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."
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...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
I think the first thing to do is to ask ourselves, Why is there so much hyperbole regarding this matter? While I want an Internet where all packets are treated equally, regardless of their content or source/destination, I find it disconcerting to see how the EFF, Reddit, and others are responding. It's not a calm, measured, intelligent response we're seeing. It's much more visceral and unruly. Just look at this submission. It's clearly not about trying to give us an impartial understanding of all sides of this issue. It's clearly pushing an agenda. Regardless of what one thinks about this issue, the way it's being opposed with mania and panic should leave us worried.
Your comment is a great example of the problem at hand. You've resorted to snark, and to insults, and to ad hominem, and to hyperbole, and to exaggeration, and to conspiracy theories, and to a panic. You haven't given any reasonable, measured, intelligent argument regarding net neutrality. So it's hard to take what you're saying seriously. You come off as amateurish at best, and rather unhinged otherwise.
If that's your goal, then you're about 10 to 15 years too late.
The modern Internet is an abomination compared to what it once was like, when things were far more decentralized and much less corporate-controlled than they are today.
Look at web sites like Reddit, Stack Overflow, Hacker News and even Slashdot. These discussion sites are rife with things like "voting", "moderation" and/or "banning users", which normal people consider to be acts of censorship.
Look at Wikipedia. It has become a bureaucratic hellhole where more emphasis is placed on arguing about how to engage in editing than is put on collecting factual, high-quality content.
Look at Facebook and Google, which are all about harvesting your personal information in order to profit from it.
Even organizations like the EFF and Moz://a and the FSF have become more and more about forcing left wing agendas than working toward anything beneficial, I think.
The ones pushing hard for this supposed "net neutrality" sound very much like the organizations you claim to be against!
The organizations supporting this twisted approach to "net neutrality" are the ones that, in my opinion, cause the most harm to the Internet as a whole these days.
I understand the issues perfectly. My financial incentive? Not wanting to see my Internet service bill go up to subsidize those watching Amazon and Netflix, which it MUST if "Net Neutrality" stays.
"They" never asked for government's protection of the monopoly. Your beloved FDR forced it upon "them". We've been paying for that evil Statist's misgovernment for decades.
Fortunately, the communication monopolies are shattering somewhat. Unfortunately, that process is slow and remains reversible — thanks to government.
Does it? Well, then it also gets to detach them. Suck it up, cupcake. Live by the government, die by the government, so to speak.
But, hey, thank you for admitting, that in your opinion the FCC is there to help protect the big business monopolies — you don't seem to mind it at all.
Bullshit. There is no fairness in "Net Neutrality" — it is not about that in the least.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's hard to tell with all the general cross subsidization with television service and retention discounts, but then, ISPs have only been regulated under Title II for around two years. Have you seen an actual bill recently that included cable television and Internet service at a decent speed for under $100 per month?
There are only three options here if an ISP wants to remain in business when more and more people are signing up for streaming video services: charge the streaming service for the performance it demands from their network beyond that which was reasonably foreseen, charge the customer directly for the burst traffic like electricity, or charge EVERYONE regardless of whether they use the streaming service or not. Under Net Neutrality, only the third option is actually available; the first now being illegal, and the second one being unacceptable in the marketplace.
The Democrats and the Obama administration were doing that as well, arguably even more than the the Trump administration and the Republicans. Democrats (and establishment Republicans) lost so badly across the board because Americans got pissed off with that kind of corruption.
Not if Trump can appoint conservative judges fast enough. With a bit of luck, RBG will be forced to retire during his administration as well.