241–250 of 423 posts
It would be like telephone companies being allowed to decide which calls to allow through and relegating the rest to busy signals.
If you're wondering, how the wonderful invisible hand of the market would use "net freedom" - say hello to Portugal. https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108... I don't see how this benefits anybody besides the ISP. It just makes them find a multitude of reasons why $everybody should pay double and triple to get a proper connection.
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…
The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc. What should be outside net neutrality laws are protocols that leave the customer and applications in control. There is nothing wrong with using Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), DSCP and IPv6 flow labels to get QoS that differ from the dumb pipe. Many future…
A) Traffic shaping is done in the public's best interest.
B) It doesn't discriminate between packets of the same type but different providers.
C) Carriers are transparent about how and why they shape traffic.
D) All affected parties retain ultimate control over how shaping happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. No. There's actually a very healthy cargo rail system and relatively little trucking is truly long haul.
According to the DOT [1] it looks like my intuition is a bit out of date. Right now US freight about even, trucking still a little bit ahead by ton-mile. Ten years ago rail carried 2/3 as much freight as trucks. Last-mile delivery on trucks (from the rail station to the point of use) is taken care of by the unit of measurement (one ton of freight traveling one mile), so I think that those numbers are relatively reaso…
[1] https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rail-versus-trucking-whos-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Portugal. https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108...
As was pointed-out repeatedly yesterday, those are add-ons for mobile data. You pay your base fee ( to access anything ) and you can then add particular bundles to get flat-rated access to certain websites. Or you can just continue to pay by the MB.
I don't see how that changes anything about the situation. Just because mobile providers have already been far more ruthless doesn't suddenly excuse these practices, some would argue that mobile providers have pretty much normalized this in the very first place.
I consider the vast majority of mobile plans, with data volume caps, straight up rip-offs: The moment you go past your volume cap you might as well not have any plan at all, as the throttled bandwidths usually ain't even fast enough for just regular browsing on the www.
Yes, I realize there are differences in the medium, mobile being shared and all, I still can't shake the feeling that the vast majority of mobile providers use this as an excuse for not expanding capacities and instead nickle&dimming everybody trough data volume.
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…
> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.
NN is an excellent example of framing by naming. Imagine if it was called the the "More Internet Regulation Act". Prima facie it's a more accurate name. Since this is going to happen (reverting to the way it was for ~25 years), I'll point out that an echo chamber forms by default because most of us who might spend time arguing about it don't see a good reason to. Aside... the largest cable provider decided it would b…
So... what do you do for internet access now? Oh, you have more than one legitimate option in your area? Lucky you. Many people don't.
If you're wondering, how the wonderful invisible hand of the market would use "net freedom" - say hello to Portugal. https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108... I don't see how this benefits anybody besides the ISP. It just makes them find a multitude of reasons why $everybody should pay double and triple to get a proper connection.
It’s an add-on to general-purpose mobile subscriptions, which let you access any service — including the ones above. The idea is apparently that if you’re into apps like Snapchat and Facebook (or... LinkedIn, I guess), you pay around $8 a month to specifically get more “Social” data, so you can use your regular allotment for everything else. It looks a lot like the “Vodafone Pass” service in the UK, where subscribers can pay for unlimited access to a similar stable of services.
NN is an excellent example of framing by naming. Imagine if it was called the the "More Internet Regulation Act". Prima facie it's a more accurate name. Since this is going to happen (reverting to the way it was for ~25 years), I'll point out that an echo chamber forms by default because most of us who might spend time arguing about it don't see a good reason to. Aside... the largest cable provider decided it would b…
A lot of Americans have entirely no choice in their broadband provider. Many areas have a single provider who actively prevents any other company providing access in that area. Those customers don't have the luxury of calling up and cancelling unless they're happy to go without broadband. "Vote with your wallet" only works outside of monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.
Even the language is wrong. Getting rid of net neutrality doesn’t introduce fast lanes, it introduces slow lanes. Nobody will get faster service than today, but some will get slower service.
This type of flow management is already how VoLTE flows are prioritized on LTE (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multimedia_Subsystem); I wouldn't be surprised to see land-line ISPs implement it.