U.S. Appeals Court Killed Net Neutrality

[BoberFett]

But wait! There's more! Order now and you get EVEN MORE SPIDEY07!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=48508

That said: get more bandwidth. Really. Bandwidth isn't *that* expensive and traffic shaping is often just a band-aid. If you have enough bandwidth to go around, you don't need to shape.

So true.

I'm getting complaints on "Please propose a solution to transfer 2 gigabyte autocad files across the globe, 15 minutes max."

Sure, I'll get right on that.

Thanks for agreeing with me Spidey07, it's so much easier to refute your BS when you do it for me.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's true. If not Time Warner, I can just get dial up internet from Juno instead. Lot's of options.

Maybe...However the issue arises when government (especially local government) favors certain providers over others and grants them a de facto government granted monopoly for services such as high-speed internet, cable, etc in a region.

Then in turn local, state, fed, etc government adds to the problem by setting up artificial barriers toward entry and competition into the marketplace via regulations and mandates which favor pre-established players and block other would-be providers such as say Google from entering the marketplace with ease in order to compete with the likes of Time Warner or Comcast.

 

[Doppel]

I mean you people who are fucking clueless on networking.

You people who want to prevent progress of the internet?

I can't argue with idiots, good luck in your stupid. I get paid to combat you're stupidity. It's a good gig. You fucks will NOT STOP progress of The Internet. I will prevent you. You who want to stop progress are my enemy. You are technological dinosaurs, you will be overridden, you are done.

Can you use your grown up words? You're raging in this thread worse than I've seen in a very long time. What happened on Tuesday to make you so mad? You're the only one in this thread raging like somebody off their meds. Why is this? Were you molested as a child by net neutrality?

Thanks for agreeing with me Spidey07, it's so much easier to refute your BS when you do it for me.

Haha, great stuff.

 

[Doppel]

This is still my favorite part from Spidey in the thread, when I disagreed with his saying

nor would a carrier really be able to effectively differentiate ads vs legitimate content.

. He then doubled down saying:

Detecting all the different HTTP conversations from a given page would be difficult for network hardware to do to effectively influence routing or QoS decisions at the speed needed.

Poor Spidey it's like he doesn't even know offering network priority to different sources is an essential goal of anti-network neutrals. To be fair, I think he does know, but he's willingly backed himself into yet another corner from which he'll fight tooth and nail, all the while embarrassing himself further.

 

[CLite]

Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.

Wow...

Governments/corporations are nice when they are dueling dragons. Now they are a 2-headed hydra sent here to scorch the earth for quarterly profits and votes.

 

[PokerGuy]

This ruling is completely asinine. How the judges could even argue that consumers have a choice is beyond me. For most consumers, there is effectively very little choice thanks to local monopolies. Even in places where consumers might be able to choose between two or three isp's, it's very likely that each ISP will have its own deals and will favor certain sites/datastreams, so the consumer is screwed no matter which one they pick.

This ruling sucks for the consumer and is based in pure ignorance of the marketplace and services offered.

 

[Doppel]

Say goodbye to home VPN access.

The more I read about this the more of a cluster fuck it is/will be. Much of the data throttling's impact to a user can be obviated by using a VPN, because your ISP can't parse it out. And VPNs are cheap and easy to use; both price and ease of use getting better constantly. There could initially be a huge growth in them, as more people end up using a VPN for everything they do. So, what's an ISP to do? Well, no VPN for you. Sorry, we don't allow VPN traffic anymore. Apparently Cox cable already experimented with that in the past.

Oh, but you work from home? No problem! All our residential customers can operate VPNs at $20/gig. Or for business users sign up for our business @ home package, starting at just $119/month.

There's a reason why Netflix stock just took a major hit after this ruling.

Doom and gloom aside, once the technophoes are educated there may be a chance that a federal law is created to force net neutrality. All it takes is congress to right this wrong.

 

[Texashiker]

Say goodbye to home VPN access.

Consumers could be looking at saying goodbye to a lot of stuff.

Need a router/firewall? No more linksys, dlink, netgear,,, or any other low cost option. To access an ATT network you have to buy a $100 home router that is sold by ATT.

Want to play that online video game? You have to buy a gamer package.

Want to access your home security webcams? You need a security package.

Need to upload files to a webserver? You need to buy a web developer package.

You are a youtube blogger? Then you will need to buy a business package with the video option.

ATT currently blocks certain smtp and pop outbound mail. Just to be able to send smtp/pop email through my leased web servers at hostgator, ATT wants to charge me an extra $100 a month for a business package.

 

[spidey07]

So scary you guys are screaming for government control of the Internet and halting it's progress. Sad at the same time, but much more scary there are those that think like this being so uneducated about the technology or issue.

 

[Texashiker]

So scary you guys are screaming for government control of the Internet and halting it's progress. Sad at the same time, but much more scary there are those that think like this being so uneducated about the technology or issue.

Greed is halting advances in technology.

I keep asking you what cell provider my wife should have picked and you keep ignoring my request. Verizon wants to charge my wife something like $90 a month to use her phone as a modem, while pda net is a one time cost of around $20.

Could you imagine ATT telling you you have to buy your home router / firewall from them? And then it is a monthly fee.

I do not want government control. All I want is for all traffic and devices to be treated the same. If my wife wants to buy pda net rather than subscribe to a monthly service, she should be able to do so. She is already paying for internet on her phone, but verizon is blocking her access from other devices.

Could you imagine ATT telling you that only PCs can use your home internet. If you use a laptop or tablet there is going to be an extra monthly fee?

 

[spidey07]

I don't do cellular and have nothing to do with how they design their networks. I'm talking about consumer internet service.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm talking about consumer internet service.

