their governments accountable at the ballot box. I wouldn't call that "exploitation." Unless you're of the opinion that there's no level of taxation that's too much (and I'm not suggesting that you are, by the way) then you also have to acknowledge that less tax has benefits - notably people get to keep more money to spend on things they need and want. I think this is a totally reasonable carrot with which to attract talented workers to your country.

Edit: I'm using tax as an example for why competing on regulation can be a good thing. It's also the case where one country may want to attract good workers by offering them a mandated better work-life balance. That may cause others to leave, of course, if they'd rather work longer hours, and I think that's a choice people should have.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No that just isn’t true, you cannot have a common market with workers freely traveling but vastly divergent workers rights legislation. It's all at the core of what the EU was created for.
Same for the roaming legislation it's all part of harmonising the common market to make it easy for a British company to sell its services and products in Belgium and vice versa.

Just look at the mess the Euro is in because it has a common currency without common fiscal policy. That was a mistake from the start and will in time be corrected. You would have virtually the same situation in a common market without common rules on trade, workers rights, laws, ect ect...

There is a good reason we will soon have a common civil law in Europe, it's been in the works for years if not decades and is just a few more years out. Then you can I can form a contract and have the exact same law book apply. We would say §133 and see the same law in different languages.
The complex system as it is now with legislation from the EU that is then incorporated into national law will become greatly reduced and simplified.

And still it is all part of the original idea to have a common market and giving every person in every member state the same access to it.
The euro has that at its core, Schengen has that at its core, no more roaming charges have that at their core.

I think the Eurozone isn't a very good example. The problem there was that all the different countries have different needs, and that a single central bank cannot simultaneously lower interest rates in one country whilst raising them in another. In anything, this highlights the need for flexibility rather than a one-size-fits-all regulatory system.

Like I said, the roaming thing absolutely makes sense, because it's a pan-European law which literally can't be done at a local level - it requires an institution like the EU to do it, because it compels national governments to take action. The UK allowing its workers to work 50 hours and France allowing theirs to work only 40 has no real repercussions, other than that some workers might prefer to move one way and another group might rather move the other way.

Having the same access to a central market doesn't demand the same workers rights or conditions. That's evidenced by the fact that we currently don't have the same rights and conditions.

 

[Coriolanus]

No that just isn’t true, you cannot have a common market with workers freely traveling but vastly divergent workers rights legislation. It's all at the core of what the EU was created for.
Same for the roaming legislation it's all part of harmonising the common market to make it easy for a British company to sell its services and products in Belgium and vice versa.

Just look at the mess the Euro is in because it has a common currency without common fiscal policy. That was a mistake from the start and will in time be corrected. You would have virtually the same situation in a common market without common rules on trade, workers rights, laws, ect ect...

There is a good reason we will soon have a common civil law in Europe, it's been in the works for years if not decades and is just a few more years out. Then you can I can form a contract and have the exact same law book apply. We would say §133 and see the same law in different languages.
The complex system as it is now with legislation from the EU that is then incorporated into national law will become greatly reduced and simplified.

And still it is all part of the original idea to have a common market and giving every person in every member state the same access to it.
The euro has that at its core, Schengen has that at its core, no more roaming charges have that at their core.

TBH if you integrate the laws and unify the tax codes, at that point you've pretty much created a supercountry with considerably diverse states. Not only that, a supercountry that is constantly annexing new territory through mostly peaceful means.

The idea does hold some appeal.

 

[ComputerMKII]

On a commercial point of view: If ISPs multiply their offer to adapt it to their clients, how is it bad? I'll pay more than the guy who only wants Youtube and Netflix because -duh- my usage is more costly. Where's the problem? Should I pretend it's a problem because it would cost me more?

On a technical point of view: The people who talk about 'net neutrality' have no idea of the complexity and the diversity of what's hidden behind 'Internet access' and have no idea of what they exactly want.

The average citizen believes ISPs have, by default, an average quality of service for all sites and protocols (Video -> Youtube, Dailymotion; Files -> Bittorrent, duplication the Javascript code pieces that are reused by all websites, etc.) They think the ISP will implement a 'Premium' program, i.e. 'to pay more than the basic subscription so you can use this or that video site faster'. The average citizen thinks if you force an ISP not to implement a technical solution to give an advantage to this or that site (therefore to prohibit differentiated price policies) we'll work towards a better Internet.

