Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile CFO: Less Regulation, Repeal of Net Neutrality By Trump Would Be 'Positive For My Industry' (tmonews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TmoNews: T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter spoke at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in New York City, and he touched a bit on President-elect Donald Trump and what his election could mean for the mobile industry. Carter expects that a Trump presidency will foster an environment that'll be more positive for wireless. "It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry," the CFO said. He went on to explain that there will likely be less regulation, something that he feels "destroys innovation and value creation." Speaking of innovation, Carter also feels that a reversal of net neutrality and the FCC's Open Internet rules would be good for innovation in the industry, saying that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations? Or is this more of the same big business "we'll tell you what you want and you'll like it!" bullshit we've gotten for years and years?
So brave of Mr. Carter to talk about deregulation at a banking conference. I'm sure his notions were vigorously challenged.
As a consumer; however, it would be painful for both my wallet and my rectum. And they don't even have the goddamn common courtesy to give a reach around.
But bad for everyone else. The ISPs control a bottleneck of the usually meshed internet: the last mile. Everywhere else one can route around a bad actor, but there leads only one line to the end users, and it goes through the ISPs.
By that same standard, the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was designed to prevent precisely the same sorts of abuse that Net Neutrality laws prevent, is also an impediment to innovation and doing interesting things, if by interesting things, you mean using bundling to drive your competition out of the market and creating an oligopoly of content providers owned by the same folks who own the pipes (i.e. the exact opposite of what the Internet was intended to be).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Definition of innovation (merriam-webster) 1 : the introduction of something new 2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty So new idea's on how to rip off your customers are technically "innovation," just not the sort of Innovation we are looking for in the field
How about we give him exactly what he wants.
And remove the regulations that forbid or make difficult municipal internet & Wifi?
And remove the regulations that make it harder for groups to even attempt to enter the last mile to compete?
I mean, if we're gonna roll back regulations, lets roll them back!
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
They want to be closed worlds, revenue generating from everything you do on their network and with their business partners only.
They want perpetual customer lock-in, because each "carrier's" dog's breakfast of apps and locked-content portals would be so different from other carriers' offerings that it would be too confusing and too much work to ever change the "Carrier-net" (as opposed to Internet) that you belong to.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This was called AOHell back in the mid 90s. Or Fraudigy. Or Compu$$$erve. The bad old days are (comming) here again!
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
Low latency and jitter are only helpful for real-time communications otherwise mostly irrelevant for Internet based content "Streaming" services.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Nonsense. You maintain low latency and minimize jitter with queue management. There are a many different fair queues you can pick from that will do this without caring at all about content.
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact
TCP can only retransmit. Only place meaningful error correction occurs is link layer. IP layer "checksums" are at best decorative.. at worst a useless waste of bandwidth and silicon.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
Content based prioritization is mostly pointless in the real world. It doesn't work across administrative domains and when it works at all tends to be a result of either a network being hopelessly oversubscribed or not properly managed.
Treat things like throttling high-volume users
Metering total packets to or from a customer isn't a net neutrality issue.