And ATT blocking smtp/pop mail sent through my leased web servers at hostgator?

They say its to block spammers. But they want me to pay $90 - $100 extra every month for a business package just to be able to send email through my servers.

 

[Doppel]

So scary you guys are screaming for government control of the Internet and halting it's progress. Sad at the same time, but much more scary there are those that think like this being so uneducated about the technology or issue.

The word is its, not it's.

You continue to betray a profound ignorance of net neutrality. You attempt to mask this ignorance behind trite statements about being a super special consultant, but nobody here is buying it. I can see why you are near-uniformly mocked here by so many people. You invite it by not playing well with others.

 

[spidey07]

And ATT blocking smtp/pop mail sent through my leased web servers at hostgator?

They say its to block spammers. But they want me to pay $90 - $100 extra every month for a business package just to be able to send email through my servers.

If you want to use it as a business service, then pay for it as a business service.

 

[spidey07]

The word is its, not it's.

You continue to betray a profound ignorance of net neutrality. You attempt to mask this ignorance behind trite statements about being a super special consultant, but nobody here is buying it. I can see why you are near-uniformly mocked here by so many people. You invite it by not playing well with others.

no, everybody so far has no understanding of the issue in this thread. You want to prevent the advancement of the Internet, I won't allow you to do that.

You want all your traffic treated the same, that's TERRIBLE and a horrible idea. It goes against every advancement and direction in network technology.

Damn straight I won't play well with others when your ignorance is halting the future of the Internet and technology.

Thankfully we have smart people in washington who DO understand technology and the issue from the providers. We call them lobbyists.

 

[Texashiker]

If you want to use it as a business service, then pay for it as a business service.

Who says its for business? It could be a family reunion site, or a not for profit organization.

What about people who do video blogging on youtube? Its called being a youtube partner.

Should ATT cut off their access to youtube?

 

[sunzt]

Detecting all the different HTTP conversations from a given page would be difficult for network hardware to do to effectively influence routing or QoS decisions at the speed needed.

Detecting the actual application like video, gaming, voice, web browsing isn't. Just WHY do you want to impede the future and progress of the Internet really? What is your motivation to do so to keep it in the stone age?

This is why I can't have conversations with idiots.

How do you handle applications that have gaming, video, voice, and web browsing built into it and running concurrently such as the xbox one features?

 

[spidey07]

How do you handle applications that have gaming, video, voice, and web browsing built into it and running concurrently such as the xbox one features?

Application recognition in hardware and path selection.

 

[ch33zw1z]

But wait! There's more! Order now and you get EVEN MORE SPIDEY07!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=48508



Thanks for agreeing with me Spidey07, it's so much easier to refute your BS when you do it for me.

good find. guess we can ignore the troll.

 

[ch33zw1z]

How do you handle applications that have gaming, video, voice, and web browsing built into it and running concurrently such as the xbox one features?

Don't worry, there will be an XBox One tier for that. At a nominal 300% increase.

 

[Texashiker]

Don't worry, there will be an XBox One tier for that. At a nominal 300% increase.

I am sure providers will offer a bundle deal for xbox, playstation and steam.

But first you have to buy their priority networking hardware. Then you have to pay extra for each device.

 

[Doppel]

no, everybody so far has no understanding of the issue in this thread. You want to prevent the advancement of the Internet, I won't allow you to do that.

You want all your traffic treated the same, that's TERRIBLE and a horrible idea. It goes against every advancement and direction in network technology.

Damn straight I won't play well with others when your ignorance is halting the future of the Internet and technology.

Thankfully we have smart people in washington who DO understand technology and the issue from the providers. We call them lobbyists.

Fail

 

[Bowfinger]

no, everybody so far has no understanding of the issue in this thread. You want to prevent the advancement of the Internet, I won't allow you to do that.

You want all your traffic treated the same, that's TERRIBLE and a horrible idea. It goes against every advancement and direction in network technology.

Damn straight I won't play well with others when your ignorance is halting the future of the Internet and technology.

Thankfully we have smart people in washington who DO understand technology and the issue from the providers. We call them lobbyists.

Still more handwaving and belligerent declarations, yet still not even the faintest attempt to support your noise with facts and reason. You also consistently evade all of the counterexamples and challenges presented. You have offered exactly jack and squat to establish any credibility for yourself and your claims. You have given us zero reason to not dismiss your hyperbole as transparent shilling for the de facto broadband duopolies (in most locations).

In any case, let's hope Congress nullifies this ruling by granting the FCC explicit authority to require network neutrality. The U.S. already lags behind much of the world in broadband quality and accessibility. Let's not make it even worse.

 

[Oldgamer]

spidey07, upon your very first post in this thread I thought maybe you would take some time to logically explain the technical aspects of what your talking about and convince me and others that killing Net Neutrality would be a good thing for the consumer. But all I see in every one of your posts is insults at the members and no real explanations. You say you are in the technology business (I am assuming you work for a Tier 1 provider) a tech, or maybe a network administrator of some sort? If this is the case then you could very easily explain in a post to us how killing Net Neutrality would be good for the consumer. If you have time to make the posts calling everyone idiots then you have time to make your technical explanations.

 

[spidey07]

Quite simply put, net neutrality prevents a carrier from offering a high quality internet connection that consistently delivers top performance for all applications including voice, video, gaming, streaming, etc.

With net neutrality in place all traffic is best effort regardless of application. That is the dark ages of networking. So your video quality suffers, voice quality suffers, gaming quality suffers, etc. Everybody suffers poor performance, every application suffers poor performance.

That's the entire premise and why it's such a bad idea.