Problem: ISPs must already implement technical solutions so that the web doesn't crash and burn (from real-time HD video streaming to skipping parts within a same video - those things weren't planned when the protocols were initially invented, some of them as far as 40 years ago). They must already implement redundancy systems (especially for video): machines with big hard drives, RAM and big network switches at the client's place, at the main distribution frames, etc.

If you kick these out, ok, the ISPs and content providers will be OK (since it will cost less for them). However, once you do this the quality of the web will be worse for everyone.

So, once more, this is an illustration of what is seen and what is unseen.

Long story short:

What is seen: Prohibiting the technical differentiation of network streams (or limiting their implementation)
What is not seen: direct consequence -> network quality decreases

The answer would be to allow ISPs to directly adapt their commercial offers. First towards their partners (content providers, peering and so on and so forth) then towards the client. With the current situation, we're locking the market.

tl;dr: To get connected to the interwebs is not like having a little pipe that brings water to your home. Actually, the pipe brings water, milk, jam, coffee, concrete or gravel, depending on what you ask for. The ISP can then either bring you those elements by picking them with his own, bigger pipes from the water/milk/jam/coffee/concrete/gravel providers, or he can also ask (and obtain) for those providers to install the 'jam/concrete/etc. factories' at his place so there aren't any losses or latency.

 

[Coriolanus]

That's missing the forest for the trees, Computer, and you (probably) know it.
What, beyond consumer cost, would be the grotesque downside of allowing ISP's to refuse net neutrality?

 

[Zeekaas]

What, beyond consumer cost, would be the grotesque downside of allowing ISP's to refuse net neutrality?

No or very selective sharing of information? Like if a ISP doesn't like some website because of it's polticial/social views they could shut it down. With net neutrality they can't.

 

[Dougald]

The problem I see is that ISPs charge a flat rate to all customers, drastically over-sell their infrastructure (reasoning, quite rightly, that most people won't use their allowance), then moan when people do use it

Really the sensible thing to do would be to just charge a fixed fraction of a penny per kilobyte and be done with it. Those who use more pay more, and vice versa, without artificially limiting access to "non-preferred" services.

 

[Walshicus]

The problem I see is that ISPs charge a flat rate to all customers, drastically over-sell their infrastructure (reasoning, quite rightly, that most people won't use their allowance), then moan when people do use it

Really the sensible thing to do would be to just charge a fixed fraction of a penny per kilobyte and be done with it. Those who use more pay more, and vice versa, without artificially limiting access to "non-preferred" services.

The solution is for them to not oversell. You don't consume bandwidth, you utilise it.

 

[Coriolanus]

No or very selective sharing of information? Like if a ISP doesn't like some website because of it's polticial/social views they could shut it down. With net neutrality they can't.

That's the start of the idea. Develop it further, spread it's reach. No reason to limit it's scope to social or political themes, is there?

 

[Nokterian]

On a commercial point of view: If ISPs multiply their offer to adapt it to their clients, how is it bad? I'll pay more than the guy who only wants Youtube and Netflix because -duh- my usage is more costly. Where's the problem? Should I pretend it's a problem because it would cost me more?

On a technical point of view: The people who talk about 'net neutrality' have no idea of the complexity and the diversity of what's hidden behind 'Internet access' and have no idea of what they exactly want.

The average citizen believes ISPs have, by default, an average quality of service for all sites and protocols (Video -> Youtube, Dailymotion; Files -> Bittorrent, duplication the Javascript code pieces that are reused by all websites, etc.) They think the ISP will implement a 'Premium' program, i.e. 'to pay more than the basic subscription so you can use this or that video site faster'. The average citizen thinks if you force an ISP not to implement a technical solution to give an advantage to this or that site (therefore to prohibit differentiated price policies) we'll work towards a better Internet.

Problem: ISPs must already implement technical solutions so that the web doesn't crash and burn (from real-time HD video streaming to skipping parts within a same video - those things weren't planned when the protocols were initially invented, some of them as far as 40 years ago). They must already implement redundancy systems (especially for video): machines with big hard drives, RAM and big network switches at the client's place, at the main distribution frames, etc.

