Slashdot Mirror
"The FCC Still Doesn't Know How the Internet Works" (eff.org)
An anonymous reader writes:
The EFF describes the FCC's official plan to kill net neutrality as "riddled with technical errors and factual inaccuracies," including, for example, a false distinction between "Internet access service" and "a distinct transmission service" which the EFF calls "utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality."
"Besides not understanding how Internet access works, the FCC also has a troublingly limited knowledge of how the Domain Name System (DNS) works -- even though hundreds of engineers tried to explain it to them this past summer... As the FCC would have it, an Internet user actively expects their ISP to provide DNS to them." And in addition, "Like DNS, it treats caching as if it were some specialized service rather than an implementation detail and general-purpose computing technique."
"There are at least two possible explanations for all of these misunderstandings and technical errors. One is that, as we've suggested, the FCC doesn't understand how the Internet works. The second is that it doesn't care, because its real goal is simply to cobble together some technical justification for its plan to kill net neutrality. A linchpin of that plan is to reclassify broadband as an 'information service,' (rather than a 'telecommunications service,' or common carrier) and the FCC needs to offer some basis for it. So, we fear, it's making one up, and hoping no one will notice."
"We noticed," their editorial ends, urging Americans "to tell your lawmakers: Don't let the FCC sell the Internet out."
"Besides not understanding how Internet access works, the FCC also has a troublingly limited knowledge of how the Domain Name System (DNS) works -- even though hundreds of engineers tried to explain it to them this past summer... As the FCC would have it, an Internet user actively expects their ISP to provide DNS to them." And in addition, "Like DNS, it treats caching as if it were some specialized service rather than an implementation detail and general-purpose computing technique."
"There are at least two possible explanations for all of these misunderstandings and technical errors. One is that, as we've suggested, the FCC doesn't understand how the Internet works. The second is that it doesn't care, because its real goal is simply to cobble together some technical justification for its plan to kill net neutrality. A linchpin of that plan is to reclassify broadband as an 'information service,' (rather than a 'telecommunications service,' or common carrier) and the FCC needs to offer some basis for it. So, we fear, it's making one up, and hoping no one will notice."
"We noticed," their editorial ends, urging Americans "to tell your lawmakers: Don't let the FCC sell the Internet out."
Honestly, what can we do? This is an unelected board with a majority that will change this no matter what we say. Congress has not taken up the issue in any way, and doesn't seem to have any intention of ever doing so, so what would be the purpose of writing to them? It just looks to me like Ajit Pai is going to force this measure through, no matter the science, business, societal, or ethical concerns.
In short, the current FCC doesn't give a damn about any of us.
Come on it's just a series of tubes, it's not that hard to figure out.
Don't blame the FCC, blame the 48% that voted to put a lunatic administration in charge. If you assign a wolf to protect the chickens, you don't blame the wolf for eating the chickens.
Not sure they're just idiots.
Oh, why not corrupt ? It also works, isn't it ?
Totof
Let's put an organisation which didn't understand how the internet works in charge of regulating the internet! What could go wrong?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As long as they keep you guys crying like bitches, I'll be happy. haha
So Obama screwed up Iraq because Bush took it over and he just wanted to undo anything Bush had done?
That's the level of your argument. Perhaps you could engage with what people are actually saying and doing, rather than inventing straw men that only make you look bad, not your opponents?
Is the Internet really a series of tubes (regulated as telecommunications infrastructure is)? Or are we talking about data transmitted through various communications mediums (regulated as an "information service")? The answer, it turns out, is pretty important when it comes to our pre-existing laws. If the Internet is more than just data transmitted over radio/fiber/copper, then we need to come up with new legal definitions for what constitutes "telecommunications."
I'll bet you will be crying about how we need net neutrality when the companies dominating the internet start censoring you Nazi right wing clowns. Do you think Verizon or Google wants to perpetuate your Nazi crap? You can bet we'll be asking these companies to block access to websites disseminating your nonsense.
