FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Salandriagado]

Go on then, explain how they can deliver some websites faster than what they currently deliver (which is "what the hardware is capable of") without slowing down other websites.

No, I am not teaching you ow the internet works, got take a class or three before making stuff up that you don't know about. As simple as I can put it, you don't limit when you configure prioritization.

Sure, not explicitly. But in practice, the speed to other websites has to go down.

[Ethel mermania]

No, I am not teaching you ow the internet works, got take a class or three before making stuff up that you don't know about. As simple as I can put it, you don't limit when you configure prioritization.

Sure, not explicitly. But in practice, the speed to other websites has to go down.

if it's traditional IP, like a web site l8ke natiojstates where time (in milliseconds) doesn't really matter, not at all.

Tbf ,If it's a two way voice or video app, where 100 milliseconds does matter, there may be some issue in quality.

[Salandriagado]

Sure, not explicitly. But in practice, the speed to other websites has to go down.

if it's traditional IP, like a web site l8ke natiojstates where time (in milliseconds) doesn't really matter, not at all.

Tbf ,If it's a two way voice or video app, where 100 milliseconds does matter, there may be some issue in quality.

If there's enough bandwidth being taken away to make an appreciable benefit to high-bandwidth and/or delay-dependent services (and I noticed the sudden switch from bandwidth to delay time there), then there is necessarily enough bandwidth being taken away to have a significant impact on whatever it's being taken from.

[The Serbian Empire]

ATTENTION ALL COMCAST USERS! THEY REMOVED THEIR NET NEUTRALETY PLEDGE

Rip free internet

It must be a sign... And this is why I want to make a campaign to nationalize Comcast akin to the copper mines under Pinochet.

[Ethel mermania]

if it's traditional IP, like a web site l8ke natiojstates where time (in milliseconds) doesn't really matter, not at all.

Tbf ,If it's a two way voice or video app, where 100 milliseconds does matter, there may be some issue in quality.

If there's enough bandwidth being taken away to make an appreciable benefit to high-bandwidth and/or delay-dependent services (and I noticed the sudden switch from bandwidth to delay time there), then there is necessarily enough bandwidth being taken away to have a significant impact on whatever it's being taken from.

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

[Galloism]

If there's enough bandwidth being taken away to make an appreciable benefit to high-bandwidth and/or delay-dependent services (and I noticed the sudden switch from bandwidth to delay time there), then there is necessarily enough bandwidth being taken away to have a significant impact on whatever it's being taken from.

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

It's also worth noting that packet discrimination for performance reasons was still allowed under the title 2 rules. They just couldn't do paid prioritization, throttling, or blocking.

[Datlofff]

If there's enough bandwidth being taken away to make an appreciable benefit to high-bandwidth and/or delay-dependent services (and I noticed the sudden switch from bandwidth to delay time there), then there is necessarily enough bandwidth being taken away to have a significant impact on whatever it's being taken from.

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

As a IT student in high school studying for my Comp TIA A+ cert. I still struggle with a lot of the networking stuff. But you are true in what you say, I both about your IP claims, and the fact that most people don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

[Ethel mermania]

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

It's also worth noting that packet discrimination for performance reasons was still allowed under the title 2 rules. They just couldn't do paid prioritization, throttling, or blocking.

Non-BIAS services have always been prioritized to go first. (Well since the core routers could do prioritization anyway).

I know some isp's did throttle and block at times but how well that worked for them was kinda iffy.

[Galloism]

It's also worth noting that packet discrimination for performance reasons was still allowed under the title 2 rules. They just couldn't do paid prioritization, throttling, or blocking.

Non-BIAS services have always been prioritized to go first. (Well since the core routers could do prioritization anyway).

I know some isp's did throttle and block at times but how well that worked for them was kinda iffy.

Well blocking and throttling was typically done for economics reasons instead of performance reasons.

IE, cable companies throttled netflix and hulu because it competed with their own offerings, Verizon blocked Google Wallet because it competed with their own digital pay app ISIS (yes, that's literally what it was called), etc.

[Ethel mermania]

Non-BIAS services have always been prioritized to go first. (Well since the core routers could do prioritization anyway).

I know some isp's did throttle and block at times but how well that worked for them was kinda iffy.

Well blocking and throttling was typically done for economics reasons instead of performance reasons.

IE, cable companies throttled netflix and hulu because it competed with their own offerings, Verizon blocked Google Wallet because it competed with their own digital pay app ISIS (yes, that's literally what it was called), etc.

ISIS is an excellent routing protocol I wish we used it. Say that in a meeting sometimes. "I like ISIS, let's switch to it".

Didn't Verizon or at&t, block Skype and Facetime for similar reasons.

[Galloism]

Well blocking and throttling was typically done for economics reasons instead of performance reasons.

IE, cable companies throttled netflix and hulu because it competed with their own offerings, Verizon blocked Google Wallet because it competed with their own digital pay app ISIS (yes, that's literally what it was called), etc.

ISIS is an excellent routing protocol I wish we used it. Say that in a meeting sometimes. "I like ISIS, let's switch to it".

Didn't Verizon or at&t, block Skype and Facetime for similar reasons.

I know AT&T did. Verizon I can't recall, but it wouldn't shock me.

[Salandriagado]

If there's enough bandwidth being taken away to make an appreciable benefit to high-bandwidth and/or delay-dependent services (and I noticed the sudden switch from bandwidth to delay time there), then there is necessarily enough bandwidth being taken away to have a significant impact on whatever it's being taken from.

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

You are continuing to disingenuously conflate latency and bandwidth. And this is still all irrelevant, because such things are already allowed.

