Slashdot Mirror
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality? (theverge.com)
Earlier this week, Comcast filed its comments in favor of the FCC's plan to eliminate the 2015 net neutrality rules. While much of the document was devoted to arguments we've heard before -- Comcast believes the current rules are anti-competitive and hurt investment, but generally supports the principles of net neutrality -- one statement stood out. The Verge adds: Buried in the 161-page document was this quirky assertion (emphasis ours): "At the same time, the Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public... And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. In other words, Comcast is arguing for paid prioritization and internet fast lanes to enable self-driving cars to communicate better with other vehicles and their surrounding environment, thus making them a safer and more efficient mode of transportation. The only problem is that autonomous and connected cars don't use wireless broadband to communicate. When cars talk with each other, they do it by exchanging data wirelessly over an unlicensed spectrum called the Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) band, using technology similar to Wi-Fi. The FCC has set aside spectrum in the 5.9GHz band specifically for this purpose, and it is only meant to be used for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) applications. That includes vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) -- so cars talking to other cars, to traffic signals, to the phone in your pocket... you name it. Soon enough, all cars sold in the US will be required to include V2V technology for safety purposes, if the Department of Transportationâ(TM)s new rule goes into effect.
I'm guessing they will advertise these cars as running in the internet fast lane...
I don't know if this is a shit submission or a shit article or both. They're not talking about priority between the vehicles and base stations, they just say in general. The idea being that the traffic still has to flow along the ground between base stations
usually you do that shit with hardware and peering agreements and such so fuck comcast still, but fuck this article and you too
Fr0st P1st, baby!
Last time we had this discussion Verizon claimed we needed to have "fast lanes" to help handicapped people on the internet. None of this has anything to do with reality, just trying to muddy the waters.
Do you have ESP?
I simply cannot sugar coat this; whoever wrote the summary is insanely stupid or at least incapable of thinking further than fifteen minutes ahead of time.
The only problem is that autonomous and connected cars don't use wireless broadband to communicate
They do not NOW you blithering morons, but are you really willing to preclude they never will????
In fact I would argue that a in a primitive way "self driving cars" as powered by human processors ALREADY use broadband, in the form of Waze to alert all drivers in a distributed fashion of hazards nearby. Do you retards really not want self-driving cars to incorporate something from a system like Waze????
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What else can they do when their position has no rational defense?
Anyone praising (or simply using) the "PotPlayer" program should uninstall and reinstall right now and READ THEIR EULA! IIRC the first time I attempted to install PotPlayer I actually read the EULA, and IIRC it mentioned starting some type of P2P connection(s) and that was enough to scare me away. Most people will click right through those screens and install applications for Windows without knowing what they are getting themselves into!
If you insist upon installing proprietary software for Windows from who knows where, please, please read their EULA and do not simply click through it. There's a reason most FOSS applications DON'T include an EULA or anything to click to accept, BECAUSE MOST CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE IS OUT TO GET YOU in one way or another!
So before you recommend black box software to another person, please know what you are really installing onto your system before you encourage others to do the mindless click through install without reading the EULAs. IMO they are there for a reason! TO COVER THEIR ASSES! IMO if you think they're there for your benefit, think again! Black Box software should never be used nor recommended, especially when FOSS alternatives exist!
I propose we make a dark net for self driving cars that doesn't route through comcast nodes. Problem solved.
Clearly they are writing for an audience that doesn't understand any of the issue behind Net Neutrality - and they are throwing anything at the problem that might sound like a "job killer" that might 'stick'.
If they say that autonomous cars need a non-neutral net - then that will be believed by the lawmakers - who are told continually about the US lead in this technology and how it's very popular with the general public...and lawmakers up and down the country are rushing out laws to allow them to be driven in various states. They wouldn't want to throw a valuable/popular idea like that out the window because of Net Neutrality - so this makes a great throw-away line for Comcast - even though it's a blatant falsehood. That falsehood will never become obvious to lawmakers until it's far too late.
Comcast are now "officially evil" - but since I think they were already on my "officially evil" list, I guess not much changed.
www.sjbaker.org
Years ago when ESPN goal line was new and directv did not have it made a big deal about it but kind of lied a about one big thing the ad's where in HD but the channel was not and is still not in HD on comcast.