Everybody knows the internet is made up of tubes and highways.
So the FCC is removing rules they put in place based on a law passed in the early 1900's. The FCC knows nothing about how the internet works.
This seems like a good thing. The government is about making rules, and experience says that they do not really care if it is a good rule or not, just that they get paid a lot of money to make it.
I do not understand how many people expect a group that knows nothing about the internet can be expected to make a good decision about what is best for it. If you want to know how to improve ISP's, ask the people who are starting successful ISP businesses, and if there are not any, research why, before insisting on rules from the top down.
I do not want a know-nothing FCC making rules about how the internet should remain pure. If you want a pure internet get rid of the rules in your local governments that prevent other providers from providing your area a service. Open markets where customers are in charge. The reason areas only have one or two providers is because of government rules preventing smaller companies from installing fiber. Take away the government instituted monopolies and the free market can and does work.
It is easier to change policy for large corporations than it is the government. Companies can fail and die. If a government fails, well, look at Greece.
You have to classify traffic to prevent congestion. Congestion will break the interwebz. As soon as you're classifying traffic, which is already happening, you have no neutrality If you want a simple example of how neutrality breaks shared and limited resources, remove quotas from your file system or schedulers from CPU resource management.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
Please don't be a moron. Proper network traffic management is perfectly ok under NN. Networks have to have traffic controls, you just can't have a network without it. ISPs already tried to put this forth as a reason for no NN. Where NN comes in is what traffic management ISPs are allowed to do. Doing it for network health and usability is perfectly ok. Giving some customers preferential treatment? No.
Learn the difference, stop spreading misinformation.
Now the public can demand companies start blocking access to the popular right wing extremist sites. Private companies don't have to provide idiots with free speech.
So, they didn't know this back in 2015 either, when the "Net Neutrality" was enacted?
Or, maybe, the government should not be telling, how owners of the wires deal with their customers at all? What a novel thought...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Under Obama, we didn't get that, though. Under Obama, FCC decided to interpret internet access in a way that allowed it to regulate under existing enabling legislation, which may or may not have been appropriate, but that decision was planned to take effect under the Trump adminstration. We never had Net Neutrality under the Obama administration.
If the Obama administration had lobbied for legislation, instead of taking shortcuts of creative interpretations, then there'd be a law in place that FCC would probably be the agency responsible for enforcing. It's actually not too late do do that now, in fact. It's never too late, really, as congress always has the capability to create new laws.
The question is however, who gets to be allowed to do what and should the middlemen be allowed to do much of anything and if so, why? It isn't their packets to manage.
Start hording content on old HHD's. I feel a storm brewing. And admit to nothing electronically or otherwise, the walls have eye's. lol
Once these freaks can shape the net things are going to change fast.
It seems unlikely that they don't actually understand it. The problem here is an active attempt to do harm rather than just the usual incompetence. So the fact that they are publishing stuff that is wrong on this many levels just means that they are taking a lead from their masters and recognizing that they can say what they like regardless of any concept of reality.
Equally the general public will find it unlikely that they don't actually know so the EFF campaign might not be very effective as lobbying.
But if you take away their misinformation, they'll have nothing left! Then how will they defend the poor helpless megacorps just trying to make an extra million bucks?? Don't forget the trickle down benefits of that; the CEO might use $1-2 of that extra million to tip their yacht attendant before parking the bonus in an offshore tax haven.
The EFF does not know that, for residential home use, transport and Internet services are bundled by most providers.
Large enterprises indeed contract separate for transport and Internet services.
Many enterprises just use transport services to connect their branch offices to a central office.
Perhaps the FCC wanted to be sure both transport & Internet services were addressed, whether or not they are bundled.
Then Why the hell let them REGULATE The thing?!?
Life as we know it will end once Net Neutrality is repealed.
The only rational response is for everybody to march through the streets naked then douse themselves with gasoline and strike a match. This will also have the side benefit of reducing their carbon footprints to zero.