[Ethel mermania]

No, traditional IP applications that are store and forward don't care, nothing is getting dropped. Applications that are time sentive that are not designed for IP like voice, or two way video can be effected by latency and jitter caused by other traffic being prioritized ahead of it.

Again you really don't know what you are talking about, tbf most of the people in this tbread don't either.

You are continuing to disingenuously conflate latency and bandwidth. And this is still all irrelevant, because such things are already allowed.

And you are continuing to bask in your complete and utter ignorance of what you are talking about. We are done.

[Vassenor]

You are continuing to disingenuously conflate latency and bandwidth. And this is still all irrelevant, because such things are already allowed.

And you are continuing to bask in your complete and utter ignorance of what you are talking about. We are done.

So what will this repeal actually improve?

[Galloism]

And you are continuing to bask in your complete and utter ignorance of what you are talking about. We are done.

So what will this repeal actually improve?

Not a repeal. A reclassification.

[Vassenor]

So what will this repeal actually improve?

Not a repeal. A reclassification.

Same question, different terminology.

[The of Japan]

Not a repeal. A reclassification.

Same question, different terminology.

It is great if you are an isp, otherwise idk

[Ethel mermania]

And you are continuing to bask in your complete and utter ignorance of what you are talking about. We are done.

So what will this repeal actually improve?

Acording to the FCC, developement of equipment and applications that can take advantage or require low latency and jitter.

To make a guess, it will increase investments in companies that are developing ad-hoc wireless networks for autonomous driving, or the manufacturers of the network equipment that supports such application prioritization.

[The Black Forrest]

So what will this repeal actually improve?

Not a repeal. A reclassification.

A reclassification of the word repeal?

[Galloism]

Not a repeal. A reclassification.

A reclassification of the word repeal?

Repeal reclassification authority over the word repeal.

[The Black Forrest]

A reclassification of the word repeal?

Repeal reclassification authority over the word repeal.

Well I will reclassify the word authority to meaning me!

[Archysall]

Meat companies had freedom to put whatever in their products until they regulated that, not seeing how that's a good thing.

I'd call the creation and expansion of the internet through 2014 a pretty "good thing"

ISP executives are unelected bureaucrats, and their one goal is to squeeze as much money as they can it of you.

Yes, indeed. And to squeeze money out of you, they have to give you something that you want. The government doesn't need your satisfaction-they can tax you either way. But if a private entity doesn't give you a product that you like, they don't make any money, and out of business they go.

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

Sounds like we should be cutting down on the government regs that set that system up then, doesn't it?

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

And now you're trying to make argument number two for governments to stop trying to make "natural" monopolies out of ISPs.

Well, I have more competing options in government than I do for ISPs. That's because, like other utilities, the infrastructure costs are so extreme to setup an ISP, they often form natural monopolies or oligopolies, which are not responsive to the needs of the people at all, being both unelected AND having no need to listen to me.

Costs that are heavily inflated by government meddling in the process. What you get is government hurdles put in the way of startups, the government considering ISPs "natural" monopolies, and then suddenly the demand for federal regulation to solve the problem that was created by regulation in the first place.

Yeah, when they're the only game in town (or the only other game in town does the same thing), being shitty won't drive down their business or drive them out of business.

Look at Comcast.

Which brings us, again, as most of these things do, to getting the hurdles and regulations out of the way of startups.

You seem to be living in some fantasy world where people can simply choose to use another ISP, or that infrastructure based startups are easy with current cartels, where this isn't the case in reality. Are you just pushing a party line? Cause this is what your free-market fanboy-ism sounds like.

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

I'd call the creation and expansion of the internet through 2014 a pretty "good thing"




Yes, indeed. And to squeeze money out of you, they have to give you something that you want. The government doesn't need your satisfaction-they can tax you either way. But if a private entity doesn't give you a product that you like, they don't make any money, and out of business they go.



Sounds like we should be cutting down on the government regs that set that system up then, doesn't it?



And now you're trying to make argument number two for governments to stop trying to make "natural" monopolies out of ISPs.



Costs that are heavily inflated by government meddling in the process. What you get is government hurdles put in the way of startups, the government considering ISPs "natural" monopolies, and then suddenly the demand for federal regulation to solve the problem that was created by regulation in the first place.



Which brings us, again, as most of these things do, to getting the hurdles and regulations out of the way of startups.

You seem to be living in some fantasy world where people can simply choose to use another ISP, or that infrastructure based startups are easy with current cartels, where this isn't the case in reality. Are you just pushing a party line? Cause this is what your free-market fanboy-ism sounds like.

Thank you. Those words seriously need to be said.

Hell, removing the protections of Net Neutrality wouldn't CREATE a free-market. It would DESTROY the free-market that currently exist on the Internet.

[Hurdergaryp]

You seem to be living in some fantasy world where people can simply choose to use another ISP, or that infrastructure based startups are easy with current cartels, where this isn't the case in reality. Are you just pushing a party line? Cause this is what your free-market fanboy-ism sounds like.

Thank you. Those words seriously need to be said.

Hell, removing the protections of Net Neutrality wouldn't CREATE a free-market. It would DESTROY the free-market that currently exist on the Internet.

The natural evolutionary path of capitalism is the permanent establishment of monopolies. The free market is only a phase on the path towards true, unstoppable capitalism. Hail the domination of the monopolies! Hail! Hail!

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

Thank you. Those words seriously need to be said.

Hell, removing the protections of Net Neutrality wouldn't CREATE a free-market. It would DESTROY the free-market that currently exist on the Internet.

The natural evolutionary path of capitalism is the permanent establishment of monopolies. The free market is only a phase on the path towards true, unstoppable capitalism. Hail the domination of the monopolies! Hail! Hail!

...