Comcast has marking that says unlike satellite we don't have contracts (but they do for some deals)
They know they've got an uphill battle in trying to justify their "prioritizing" traffic so they're trying to blitz lawmakers and the public by throwing anything at the wall that they think might stick thus covering their true intentions (double/triple charging people/businesses for their already paid for bandwidth & blocking competition on their networks).
It's not like Comcast is well known for their truthfulness and transparency. To them, the best way to destroy NN is pile on "alternative truths" via PR like this. They know it's a sound idea on the technical side, so using a false pseduo-technical argument against it is the best way to confuse "the masses". We all know they started with some boiler-room with "destroy NN" on the whiteboard, and the marketing drones have a long list of potential knock-downs, focus groups, test campaigns, etc. Comcast knows full well that NN has nothing to do with V2V, but are just throwing everything to the anti-NN wall to see what sticks.
We all know that, especially with the current administration, "public comments" really have little affect. The real "voice" is the lobby money behind the scenes. This is just a "reason" for the FCC to overturn, so they won't seem to be too corrupt to "the public".
Not this again. They're trying to say that Net Neutrality interferes with traffic shaping, which it doesn't. Net Neutrality prevents discrimination against *from whom* a certain type of data transfer is provided, not discrimination of the data type itself. We need an XDCD comic to clear this up.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets. But I've never understood how that is supposed to work. And to what extent is this different from the whole anti-neutral fast lane.
My past thinking is that the difference is precisely this: Neutrality means content neutrality. If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel without violating net neutrality, provided every movie content provider had equal access to claim that QOS.
Where it gets fuzzy is if you have to pay for QOS. Does an ISP have to charge every movie provider in the above example the exact same rate? If it's the same rate Could they for example barter special deals for their "partners" and claim "equivalent" compensation through phoney booked charges?
or is QOS meant to be done without charging. How does one not have a tragedy of the commons if it's free to mark your packets urgent.
lots I don't understand here.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because they CAN. Besides, it's a car analogy, and everyone understands car analogies. Only nerds use those weird computery things, unlike phones.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
you're all wasting your time arguing about something else.
you're all idiots.
slashdot = stagnated
The way QoS is supposed to work is that the endpoints (e.g. you and/or the website you are trying to visit) set the QoS values in the packet header and the infrastructure in between is supposed to honor that. Nobody would complain about that if it's what was happening, but it's not.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I don't understand it either. But to me, it seems like if there was some standard way of marking packets as needing QOS on the internet, everyone would just mark there's as needing the highest level. It's kind of like my e-mail inbox these days; everybody marks their e-mails as important and so the marking means nothing to me anymore.
I guess if you value speed over packet loss you use UDP, and if you value guaranteed delivery over speed you use TCP.
Competitiveness from Comast Pont of view is ability to trample competition with the help of the law.
Which is the exact opposite of what it supposed to be.
Their defense is an autonomous car design that is simply insecure. If your car depends on data transmission it is broken, it will be hacked, people will die, and it will be the designer's fault as much as the hacker's.
All of our lawmakers are ignorant shit for brain's who dont know the difference tween their ass and a hole in the ground, make any argument you like as long as you are convincing, and have a fuckton of money, its good enough!
To the best of my understanding, packet prioritization is only an issue when a router is congested... if the devices are talking directly to eachother becuase they are on the same subnet (which vehicles should be, if they are communicating directly to eachother), then as long as you use dedicated wireless access points that are strictly for inter-vehicle communication, you won't need to worry about prioritizing your data before anyone else's. These access points can communicate directly with known nearby access points via their own layer1/layer2 mechanisms, rather that depending on a network or transport protocol to achieve it, and rather than using the greater Internet to achieve that communication (since vehicles that are far enough apart that you would even need to send data that far are unlikely to need to communicate with eachother anyways).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Is anyone else more concerned about the little comment right before the highlighted one? Namely: "And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine". Like what ? 'User can't see a doctor or make an appointment without paying us!'
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust. Ie: in actual practice every one would set inappropriate priorities, and the system would be much the same as it is now ( all traffic "equal" ).