I think people wail about lack of competition of ISP fairly constantly.
There is a good reason why people have to go through job interviews in order to work in a specific field. You've got to prove you're qualified and have an idea what you're doing so that when you get to touch things nothing blows up. The whole FCC with Mr Pai is incompetent and should be fired. Right now. Given his absolute lack of fundamental knowledge about networks and how ignorant he is, it becomes obvious that he must have been placed in his current office due to purely political reasons and must have also taken a lot of money from Verizon and others.
I have a dream that one day every single politician/CEO will have to have X year of experience in a given field before being allowed to make any decisions.
There's no time for logic and reason! Come on! Hop on the outrage train! Everyone else is doing it!
The lack of ISP competition is due to the extreme degree of government-imposed regulation that the telecom industry must deal with. Of course there are few choices when complex regulation makes it prohibitively difficult to start an ISP, and so only a small number of large incumbents can participate. Yet nearly all of the 'solutions' for this problem involve yet more government-imposed regulation! Very few people realize that it's the regulation itself that is causing the problem.
they just don't care to run it the way you want them to. They're not stupid. Stop treating them as such. These people are winning and the rest of us are losing. One of the chief things that gets them support is that their supporters _don't_like_being_made_to_feel_dumb. I can't emphasize that enough. You won't believe the number of people who voted Trump (which is why we're losing NN, let us not forget) because they wanted to show people who looked down on them that they have political strength and power.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Obama did not make undoing the Bush presidency his own undertaking, in fact he kept a lot of Bush era policies that needed to stay in place. You're a moron.
the FCC also has a troublingly limited knowledge of how the Domain Name System (DNS) works -- even though hundreds of engineers tried to explain it to them this past summer
Well obviously this was "Mansplaining" and therefore invalid.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Common users do expect their provider to provide DNS. This could easily be eliminated if operating systems used a default DNS resolver provided by someone other than the ISPs, but as it is now, users will complain that "the internet is down" if the ISPs don't provide a DNS resolver.
You got it in one. Congratulations.
Anyway you didn't get net neutrality in fact - you got overbearing government regulation by fiat instead of legislation.
Thankfully Obama is gone and that behavior won't stand.
The companies dominating the Internet have been censoring the right since at least 2015.
I hope to see you killed in the street, and soon.
Why don't you sign up for an account Ajit?
No, networks do NOT need traffic controls. Fixed fucking pipeline without oversubscribing like a lying fuck is what we need.
You are the moron who has obviously never administered a network of any large scale.
Nah, I'll take the simple example of countries which have implemented NN including the US and internet still seems to be working.
Actually, it's due to the nature of infrastructure, including the legal rights of the property owners whose land the cables are installed on.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Not that people need to be reminded of this, but a huge part of this administration is irresponsible and dangerous ignorance or pure maliciousness to the benefit of few, which has not changed anything so far quite unfortunately.
I hope the EFF, ACLU and the lawsuits that are coming against the FCC results in something. Unfortunately though, the justice system isn't showing many signs that it's all that much different from the administration too.
Did anyone else read the article and find that the examples citing the fcc not understanding the internet were pretty weak? Take the first example:
The FCC Still Doesnâ(TM)t Understand That Using the Internet Means Having Your ISP Transmit Packets For You
The article cites the following statements taken from the fcc document
End users do not expect to receive (or pay for) two distinct servicesâ"both Internet access service and a distinct transmission service, for example.â
Certainly what the fcc is saying is true, that users expect to pay a single access fee for internet access. So how does this relate exactly to the articleâ(TM)s claim that the fcc doesnâ(TM)t understand using the internet means having your ISP transmit packets for you? Maybe I am missing something but it seems if the article is not in sync with what the fcc is trying to say and why the fcc chose to use this hypothetical counter example.
Those that have no idea how the internet works want to dictate how it should work.
