Can't we just create our own local Intranets using Ethernet cables running around cul-de-sacs?
Mine connects to yours which connects to his which connects to hers. Eventually we'll have formed a network.
FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
61–70 of 322 posts
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#62This is the end. If we think this guy's gonna listen to the people, we're completely wrong.
It's not the end. Things are just degrading, boringly, as they have been.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#63Is not net-neutrality better handled by IANA ? If you are going to call your router "internet", you must treat all IP packets equally. Seems like reasonable terms to me. Afterall this is the property that made Internet what it is today.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Republican Party is against net neutrality and now controls a majority of seats on the FCC, hence, the FCC now opposes net neutrality. Since the issue really became a big deal, the FCC has been split on party lines over it.
Then why are Republicans against net neutrality? I suspect the answer is "money" and that the wrong people are greasing the right palms to get this done. If that really is the truth then why aren't companies in tech doing more of the same to protect their interests? How the hell is it that companies like Comcast have the upper hand here?
> Then why are Republicans against net neutrality? I suspect the answer is "money"
Yes, that's part of it. Then there's ideological posturing. "Freedom" and other empty slogans.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Traffic shaping of saturated links sounds like a waste of time and resources when it's so much easier to just upgrade the hardware. It's cheaper too! It also happens to be the fucking purpose of the ISP (to provide adequate bandwidth for their customers). This is a very naive comment. For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved i…
> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than e…
> just start dropping packets where there's congestion
Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair?
I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure.
Isn't any backbone link in a sense a way of shaping traffic? The old pattern (from point A to B, say) may have been less efficient than the new pattern (using the new link).
The link makes economic sense to install simply because there is demand for bandwidth from A to B. If there weren't, a link would have been installed elsewhere instead. The price of the new link is passed along to downstream and upstream providers.
Assuming that each ISP has a shaping model in place that is generally fair, is there really any difference between these three things:
- the ISP shopping upstream providers based on SLA committments for traffic X
- the ISP imposing QoS that addresses the quality experienced by customers using traffic X
- the ISP investigating upgrading networking hardware to allow for superior handling of traffic X
I'd argue that in every case the ISP has a cost and a benefit. In the case of the QoS change, the cost is that some customers might be slightly worse off (those who used traffic Y but never used traffic X).
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#66Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…
Net neutrality refers to packet shaping by source and destination . QoS refers to packet shaping by type of content .
I don't fully agree with those definitions. ISPs need to be prohibited from preferring HTTP and TCP over other protocols. They should be permitted to perform only the kinds of QoS that will treat two traffic flows with the same data rate and packet sizes equally even if they are using different protocols and port numbers. Overt discrimination rules that specify preferences for certain endpoints or certain types of traffic (as identified by inspecting packets) is wrong, but fair QoS that only considers actual traffic patterns and only operates in the event of actual congestion is beneficial without being harmfully discriminatory.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#67I know several people who are highly involved with the FCC, telecom industry, and telecom law that think that "network neutrality" is just 2 words. Until 1970, and only because of lawsuits, it was illegal to connect anything to your phone line. You could get any phone you wanted from Ma Bell as long as it was black.[0] If you wanted a different color you had to pay extra. It took force to make Ma Bell and the FCC all…
Telecoms are a classic example of a natural monopoly - which is to say it would be monopoly whether there's regulation or not.
How do you imagine there would be competition in, say, fibre? A bunch of companies all running their own last mile? That's incredibly inefficient.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#68This raises the limit on the number of subscribers a provider can have before regulation kicks in. In other words, a larger number of smaller providers have one less regulation to worry about. Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can – even if it's saving 6.8 hours per year in regulatory compliance – to help these smaller guys be able to take on these horrible behem…
Those 6.8 hours are spent making information public which is important to consumer choice. This move doesn't help competition, it harms it.
I think you're making an assumption that shouldn't be assumed: that these smaller providers won't voluntarily be transparent and open. If I were competing against the likes of AT&T and Comcast, I'd use that as a competitive advantage! They're trying to differentiate themselves from the incumbents, not be exactly the same.
But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#69Can't we just create our own local Intranets using Ethernet cables running around cul-de-sacs? Mine connects to yours which connects to his which connects to hers. Eventually we'll have formed a network.
That's how a lot of ISPs in eastern europe started - string cable along dense neighbourhoods by just letting it hang off any nearby pole, trees, or along steel cables strung between two close buildings with no poles or trees around. I imagine building regulation codes are more strictly enforced in USA and will stop that kind of thing.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone actually believe we will "run out of bandwidth" to the point where traffic shaping will become essential? Traffic shaping of saturated links sounds like a waste of time and resources when it's so much easier to just upgrade the hardware. It's cheaper too! It also happens to be the fucking purpose of the ISP (to provide adequate bandwidth for their customers). Think of how much it costs to pay people to ma…
Do you also argue strenuously against optimizing software CPU and memory consumption? > It's the FUCKING PURPOSE of AWS to run my code! Why don't they just buy more hardware to make it run faster?
Has Amazon ever delivered less than what was advertised when you paid for it?
I mean, I never experienced anything like that but geniunely curious if it is a thing (Might be possible in AWS lambda etc.)