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it. Network Admins prioritize traffic on their networks, after all, in order to deliver better service. It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals. Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic, instead leveraging it to the point of breaking the internet all to make a few bucks.
I'd be interested in a Internet Prioritization solution which did not allow carriers to blackmail service providers but instead were forced to apply and respect appropriate QoS flags.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The ISP would just clean the flag on packets sent by mere mortals. And usually they use ATM anyway, so you can't possibly interfere with such traffic.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You started off Comcast's quote with an opening double quote, but you never closed it. So it looks like the rest of the summary is the quote when it's clearly not.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
While QOS was originally planned across the internet as a whole, it mostly only got used in Intranets to prioritize VOIP and video for conferencing. Companies can control it and make all parties play by the rules they set up. The internet at a large is too much of a free for all for that.
They've bought everyone they needed to. Why would they need sensible arguments? They can just let their PR have a bit of fun making up whatever they damn well please, because the decision has been purchased in their favor from the start.
If/When ISPs destroy Net Neutrality they won't honor your QOS markings, if they do use QOS for NN they will remark packets to their own rule sets on ingress.
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
Net neutrality is about prioritizing traffic based on who is sending or receiving it.
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it.
Perhaps there is, but I honestly have yet to hear such an argument.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets.
AFAIK, no one obeys QOS. Anywhere. I'd be surprised if anything is actually looking at QOS field, much acting upon it.
Because Comcast is a scummy company filled with lying liars who will say or do anything that they think will make them more money.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust.
That's not a problem if your QoS settings are evaluated against only your traffic. In other words, if you mark all of your packets high-priority, none of them really will be because they're all in the same priority queue. If implemented properly, the only one you can screw is yourself.
You buy bandwidth from your ISP, your bandwidth, in aggregate, is equal to everyone else's. You open a connection to Slashdot and begin sending and receiving packets with "normal priority" QoS headers; you then open a connection to your VoIP provider to make a call and begin sending them packets with "high priority" QoS headers. If you, then, saturate your available bandwidth, your connection to Slashdot will suffer but your VoIP call should not. Setting both to "high priority" negates any possible benefit to yourself but does not affect anyone else because your traffic isn't being evaluated against theirs.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
What sort of idiot do you have to be to believe such nonsense as this? So-called 'self driving cars' have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'net neutrality' or anything Comcast has anything to do with!
To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast wonâ(TM)t acknowledge is that they wonâ(TM)t need the internet to do it.
And as my summary noted there are really good reasons why they WILL use the internet, so good in fact you have to be an idiot to proclaim they will not...
And I see you are proclaiming they will not. If the shoe fits THAT well...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The argument it is already circumvented in the micro and Denial of Service attacks will continue to work as long as there are no larger controls, since the solution that is universally engaged in, is larger controls on traffic shaping. Welcome to the world.
I've seen this kind of horseshit come up lots of times; in Brocade too long ago. In large corporations,
top management is either drinking the Kool-Aid, Or maybe intentionally coming up with ridiculous bogus assertions that
anyone familiar with technology and a few brain cells could clearly recognize as bogus.
Network neutrality and self-driving cars have nothing to do with each other.
Also, network neutrality is not about "No paid prioritization"; it's about no paid prioritization of different products or services based on throttling or accelerating certain websites on the same internet (that thus exist at the same level of service) based on business reasons behind the scenes -- or other providers' competitive nature or refusal to pay extra eyeball taxes.
Network neutrality don't prevent you from selling an entirely separate network service to consumers AND sharing backbone infrastructure, and providing those separate network systems different priority.
If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel
The only kind of streaming movie that needs low-latency is two-way live video conferencing. Everything else can pre-buffer on a high-latency connection just fine.
As for Waze, you don't need Waze data 1/3 of a second faster on an ISP 'fast lane'.
Let's say the car ahead of me registers a pothole. For whatever reason the inter-car communication link has failed or simply cannot work between our models of cars.
It records the pothole and sends that information to FutureWaze.
I now have much less than 1/3 sec to get that information back. Whatever it is (object, pothole, water, etc) I need to know in under 1/10 or a second or better so the car can start slowing down or maneuvering to avoid.