Hopefully it's also going to end as usual: Nobody gives a shit about their "regulations" and thing continue to run like they did.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
they know full well how it works. They're doing it on purpose because their corporate overlords demand it. But hey, the submitter is a jackass that fell for the head fake
Found the shill.
Next time, at least register an account.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, networks do NOT need traffic controls. Fixed fucking pipeline without oversubscribing like a lying fuck is what we need.
You are the moron who has obviously never administered a network of any large scale.
Man, the stupid is strong with this one. Look, oversubscribing bandwidth is a perfectly acceptable thing to be doing. When one calculates the needs of 1000's of users, 95% of those users are not going to be using anything near what the pipe is capable of. This is where traffic and congestion controls come in. A small number of people using lots of bandwidth can coexist just fine with a lot of low-bandwidth users. This is simple shit, you are the stupid one. Oversubscribing isn't a problem, it's how ISP's make money. I have no problem with it. It's just smart business. Most of the users won't use the capacity.
Now please, go spread your stupid elsewhere. Grow some braincells and get an education before you post about something you obviously know nothing about.
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
It bothers me that you might actually not be trolling and that you believe the crap you just wrote.
Prior to Ex-Chairman Wheeler's actions, there were several instances of violations of what we call Net Neutrality which is why he took the actions he did.
The problem isn't that there weren't problems before, it's that people like you have no idea how bad it could have gotten had we not taken action.
No, networks do NOT need traffic controls. Fixed fucking pipeline without oversubscribing like a lying fuck is what we need.
You are the moron who has obviously never administered a network of any large scale.
Same thing with roads!
Everyone needs their own private road without any light or stop sign, to go wherever they want to go.
As others have said: If Obama cured cancer, Trump would bring it back.
You are the moron who has obviously never administered a network of any large scale.
If you think large scale networks don't need traffic controls, then you've obviously never administered a large scale network yourself.
The EFF is giving way too much credit to the current FCC if they are giving them the benefit of the doubt that they just don't know any better. Ajit and friends know exactly what they're doing, and are doing it anyway, because that's what the people pulling their strings told them to do. They were all bought and paid for even before election day.
It really is kind of a sad statement about how far we've fallen when an organization that should barely register on most people's radar it's so boring, is sparking protests managing to gather a couple hundred people in multiple locations. Not to mention we have a President claiming quite overtly that he is only going to nominate judges that hold specific views on particular political issues.
There's no sense in arguing with PopeCrapso - he's just a troll. if the Republicans suddenly came out for Net Neutrality as a boon for capitalism he'd just as readily flip his position.
EFF: this is how the internet *is*.
FCC: this is how our backers think the internet *aught be*.
The lack of ISP competition is due to the extreme degree of government-imposed regulation that the telecom industry must deal with. Of course there are few choices when complex regulation makes it prohibitively difficult to start an ISP, and so only a small number of large incumbents can participate. Yet nearly all of the 'solutions' for this problem involve yet more government-imposed regulation! Very few people realize that it's the regulation itself that is causing the problem.
Right - because starting an ISP means you can just connect to the Internet magically (by sticking a wire into the cloud?) as opposed to what we do in the real world by connecting to one of those ISPs.
Oh, and if you remove Title II, you have no mandate to allow anyone a connection to the Internet.
Brilliant!
There's no sense in arguing with PopeCrapso - he's just a troll. if the Republicans suddenly came out for Net Neutrality as a boon for capitalism he'd just as readily flip his position.
+1 for slashdot seeming a friendlier place due to this comment (don't ask about the overall tally). Good though that I was considering the soapboxing as making a point publicly rather than arguing with a commenter that could be a state sponsored propaganda bot for all I know or particularly care. Also for the record that was my first post under this article (different AC than the original doublequoted comments). PopeRatzo did have at least a slightly upmodded comment, and has had many upmodded/prominently displayed comments in the past, so that, rather than perceivedness of non-trolldom, was why I opted to make that point at that position under this article. And I'm half-troll myself, and I in fact think that jackoff/masturbation/catholicpope/internetporn/freespeech/netneutrality/homeserver/slashdotcompetition is a usefully relevant issue-chain should the discussion branch out much further. :)
The companies dominating the Internet have been censoring the right since at least 2015.