If you kick these out, ok, the ISPs and content providers will be OK (since it will cost less for them). However, once you do this the quality of the web will be worse for everyone.

So, once more, this is an illustration of what is seen and what is unseen.

Long story short:

What is seen: Prohibiting the technical differentiation of network streams (or limiting their implementation)
What is not seen: direct consequence -> network quality decreases

The answer would be to allow ISPs to directly adapt their commercial offers. First towards their partners (content providers, peering and so on and so forth) then towards the client. With the current situation, we're locking the market.

tl;dr: To get connected to the interwebs is not like having a little pipe that brings water to your home. Actually, the pipe brings water, milk, jam, coffee, concrete or gravel, depending on what you ask for. The ISP can then either bring you those elements by picking them with his own, bigger pipes from the water/milk/jam/coffee/concrete/gravel providers, or he can also ask (and obtain) for those providers to install the 'jam/concrete/etc. factories' at his place so there aren't any losses or latency.

It not only cost you more it will stiffle innovation and for startups for example. ISP's are gatekeepers..nothing more they give you access to the internet and if they have a problem with infrastructure then they need to upgrade instead of asking money or throttling or even banning websites and what not. That will make them judge,jury and executioner. That is not what a free and open internet is.

Take a look what happend in the US right now. Netflix needs to pay Comcast for better access and it's fucking idiotic. All data is equal no questions asked. This law has been here in the netherlands since 2011 and we are one of the few country's who have it firmly in our law since our ISP's would also put a 'tax' on almost everything but that was prevented by our goverment.

 

[Dougald]

The solution is for them to not oversell. You don't consume bandwidth, you utilise it.

In an ideal world, for sure

However everyone oversells. It really doesn't make sense in networking, as in many things, to build out a network to allow everyone to use 100% of their connection at the same time, in the same way that roads aren't designed for every single car in the country to be driving at the same time, and phone networks go down during high-profile events like terrorist attacks, when everyone tries to call out at once.

It's not the ideal but you just can't provide the sort of speeds we get these days and budget for every single person to be using them, that is why connections are sold with a contention ratio.

 

[msv]

tl;dr: To get connected to the interwebs is not like having a little pipe that brings water to your home. Actually, the pipe brings water, milk, jam, coffee, concrete or gravel, depending on what you ask for. The ISP can then either bring you those elements by picking them with his own, bigger pipes from the water/milk/jam/coffee/concrete/gravel providers, or he can also ask (and obtain) for those providers to install the 'jam/concrete/etc. factories' at his place so there aren't any losses or latency.

You're completely wrong on the technical side of this, so why do you pretend to be an authority? It kind of annoys me to be honest.

Data is data, and it really doesn't matter what it can be deciphered to or where it comes from. Handling losses or latency has nothing to do with net neutrality. If it's an issue for an ISP to provide high bandwith at low latency with reliable transport, then they can just offer a package where the bandwith is lower and latency and reliability is higher, simple as that. There is absolutely no need for throttling based upon the package endpoints or protocols to be able to manage the latency/bandwith/reliability problem.

 

[Juicy Bob]

That Based European Union.

 

[Dougald]

You're completely wrong on the technical side of this, so why do you pretend to be an authority? It kind of annoys me to be honest.

Data is data, and it really doesn't matter what it can be deciphered to or where it comes from. Handling losses or latency has nothing to do with net neutrality. If it's an issue for an ISP to provide high bandwith at low latency with reliable transport, then they can just offer a package where the bandwith is lower and latency and reliability is higher, simple as that. There is absolutely no need for throttling based upon the package endpoints or protocols to be able to manage the latency/bandwith/reliability problem.

It seems like OP might have been talking about ISPs peering directly with some service providers for better service as well as trying to justify traffic shaping, but as there were absolutely no technical terms whatsoever it's easier to assume that it's gibberish

Peering directly with local ISPs for better connections is a good thing and not net neutrality. Net neutrality is, you are quite rightly saying, about treating all packets equally, not inspecting them and doing QoS or artificial throttling based on whatever higher level protocol it's using, or whatever company happens to run the destination server.