I mean think of what you are fundamentally saying here. It's like Bill Gates saying "1/3 of a second should be fast enough for anything". Its a monumental failure of understanding the possibilities the future offers us all, and what becomes possible if you are willing to say "no speed is fast enough". You are literally CRIPPLING (or outright killing) all kinds of future technology simply for the sake of what???
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But even now, even with Net Neutrality in full force, all traffic cannot be "equal". Net Neutrality would ban traffic shaping of any sort, and probably including firewalls and traffic shaping on servers.
For instance, we ban all traffic from hi Spam and malware addresses, Net Neutrality would require us to open that traffic up, as "all traffic is equal". The point being, whatever you think is good about Net Neutrality is gonna be worse. The problem is, instead of reverting back to how it is now, they will keep tweaking the law until it is really fucked up and only special interests will have their way. AND we'll be all using Comcast because they got a Franchise agreement for the whole of the USA (single payer internet!)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Is traffic prioritization (i.e.: giving some uses of the network greater priority than others) against net neutrality?
Technically yes.
So would you want your car's telemetry screwed by the guy in the next car's bittorrenting?
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
If TFA is going to try to pick at Comcast's logic here, they might want to try to be logical about it. Comcast did not say the "instantaneuos data transmission" required was for V2V. Said author put those words in Comcast's mouth. There are plenty of other scenarios in which a vehicle may require prioritized communications with something not in range of its V2V radio... do you think a V2V traffic control system is going to be wired together solely with daisy chained V2V radios? No. And it isn't made out of unicorn farts either. On the back end of that is a plain old network. Any communications from a car to something not within a couple hundred feet of itself is going to need to travel across that network and god design practices say you get it off the interference-laden RF spectrum ASAP and backhaul it. Especially if it happens on the border between two municipal systems or involves a third party, some of this will cross the Internet.
Ghod I hate arguing on Comcast's behalf. Please people stop saying stupid shit so I can go take a shower.
Someone had to do it.
I'd want my car's autopilot to be completely autonomous.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why is Comcast (doing the same, dishonest shit it always does?)
Wait, I think I answered the question by accidentally typing the question wrong...
QoS has only limited usefulness if it's stripped at the ISP's edge, and that's the problem.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love to have QoS control over our traffic from it's origin to termination ( my phone server to digium's SIP gateway, for instance ). However, the problem is as I mentioned; while I might follow the rules, I'd be in the minority. The ISPs are the only ones in the right position to affect and implement appropriate QoS.
Which of course they wouldn't. No one believes that. Which is where we are today. Internet wide QoS would be ideal, but there's no effective way to implement because doing so would rely on trust.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Have gnu, will travel.
That's not my understanding of net neutrality at all. I always thought it was more a packet / host level prioritization thing. Blocking is, arguably, different, and does not fall under net neutrality. Nor does end point firewall and filtering.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
lots I don't understand here.
Indeed. You're confused about the basic premis. The answer to your question is:
Neutrality allows for different tier of service but not for the ISP to decide who gets what tier based on the content they send, nor to make the cost 'disappear' if they are also the content provider, or have cut a deal with one content provider that they would not entertain in general.
So, for example:
Netflix pays Comcast for both the upload and download cost of their data, so instead of counting your Netflix bytes against your cap the ISP counst them against Netflix's. (OK)
As above, but it's Comcast "paying themselves" the fee for HBO Go packets if and only if you also have the HBO cable subscription with Comcast (Not OK)
Comcast agrees to accept Netflix's zero rating deal, but refuses YouPorn's equivalent offer because of the content (not OK)
Netflix pays for priority routing of their packets, but YouTube does not resulting in noticeable difference in latency (OK)
Comcast makes a Zero rating deal with Netflix that includes an exclusivity clause that prevents them from Zero rating Amazon Prime Video. (Not OK)
Comcast decided they don't like the Bittorret format, so they throttle down Bittorrent packets (Not OK)
Comcast sold you X number of bytes of low latency transfer capacity and you exceeded that so now they throttle all your traffic down until you buy more capacity or somone else is paying for the priority channel (OK).