I hope to see you killed in the street, and soon.
With that last sentence you are on the border of incitement. I certainly hope that any civilised country draws the line at incitement, and this has nothing to do with left, right, up, down, black, white, purple, or yellow. Encouraging people to be killed should be just as illegal on the internet as in other media.
The issue you didn't highlight enough/at-all is Free Speech. Some bible-belt regional monopoly ISP decides that a certain popular internet porn site is 'unhealthy' for their internet and causing 'usability' problems and thus 'manages their traffic'. The high bandwidth porn users complain that the other customers are getting preferential treatment, and the ISPs say - "no, we are treating all customers equally, obviously as a service we want our good mainstream Netflix users to get solid performance while the dirty porn slurping jackoffs get throttled".
Seriously, that is what this is about.
Actually, I do, for one of the nation's larger mental health companies.
And you know what keeps things working smoothly? We ignored the ISPs and their oversubscribed business class lines, went to a Tier-1 provider, and that's the end of fucking that. From there, all of the terminals only transmit text, so we cap bandwidth on each network port for each terminal to 2 megabits. For the rare few using laptops (usually the management, with a couple of high-level doctors in the mix,) they're provisioned the same slice of bandwidth on the wireless portion of the internal network.
We also lock down access to the internet and do not allow any software other than what we need on the systems, because these people are to be performing their job, not fucking around on the internet.
You have no clue. Feel free to come back when you've done this for a decade.
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
It bothers me that you might actually not be trolling and that you believe the crap you just wrote.
Prior to Ex-Chairman Wheeler's actions, there were several instances of violations of what we call Net Neutrality which is why he took the actions he did.
The problem isn't that there weren't problems before, it's that people like you have no idea how bad it could have gotten had we not taken action.
I believe pretty-much everything I write, I don't think lying is effective or useful.
I also don't believe in deflection or misdirection, so let me say this once again for you seem to be special:
THIS ISSUE ISN'T TECHNICAL, IT'S LEGAL!
I wrote in all caps and in bold, so that it might stand out more in the overall text.
Did you hear it? Did you understand the words?
The legal issues far outweigh the technical issues. I'm personally favor of NN, but not at the expense of giving all federal agencies the ability to regulate whatever they want, and to go against the wishes of congress.
Did you understand that? Did you hear the words, and do they make sense?
Now give me a legal argument as to why the FCC should step in and enforce NN, noting that their prior attempt was struck down by the supreme court.
I'm waiting.
"Preferential treatment" is defined by the CiR in contract with the ISP. "Traffic management" necessarily implies no neutrality.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
You're a traitor.
What CiR are you paying for? How does your Tier 1 provider shape and police your traffic before it hits their backbone?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
This false distinction between “Internet access service” and “a distinct transmission service” is utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality. As the FCC would have it, there is some sort of “transmission” that is separate from the Internet that ISPs provide access to.
As usual I feel behind the curve in trying to understand where these guys are coming from.
Back in the day, when the "Internet" and AOL was the same thing to many people and you accessed it through a dial-up modem, there was definitely a distinction between packet transmission and ISP provided services. I remember trying to get USENET access through my dad's system where AOL was the "ISP." Everything in their app worked fine and you could do some "Internety" things but on the Windows side there didn't seem to be anything like a protocol stack that was recognizable to anyone used to using *nix type systems. Maybe I just didn't know what I was doing but I couldn't even get a PING from the command line shell to my home system which had a public IP address.
Wouldn't the FCC's position make sense if this was still the way we were doing things? Maybe the top people there think it is.
The FCC can't overrule the will of congress, and in fact their prior attempt (prior to the one being discussed) was struck down by the supreme court.
