Franken at the FCC, when the Net Neutrality fell. His eyes open!!!

[BeauJangles]

This isnt difficult to grasp. Services that are sensitive to traffic disruption or latency recieve higher priority. Voice is a prime example of this.

Yeah, except that it will turn into the fast-track program at the FDA, where every company is squeezing whatever regulatory body determines what is high priority to have their service prioritized over others, creating an even worse mess than we're in now.

 

[jhbball]

Different applications have different requirements from a network. Some need high speed but don't care about latency or jitter or packet loss. Others need medium speed but are REALLY picky about latency and packet loss, but not so much jitter. Some are low bandwidth but can't tolerate high latency, jitter or packet loss at all.

I just described voice, video and data. You can figure out which one is which.

You're an expert! Just kidding.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I wont do the leg work for you. Go educate yourself on the subject you are discussing.

lol...you're no fun.

But seriously, I don't care what the ISP's want to do as long as my traffic stays private and more importantly my wallet doesn't feel the pinch. At the end of the day, I'm a consumer that doesn't want to spend more to get the same level of service. I also don't trust big business for the simple fact they're out ONLY to make money. If big business had it's way, I'm sure they'd be raping my wallet for dialup speeds. What scares me more is those same big businesses employ very technical people that I can only guess have the ability to bedazzle the law makers into pretty much anything they want.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, except that it will turn into the fast-track program at the FDA, where every company is squeezing whatever regulatory body determines what is high priority to have their service prioritized over others, creating an even worse mess than we're in now.

It hasnt happened yet has it? Applications have requirements. Some are fine with high bandwidth high latency. Others are low latency low bandwidth. Are you under some impression application developers will be vying for network requirements they dont need? Why?

 

[Genx87]

lol...you're no fun.

But seriously, I don't care what the ISP's want to do as long as my traffic stays private and more importantly my wallet doesn't feel the pinch. At the end of the day, I'm a consumer that doesn't want to spend more to get the same level of service. I also don't trust big business for the simple fact they're out ONLY to make money. If big business had it's way, I'm sure they'd be raping my wallet for dialup speeds. What scares me more is those same big businesses employ very technical people that I can only guess have the ability to bedazzle the law makers into pretty much anything they want.

Explain to me why they arent raping you for dial up speeds right now?

 

[ch33zw1z]

It hasnt happened yet has it? Applications have requirements. Some are fine with high bandwidth high latency. Others are low latency low bandwidth. Are you under some impression application developers will be vying for network requirements they dont need? Why?

That is a possible scenario not to be overlooked, and the answer would be $. Always.

 

[Genx87]

That is a possible scenario not to be overlooked, and the answer would be $. Always.

How does requesting network requirements that dont help your application make money?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Explain to me why they arent raping you for dial up speeds right now?

You know why, I'm not doing the leg work for you

 

[Genx87]

You know why, I'm not doing the leg work for you

I know why. But I am curious to see if you know why you arent on dial up being raped.

 

[sactoking]

Right, so far without any net neutrality in place has this happened?

Hasn't happened != Won't ever happen

In the NFL there was no rule preventing a strength and conditioning coach from lining up inactive players on the sideline to interfere with a punt coverage "gunner". If you'd have brought that up two weeks ago I'm sure you'd have heard "We don't need a rule for that, it's never happened before and is preposterous". Fast forward to today...

15 years ago there was no rule preventing a bank from stratifying the mortgages on their books, decoupling the payments into various tranches, reselling them on the open market as "investment grade", etc in a scheme that would ultimately bring the global economy to a standstill. Why would you need a ridiculous rule about that? It had never been done before, so we don't need to legislate it. Fast forward to today...

 

[ch33zw1z]

How does requesting network requirements that dont help your application make money?

Again, I'm not doing the leg work for you. You seem like a smart guy (or girl?), I'm sure you know the answer

 

[Genx87]

Again, I'm not doing the leg work for you. You seem like a smart guy (or girl?), I'm sure you know the answer

Ill take that as you dont have an answer. Requesting something that doesnt help your application wont make you any more money.

 

[sandorski]

Who exactly decides what is more important than what?

Some short sighted accountant whose spouse is shaggin the neighbour.

 

[Genx87]

Hasn't happened != Won't ever happen

In the NFL there was no rule preventing a strength and conditioning coach from lining up inactive players on the sideline to interfere with a punt coverage "gunner". If you'd have brought that up two weeks ago I'm sure you'd have heard "We don't need a rule for that, it's never happened before and is preposterous". Fast forward to today...