As above except instead of throttling all your traffic they only throttle video or audio streams. (Not OK)
> Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because using self driving cars is more humane than the way they would prefer to kill net neutrality.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
blocking what? Packets? Exactly what do you think firewalls do? Seriously, this kind of rule sound fantastic, until some Asshole ruins it for everyone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
For an internet provider they are pretty unclear of how IP protocols work.
a) there is no such thing as instantaneous
b) there is no such thing as error free transmission.
c) any given packet can take a different route
d) packets can arrive out of order
e) packets can be dropped
If they want guaranteed bandwidth they are using the wrong network.
Would you like a unicorn with that? How about a flying car?
Because they are full of shit, as always.
This isn't that unexpected when they're paying the legal team to creates as many pages of documents as possible arguing their side (pro paid prioritization of traffic).
I mean, this is all about theoretical implementations. MAYBE there would be a reason for cars to do some communications over wireless Internet services alongside of the allocated frequencies dedicated for the task? 99.9% sure not, but it COULD happen.
I think you can create fictional scenarios all day long where someone COULD find it useful to pay extra money for prioritized data traffic. The real issue, though, is that the concept of broadband Internet is about paying X amount for a certain transfer speed; not paying different rates based on what you're trying to do over a given connection. You would never think it was logical to pay your electric power company different rates based on which devices used the electricity that was consumed. You wouldn't expect your water company to break out your water usage by how many gallons were used by your dishwasher, vs. your toilets vs your shower, and then offer you better water pressure for your shower if you paid a premium.
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because they think it'll work.
Does there need to be another reason?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
networks that need near lossless transmission already have a premium cost. This is a real thing and has been for a couple decades. Whether it be from a HQ to a regional office or a hedge fund to a wall street broker. Dedicated P2P is a premium and no is suggesting it shouldn't be.
Their using the MVNO regulations to provide cell phone service. If last mile or virtual ISP rules were created, they'd have to open their own network to let other business provide services.
When a "bad hombre" is in the car a three letter agency needs to be able to communicate with the car with full reliability. How else can they tell the car to drive off a cliff or stop on railroad tracks in front of the oncoming train. Drones are so last year...
Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission,
Okay, if their cars can violate the laws of physics, I think they might deserve special treatment.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I thought net neutrality was about treating all traffic of the same type the same.
Autonomous cars comunicate amogst themselves via unlicensed spectrum, yes, but they comunicate with the backend cloud where many important services are provided via the usual internet.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. TCP/IP(v4&v6) have all the provisions for Diferentiated trafic and QoS. Many a career has been built developing such mechanisims.
the problem is not wether some trafic has to be prioritized. If autonomous vehicle trafic needs more priority than VoD, which in turn needs more Priority than email and S/FTP, that is fine and dandy.
The problem starts when the trafic from autonomous vehicles from Ford/GM have better priority than the Autonomous vehicles from Toyota and VolksWagen, which in turn have better priority than Autonomous behicles from tesla. Or when VoD trafic from, say comcast, has better priority than VoD trafic from Netflix and Hulu...
You see, net neutrality is not about not about having the same priority for all trafic, but about having different priorities for different types of trafic, but making sure that the same types of trafic get exactly the same priorities no matter whom originates or receives it.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Ok, so, what you're saying is that we're on the same page and you completely missed the point of my initial comment when you replied to it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I think you're missing my point.
Allowing end points to set their own QoS is just as bad as letting the ISPs do it. We need an intermediate authority which sets the QoS for end users but who doesn't stand any chance for profit from prioritizing one data stream provider over another.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think you're misunderstanding me. I read your comment as implying that blocking traffic on end user networks violates net neutrality. This is false.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
We have net neutrality now. You don't understand what it is, but the legislature is designed to keep it has it has been. The people against it want to change the rules to game the system so that rich people get to richer and the poor are SOL.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Why would you make the ridiculous claims that "most use ATM", or that ATM changes TCP? ATM is a transport mechanism like ethernet, and TCP works the same over it. Are you just trying to sound smart? If so, EPIC FAIL.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
net neutrality. This is false.
You think so. I think so. Some asshole will find a stupid judge and jury and sue your for not allowing his packets on your network, or worse, because you block your network from sending to his network. After all, net neutrality is about equal packets everywhere!
Don't believe me, assholes know how to ruin things for everyone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, I got your point; you still seem to be missing mine, though.