I assume that you're talking about the "third way" approach, in which the FCC tried to impose network neutrality while designating ISPs as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services." The court struck that down because the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate information services in this way - in fact I don't think that "information service" is a real thing, it's just a term that they made up as a half-assed compromise - but they did have the authority to regulate telecommunications services. So, the court said, all that the FCC needed to do was change this designation, then they could apply network neutrality without issue. Both of these powers, determining what what category a service falls under, and regulating telecommunications services, are powers granted to the FCC by congress.
I don't know what you mean by "visceral argument." You seem to agree with me that our current Republican government is responsible for selling us out, you just don't seem to think that that this is a problem. You also make reference to an explicit instruction by congress not to regulate the internet - I'm not familiar with this instruction, but it is certain that it either doesn't say what you're implying or that it's one of multiple instructions that the FCC has received on this issue (I'm sure that they have had many, and I doubt that they all agree).
Porn, Netflix, Emergency 911 VoIP calls... Net Neutrality says to treat them all the same. Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
It's worthless.
It's like selling brass knuckles as a paper weight. The more broad they make terms, the more crap enforcement can get away with.
Per location, 20Gbit CIR at POE with a 15Gbit CDR, to match the single 20 Gbit FRS at every location. They do not shape anything, by negotiated contractual obligation. To do so would put them in the legal mess of interfering with medical facilities. Hospitals and mental health facilities enjoy a fair bit of legal protection which many other businesses do not.
They just need to know who's giving them their money.
At his point, that's the people who run the telco and cable companies.
What, you still think that the higher-ups in the Federal Government actually care about We The People? Have you been hiding under a rock for the last several Presidential administrations?
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
You went on for quite a while talking about something completely different than the GP, who clearly meant selling bandwidth they can't actually provide without regard to the underlying techniques used to guarantee it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes, and that is why we don't want the FCC getting more power to regulate the Internet!
For some reason, the EFF seems to think that it is a good idea to put an organization that "doesn't understand how Internet access works" and "has a troublingly limited knowledge of how the Domain Name System works" in charge of regulating them.
Thank you, EFF, for making the case against net neutrality so well: no sane person would want to give that power to an organization that doesn't understand Internet access.
You should learn about QoS and ... well pretty much everything else. Also, 911 specifically doesn't rely on VOIP, because that would be stupid, but NOBODY is claiming they can't give E911 service a priority.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
They are all lawyers
Management is the huge wrench that is thrown in the gears of Net Neutrality. Get rid of management and let the Engineers run it.
Neither is Trump. You completely missed the point of the comment. Try again.
The FCC can't overrule the will of congress, and in fact their prior attempt (prior to the one being discussed) was struck down by the supreme court.
I assume that you're talking about the "third way" approach, in which the FCC tried to impose network neutrality while designating ISPs as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services." The court struck that down
I think that person was talking about the "Nth way, N>2" approach. Open your mind. Think outside the /existing legislation box/. Sure, plenty of possible legislation will be shot down by scotus, that is why you have to demonstrate your competency as legislaters and draft something that won't. I understand your pessimism, but please don't frame the argument in any way that lets congress off the hook. It's on them. Always has been.
QoS & neutrality are mutually exclusive. QoS is what manages traffic congestion that would otherwise break the interwebz. Net neutrality, while politically popular, is not technically desirable. Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Were you asleep the last 6 years of the Obama administration? The republicans were the obstructionist "Party of NO." Getting congress to do literally ANYTHING was futile.
Doing it for network health and usability is perfectly ok. Giving some customers preferential treatment? No.
The practical problem is that those two different motivations can result in the same (perceived) results to the end user. And then they call the FCC and bitch. And then there's an investigation. And then the ISP sure better have created logs for every step taken "for network health and usability" (along with why they took each of those steps) to try to make sure the investigation only results in a time-sinking royal pain in the ass rather than a fine. And everyone's monthly rates go up (again) because of the extra layer of administrative bureaucracy that has to exist to manage all that.