15 years ago there was no rule preventing a bank from stratifying the mortgages on their books, decoupling the payments into various tranches, reselling them on the open market as "investment grade", etc in a scheme that would ultimately bring the global economy to a standstill. Why would you need a ridiculous rule about that? It had never been done before, so we don't need to legislate it. Fast forward to today...

We have had public widespread use of the internet for 2 decades. Yet all of these doom and gloom scenario's net neutrality proponents bring up simply havent happened at all. There is no need for congress to get involed and write laws for a problem that doesnt exist. Especially when what they are proposing will cause a hell of a lot more damage than what is is supposed to fix.

 

[SunnyD]

Thankfully the highly intelligent people that know networking like myself and what is required to make it all work are the ones congress and the FCC listen to.

You've proven time and again that you know next to nothing about appropriate network management.

Are we bandwidth constrained? No. Let the user decide how to prioritize his or her own traffic.

Just because you think traffic type A is more important than traffic type B is irrelevant to me, since traffic type B is much more important to me today than A is. And tomorrow type C is more important than A or B. And next week I need A. I'm a consumer, and I want all my DATA treated the same, regardless of what that DATA actually is comprised of.

 

[CitizenKain]

The application requirements get to decide.

Hahaha. No, the ISP will get to decide what applications are important. Pretty sure Comcast won't be giving Netflix high priority traffic compared to Comcast's VOD service. But sure, lets let companies that not only provide content, but also control access decide what we need, that's a fantastic idea.

 

[Genx87]

You've proven time and again that you know next to nothing about appropriate network management.

Are we bandwidth constrained? No. Let the user decide how to prioritize his or her own traffic.

Just because you think traffic type A is more important than traffic type B is irrelevant to me, since traffic type B is much more important to me today than A is. And tomorrow type C is more important than A or B. And next week I need A. I'm a consumer, and I want all my DATA treated the same, regardless of what that DATA actually is comprised of.

Dont cast stones. You claim he doesnt know what he knows then say let the consumer decide how to prioritize their own traffic? Here is a good analogy. Lets apply your logic to road traffic. Let us decide how to prioritize ourselves at stop signs, 4 ways, rail road crossings, and freeways.

Seriously cant believe you just wrote that. How do you think the "end" user is going to prioritize their own traffic every time? Now multiply that by everybody out there and imagine the end result when everybody puts their traffic as the highest possible priority lmao

 

[spittledip]

I didn't realize this was about QOS. If that is the case and if this is the only thing that this is about, it is obviously a good thing. I don't understand why people are against this if it is only about QOS. This makes me suspicious that there is something I am not seeing. Either that or people are just paranoid.

 

[spidey07]

You've proven time and again that you know next to nothing about appropriate network management.

Are we bandwidth constrained? No. Let the user decide how to prioritize his or her own traffic.

Just because you think traffic type A is more important than traffic type B is irrelevant to me, since traffic type B is much more important to me today than A is. And tomorrow type C is more important than A or B. And next week I need A. I'm a consumer, and I want all my DATA treated the same, regardless of what that DATA actually is comprised of.

Fine. I'll treat all of your data exactly the same so that all of your applications have crappy service.

 

[Genx87]

Hahaha. No, the ISP will get to decide what applications are important. Pretty sure Comcast won't be giving Netflix high priority traffic compared to Comcast's VOD service. But sure, lets let companies that not only provide content, but also control access decide what we need, that's a fantastic idea.

Pretty sure comcast will be giving higher priority to voice services over the same network. Which is what we are really talking about here. If comcast does what you claim, they will be smacked down by the FCC.

 

[Turin39789]

Pretty sure comcast will be giving higher priority to voice services over the same network. Which is what we are really talking about here. If comcast does what you claim, they will be smacked down by the FCC.

with what reg will the FCC smack them?

 

[spidey07]

with what reg will the FCC smack them?

Anti-competitive practices. They've done exactly that in the 2 or three instances it's happened with other providers.

 

[bfdd]

Fine. I'll treat all of your data exactly the same so that all of your applications have crappy service.

They aren't prioritizing my data now are they? I mean if they are then why do we need to change anything? If not then your "crappy service" shit is thrown out the window because over the years service has gotten better and better without the need for them to prioritize my data.

BTW I understand all the benefits of it, I just don't think it's needed.

 

[JSt0rm]

Thankfully the massive amounts of LSD using people like myself and what amounts of LSD is required to make it all work are the ones congress and the FCC listen to.

fixed.waaaaaaa!!

 

[sandorski]

Why do I get the feeling that ISPs have Over Sold their Bandwidth?