If your traffic is only measured against your other traffic, your QoS headers have no effect on anyone else's traffic. Follow?
It's a simple implementation, actually; your ISP already splits its aggregate bandwidth into rate-limited streams (or buckets, if you prefer) based on the speed you pay for. They can just as easily apply QoS rules defined for each stream on an individual basis.
Hell, my consumer-grade router can do that. I can assign vnets a fixed amount of bandwidth and each vnet can have its own QoS rules; one vnet having rules that set every packet to high priority doesn't affect the other vnets (of course, it also doesn't benefit that vnet, either).
In other words, your QoS rules decide which of your packets get dropped or delayed if one or more of your packets need to be dropped or delayed; they don't, in this hypothetical (and easy to implement) scenario, determine whether your packets or someone else's get dropped or delayed. That latter determination would need to be made by the ISP's own traffic management system and a fair way to determine that is to determine what percentage of the aggregate bandwidth belongs to each user (e.g. we've sold 100Tb/sec and you pat for 100Mb/sec, you "own" 0.0001% of available bandwidth) and ensure that each user gets that percentage of whatever aggregate bandwidth is actually available during times of congestion.
Then, you can set all of your QoS rules to high priority all day long and your rules don't affect me in the slightest.
To put it another way, call me when you've implemented this and know what you're actually talking about. I have and I do or I wouldn't be repeating it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Can you do whatever you want on your networks, but want Comcast limited to what it can do on its networks that it owns? You want the ability to control other peoples networks, please expect them to want to control yours.
Or would you accept Comcast saying "network congestion" as an excuse why your VOIP service doesn't work because your neighbor down the street is running several Torrents of porn out of his mom's basement? Because after all "Net Neutrality" says that every packet on Comcast Network is the same. No QOS allowed because that is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a good idea. However draconian rules and a million micro regulations designed for exceptions because it was short sighted and didn't account for assholes of the world aren't the solution it is going to be .
Seriously, the FIX for this is fixing where the problem actually resides, at the last mile. Fix last mile micro monopolies and you'll solve all Net Neutrality problems in such a way that everyone gets exactly what they want.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Holy shit, you are so ignorant that it is painful to read your post.
Net neutrality applies to hosting and transit providers. They must provide equal access to all authorized traffic, similar to public roads.
Endpoint filtering---your firewall and anti-spam applications---are not relevant to net neutrality at all.
I'm not going to buy a car that requires a low latency internet connection to function correctly.
That's just fucking stupid.
Use your heads. Comcast wants it because Comcast's globalist stockholders want it, and the stockholders want it because it gives the federal government new censorship power. Doesn't everyone already know how evil and anachronistic Comcast is? There's no natural synergy between self-driving cars and net neutrality, it's just bullshit.
I understand that. My point being; there is little difference between shaping to the edge of your network or to the next hop; the edge of the ISP's network ( bufferbloat aside ). We could realize real gains by accurate and appropriate QoS flowing from end point on a client's network all the way to the server on the remote network, without dropping ( too many ) packets, and certainly nothing noticeable. At the very least, it would allow ISPs to more fully utilize their infrastructure which, in my dreamland, would result in cost savings being passed on to the consumer.
If QoS were used correctly and appropriately. Which of course, we can't trust ISPs to do. Nor can we trust the ISPs to do either.
Mind you; I'm not advocating for or against net neutrality here. Due to the trust issues I lean towards being pro-neutrality, but it bothers my net admin bone in that it wastes capability.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
So you are just speculating about a possible future scenario based on your cynical view that all government regulation must be bad. Got it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am not a damn ISP routing traffic for all and sundry, so net neutrality laws don't apply to me. Saying "Maybe in the future something bad will happen as a consequence" is not a good argument against trying to regulate bad behavior that actually exists now. Nobody has EVER been saying that you can't block or shape traffic on your own network, and no amount of fear mongering on your part will change that.
You just basically start from the premise that anything that we, the people choose to do through our government will always turn out bad. Then you argue backwards from your desired conclusion to reach a set of statements that support it. That's called self justification, not an argument.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Archangel Micheal believes that anything the government does is automatically bad, and if it is some sort of "regulation" then it is even worse. Net Neutrality is a government regulation, therefore, in Micheal's world, it has to be bad. There is no other alternative, governments simply can not do good, ever.