With all the wailing in this thread about non-technical people in the FCC making technically-driven decisions, that's exactly what was happening on a daily basis on the enforcement side. And that's one of the many reasons why letting the government second-guess and micromanage ISPs' business and operational decisions is a fundamentally bad idea.
Has anybody else notice prices going up on Netflix and PS Vue? Both services increase prices this month! How does this help competition? The FCC tells the Comcast and Verizon they can throttle diffent packets Of legitimate competitors to their cable services unless they pay for access to us. Government sanctioned extortion and antitrust. This is what you get vote Republican. They are just going to follow what the superpacs them to do. No thought about the cost to the American people. Picking winners and losers based on donation amount. We will never win with them in office.
Why are any of those who are 'in charge' in that position? I think it's been established that it's not 'because democracy.'
Requiem for the American Dream
I wouldn't say clearly. Not the way I understood it, given the "fixed pipeline" and "no over subscribing".
There is plenty of competition in the market to keep the Internet neutral: the Internet was originally created by the DOD decades before multiple corporations offered more affordable service. We have gone from 28k modems to 1 gig per second fiber-to-the-home within my short 30-year lifespan. Why don't people spend time complaining about the cost of a gallon of gas in 2017, or even the price of a Whopper at Burger King--both of which are quite a bit more expensive than they were 30 years ago, even though they are required for basic survival??? What about bottled water for that matter?!?
Where you spend most time APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self check vs. infection built-in)
With fibre-optic cable networks, the signals travel at a fixed bit rate, but you get a maximum data transfer rate based on your pricing option).
Would that be characterizable as a "paid fast lane" with the "lower priced slow lane" option? OMG. What a bad joke.
Wishful thinking is not incitement.
Bush era screwed up so badly that the rest of the world now suffers from influx of refugees. Clinton era decisions are the cause for the crash in '08. Obama was a mediocre president that lacked power to clean up the crap from both earlier administrations and therefore we got Trump who by the rest of the world is seen as a clown.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
No, I think he'd be like me and think: "Holy shit, did Republicans just grow a spine and/or conscience?!" Note: I am a former Republican who left the party because they completely fucking sold out to big corporations and the batshit crazy 'evangelical Christians' who are anything but evangelical or Christian.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
With evidence of why China imitated what's in my other post per your complaint http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ vs. DNS issues galore (riddled by security issues too https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/
APK
P.S.=> My other post has a tool to FIX ALL THAT for you & you yourself FULLY control it https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11459313&cid=55709297/ apk
The difference here is type of service compared to who's providing the service.
So QoS can be fine. Prioritizing VoIP over a videostream is acceptable but prioritizing two different VoIP streams differently aren't.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Bullshit. The cables are installed on the same public egresses that the roads and water/sewer services run on.
Once again you show that you know nothing about net neutrality.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Giving some customers preferential treatment? No.
I've always wondered about this part. Why shouldn't a customer be able to pay more to get a better service? When I go get a visa I can pay an expedited fee to get it done in 24h or wait a month to get my passport back. When sending a package with DHL I can pay for overnight shipping or 3-day shipping, or alternatively leave it in the hands of the USPS. To me the problem isn't NN or no NN, but of monopolies abusing their power. Break the monopoly and it won't matter anymore.
Corollary: if Obama called forth the Devil from the pits of hell, Trump would drive him back.
Good morning, attorney Dewey! How are your partners Cheatum and Howe find these days?
It's only censorship if it's teh gubmint doing it. If it's Gawd-fearin' good ol' boys it's fine.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Traffic management is fine unless you regularly drop or delay packets. You can reorder packets in a very short timeframe. As soon as you drop or delay packets on a regular basis, you need to upgrade your tubes. Overselling is necessary, but it's not an excuse for congestion. You can only oversell capacity that would otherwise go unused.
If the FCC doesn't know how the internet works, then why are you so enthusiastic about making them regulate it in the first place, Slashdot?
You were doing OK until you started insulting the other guy. Congestion control is not OK. Congestion control means there is congestion, which means you oversold your bandwidth too much and need to upgrade. Congestion can occur occasionally, but the kind of congestion that needs to be "managed" is the kind that must not occur. If there's a slowdown every evening, you're doing networking wrong.
Like what, Patriot Act extensions, Guantanamo Bay and murdering people with drones?
If the board of a bank is incompetent, not even communists would say that means all banks are incompetently run. They'd say that bank needs a new board. The problem with the FCC isn't that it's a government organization. The problem is that it has been stacked with corporate hacks appointed by both parties.
Which means - stay with me here - the solution isn't to get rid of the FCC, the solution is to stop nominating hacks like Pai to be on it.
Porn, Netflix, Emergency 911 VoIP calls... Net Neutrality says to treat them all the same.
And that's how it should be. There is no need to prioritize as long as the bandwidth isn't maxed out. "Traffic management" is (with very few exceptions) a euphemism for choosing which part of the contract to ignore. If your transit is full, you need to upgrade it, not "manage the traffic" to make it fit through the bottleneck. If you use traffic management to keep VoIP traffic at a constant low jitter, but don't drop packets or delay them more than by reordering them in a short timeframe, then that is acceptable traffic management. Nobody does that much work just to provide better VoIP service. Traffic management is congestion management. Congestion management is trying to get away without making a necessary upgrade. Traffic management is saving money by not giving customers what they paid for.
Because the ISPs aren't thinking about charging their customers more. They're thinking about charging businesses that aren't their customers, the content providers. Suppose you want to start a web hosting company. Without net neutrality, unless you pay every consumer ISP out there for speedy access to their network, you won't have a product: Your servers will seem slow and sometimes almost unreachable by many people all over the world. It doesn't matter that you pay your ISPs plenty and have no congestion on your end. The traffic will hit a brick wall when it enters the networks of consumer ISPs, unless you pay for the fast lane. So you pay off Comcast and AT&T and you're good, right? No. You also need to pay off ISPs in all the other countries where your customers or the visitors of your customers' websites are located. This is just impractical. Only big existing businesses can afford the many different fast lane negotiations and payments.
Bush era screwed up so badly that the rest of the world now suffers from influx of refugees. Clinton era decisions are the cause for the crash in '08. Obama was a mediocre president that lacked power to clean up the crap from both earlier administrations and therefore we got Trump who by the rest of the world is seen as a clown.
I'm from the rest of the world, and I hate to break this to you ,,, but we'd consider calling Trump a clown an insult to clowns everywhere.
Buffoon is the word I'd choose.
Of course, I'd use other words too, but I know Americans don't like to hear cursing so I won't offend you by writing them here.
Prioritizing VoIP over a videostream is acceptable
No, it really is not acceptable. The only time you need to do that is when there is congestion. The only acceptable remedy for congestion is bandwidth upgrades. If you allow prioritization of VoIP, then you allow providers to throttle videostreams. Why do you think that should be acceptable? Didn't the stream consumers pay for their bandwidth? They did, just like the VoIP users, so give them what they paid for.
Your point being? His voters wanted him to undo all of the extra-legal things Obama did.
Your institution use the full 20G bandwidth at all locations? In my previous experience, remote clinics -- when properly shaped and policed -- can run on 10Mb virtual circuit or less. A friend manages 50+ medical imaging sites on a shared 500Mb EVC. If your Tier 1 supplier is not shaping, then you're probably on a dedicated connection (not cheap) and not sharing the bandwidth with other subscribers. Not surprising from a HC institution; rising cost of HC & all.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
yeah, I try to stay out of the politics & stick to the technical realities. Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Yeah, you've posted that 27 times now and it makes you look just as stupid as it did the last 26 times.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Like what, Patriot Act extensions, Guantanamo Bay and murdering people with drones?
No. Those were the policies that didn't need to stay in place.