Ok, so we're still semi on the same page, and you've given me a slightly different perspective which may well lead to a theoretical solution (which will never be implemented, even if it could work, because money). I have an appointment to get to, so I don't have time to put the concept into words right now; I'll reply to your post again when I find the time.
Who knows, maybe my idea will be workable and maybe, by en even smaller margin, it might get implemented.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
That's the point of net neutrality -- it's an attempt to keep ISPs from abusing QoS controls. Net neutrality does not prevent legitimate uses of QoS controls.
That's the point of net neutrality
I keep hearing that, but never seeing an actual policy document that says how. Other than vague plans completely cripple the use of QoS.
Someone had to do it.
Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic
In short, network engineers can be trusted with QoS flags because they care about optimizing the network, where suits cannot because they care about optimizing profits.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Any politician who agrees with this should have a pacemaker implanted that depends on instantaneous communication with a remote server through a Comcast connection.
There is a whole new generation of Slashdot users who don't know what the fuck they are doing.
As opposed to the older generation of Slashdot users who know what the fuck they are doing, but are too senile to remember it.
I'm part of the middle group who are just plain stoopid. Huzzah!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Even when they need a 200'ish page ball of mud to veil it from genpop, and an under the table paycheck to whoever is in charge.
Even internet trolls are better than telecom operators these days, ethically and moral-wise. What has the world come to. At least in the last century, all a company needed to make a buck was some dodgy catchy marketing, and a stupid enough target consumer group. Now they will attack core rights indiscriminately for that investor relations briefing. Innovation and capitalism cannot be senselessly name-dropped at will, and it's time someone sets the guidelines for such a problem in developed societies such as he US, before full-fledged leftism comes back with a vengeance.
My car's nav system is already autonomous, aside from infrequent map updates. All it needs is a clear view of some GPS satellites. Dodging pedestrians and detecting the edge of the road should not require a real time connection.
Have gnu, will travel.
Often-overlooked fact about QoS:
"Dropping" and "delaying" are two different things. We shouldn't treat them as synonymous.
E.g. in a VoIP stream, there's no point in delaying a packet - if you can't pass it on immediately, you should just drop it, because a packet delivered with significant delay is worse than not delivering it at all. Conversely, in a TCP stream, it's better to delay for a few milliseconds than to drop.
Uhm, do you even know what ATM is? It implements OSI levels up to 3 -- we don't really care about levels 1 and 2 as that's a hidden implementation detail, but what matters is that level 3 is routed. An ATM circuit goes at least from one edge of the ISP to another. IP packets are split and encapsulated inside, this means the user's bogus QoS fields are completely ignored and handled like any other payload. ATM has its own QoS that the customer can't put their grubby mitts on: among others, it prevents bursts in other traffic interrupting low-bandwidth high-priority connections that are handled specially.
Many newer networks use IP-in-IP instead, but the concept is the same.
And the ISP doesn't even care if you use TCP, UDP, ICMP or any of many odd protocols at that level. They may look at packet type to prioritize certain kinds of traffic, but that's no different from looking at TCP port as well. It's just a payload.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
It is you that don't understand Asynchronous Transfer Mode. In essence packets get encapsulated upon entry and then back again on the other end. It is no different than how a backbone performs the same function. Packets are not going to go slower or more quickly for that leg, but it is a very high speed leg. QoS info remains in tact, and continues to be useful where needed. QoS isn't used in the backbone. Good luck learning about networking!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Too bad the real-world latency for LTE,
Yes, today's LTE has that limitation...
But tomorrows cellular/wifi tech???????
THINK AHEAD PLEASE.
Realistically, self-driving cars can't assume data will be more current than O(minutes), and must be able to tolerate data that is O(hours) old
Yes, AND?????????
I mean can no one but me understand that the more instant the delivery of broadcast communication is of road issues the better? Can no-one understand the incredible importance of redundancy? Can no-one see this clearly? Now I understand how all geniuses of the past must have felt when trying to explain what seemed like a simple and obvious idea but they were hounded out of the village of whatever for witchcraft. Only it's not like my since thought here, that the faster the distribution of current road information the better, is in any way anything but the simplest and most obvious of common sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
FYI, a sizable percentage of VoIP-like traffic is over TCP these days, because UDP is too unreliable and suffers too badly from fragmentation, so being able to drop VoIP packets willy-nilly isn't really a safe assumption anymore.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You have been tricked into arguing nothing. That something, anything requires quick response times is how much bloody data, how much bandwidth. Good QoS should let low priority low data traffic through because it clears back log and even hold back high priority stuff because of the amount of data being sent. Then how continuous the data flow needs to be. Urgent signal send to autonomous vehicle is going to be pretty small. Net neutrality is exactly that treating all traffic neutrally, no measures placed upon source or destination, just on nature of traffic. They want to kill competitors, straight up and be able to sell that, you pay more and your competitors will go slower, not because the network needs that capacity but to destroy them. Than there is listening in, censorship, altering data transmission a whole range of corrupt stuff blocked by net neutrality laws.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period.
You could just open with "I don't understand QoS". It would save everyone reading the rest of your comment.
QoS is only useful on local networks. It is stripped or ignored as soon as you leave the local network because it has no meaning. Sure you'd like to have your voip packets have a higher priority for low latency but the carriers don't have a good way to tell what traffic is actually tagged correctly and you can be sure there are OSes out there that are just marking everything as high priority. So it becomes a untrustable situation, carrier can't trust the consumer to tag them correctly and the consumer can't trust the carrier to tag them or honor the tag already on them.
It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals.
Likewise, it's not unreasonable of me to cancel my service and move to a competitor when my ISP pulls these kind of shenanigans.
Oh, wait...
Net neutrality applies to the public internet.
My car's telemetry shouldn't be on the same network or frequency as the public internet.
This is straight up misdirection and lies from Comcast.
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Which is pretty stupid if you think about it. Let's add a method of flagging packets to have a priority, but, let's also make it legit for everyone to ignore it. Yeah, that sounds just brilliant.
I know. Right. It's like those faster travel lanes. We should have some mechanism that FORCES cars to go faster, even if it means people will die in an accident! The people who design these specs are much smarter than you. Don't you worry your empty little head about them.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I mean there are already prioritisation based on traffic type, thats called QoS (Quality of service) and its fine.
The problem is not prioritization, its prioritization for money.
Priorizing something for money is bad, prioritizing traffic based on it's nature isn't.
It's prioritizing the traffic for Tesla would be bad, prioritizing traffic for all Autonomous car is not.
It's still net neutral to prioritize traffic for good reasons and logic one two.
I dont think anybody here would mind if facebook was slowed ( partially, for a finite amount of time) because theres a need for autonomous cars (regardless of maker) being prioritized for life saving reasons.
Nonsense.
Network neutrality doesn't mean they can't deliver VOIP with low latency or anything of the sort. It just means that they can't deliver VOIP from company A with better latency than that from company B (presumably because A paid their extortion demand).
It especially means they can't deliver their own VOIP service with better latency than a 3rd party's VOIP.
But yes, it would be best if they would just honor flags set on the packet. Especially now that a lot of traffic is encrypted and they can't tell what it might be.
So, once Comcast gets control of your real-time in progress telemetry data they will have a completely new way to *break* more than your kneecaps? Thinking of skipping that monthly Comcast bill just to pay for something else like food or a roof over your head? Somehow this does not sound like a good thing (tm).
I've seen a decent solution floated for this: bandwidth caps per tier. e.g. unlimited low-priority, 200gb medium, 20gb high per month. Clients who abuse priorities would just hit their caps faster.
QoS is only useful on local networks.
Oh, I know, believe me. But an ISP's "local network" is a chunk of the Internet. Also, just because that is the way it is now, doesn't mean it will stay that way... though I have to admit given the security state BGP is still in, progress is slllloooooow.
Someone had to do it.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust.
That's not a problem if your QoS settings are evaluated against only your traffic. In other words, if you mark all of your packets high-priority, none of them really will be because they're all in the same priority queue. If implemented properly, the only one you can screw is yourself.
But where are the rent seeking possibilities in that?