The average person blathering on about 'BUT MUH BANDWIDTH!' has no clue about the problems, its no wonder that various ISP want to be able to negotiate with the massive companies putting completely unrestricted traffic on their networks, now they are going to be hit with 4K game streaming on top of Youtube and Netflix and all the spam etc.
I want some version of NN too but not the short sighted heavy handed restrictive version that was imposed previously.
Its only the biggest companies putting massive traffic on the network that benefit from NN, not any users.
Pure nonsense, just another 'Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLIFIED!' ignorance thing and an assumption of other perspectives to suit that drivel.
1. Total bandwidth is a fixed thing at each hop between you and the destination, even if its local, you are not guaranteed max speed to any site anywhere. All available bandwidth is zero sum so if something else is using up 99% of the max then you only get 1%.
2. Someone has to pay to handle the streaming volume now let alone the 4K-8K-3D streaming to come in the future. So you pay for upgrades to your local ISP network or they 'have to' and or will throttle or make new agreements with their peers, and or make new agreements with companies putting large amount of data across their network. The current version of NN screws these custom agreements in every way possible so the highest probability is the cost for upgrading goes to the local subscribers.
3. Historically the peering agreements were balanced on how much traffic was added to the network, and there have been many agreements for various companies to pay extra for their content at various stages over the years, the current NN makes this very difficult or impossible.
4. Notice how ALL the major companies (Youtube/Google/Netflix/Facebook/etc) which add large bulk data to the network are for NN, vs all the companies which via hardware upgrade outlays and peering agreements that ultimately support this bandwidth use are not (pick your local ISP or trunking company here). Fair arguements can be made that the version of NN 'everyone' seems to want seriously impacts competition for ISP and routing companies, as in 'why upgrade, everyone has to pay the same, we'll wait for enough complaints then when forced we'll spend'.
The NN question is not as simple as Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!
I'm sure there are lots of other ideas, but I think if we really wanted to do something concrete to improve internet for everyone, keep that bad version of NN repealed, and then disallow local/regional ISP monopolies in their various forms and see what happens.
Clearly you do not understand. The speeds quoted at the ISP side barely matter beyond a certain point, no doubt most of the time they are able to deliver that rate for their local connection as advertised, but to suggest that getting that advertised packet rate everywhere on the internet is completely ignorant of how the thing works.
You will not get your 'rated' bandwidth pretty much anywhere but very local to you say within a hop or 3, every hop away adds more latency and all packet speeds are determined by local throughput of each.
Quick sample trace edited to show some important bits, me on my computer somewhere.
7 47 ms 47 ms 49 ms rc2nr-be110-1.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.76.58]
8 69 ms 67 ms 67 ms rc3fs-hge0-7-0-0.mt.shawcable.net [66.163.76.22]
9 75 ms 79 ms 80 ms rc1eqn-tge0-0-0-0.uk.shawcable.net [66.163.78.14] 10 86 ms 83 ms 83 ms rc3ar-tge0-14-0-7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.75.81 11 83 ms 85 ms 85 ms ge-4-1-0.mpr1.iad10.us.mfnx.net [206.126.236.86] 12 89 ms 83 ms 83 ms ae6.cr1.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.20.117] Destination site elsewhere, 5 networks crossed a total of 20 or so hops for 1 connection.
All of those routers are rate limited in some way, any one of them could be saturated temporarily or otherwise and cause a slowdown for through traffic.
I believe but haven't looked into it in a while that most peering agreements today are still voluntary and something close to 1:1 for traffic on/off. NN really puts a damper on this business angle of the equation.
In short no, you pay for a maximum rate not a guaranteed rate. And chances are you get more down rate than up rate, because generally peering costs are for putting traffic on the network.
Every time I see these 'net neutrality' things all I can think about is Idiocracy and the 'its got electrolytes' bit, and the NN version of the same is 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified'.
Competition in a zero sum environment:
The total bandwidth available is not short time frame elastic, its completely static. So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for: Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules. Along comes SUPERNetflix with double goodness and 4X the bandwidth use which everyone starts using because double is mo gooderer, and now they use say 99% of the available bandwidth and the same ISP/trunking/peering companies (yes these numbers are exaggerated) are unable to charge more or negotiate a throttling plan due to the imposed rules.
The net result is all internet traffic is essentially throttled down to a max of 1% and the ISP is handcuffed, unable to charge for fair use, or throttle in the best interest of its customers.
Thats just 1 example I could think of easily, there are probably many more, 1 more would be something along the lines of a barrier to entry for a modest bandwidth need company having to pay the higher average prices rather than working out a deal short or long term. Basically they have to compete against the biggest companies paying for the same services.
What we get is articles and reports of throttling which cannot be substantiated without having monitoring at every hop along the way to rule out bandwidth being used for other purposes. And bad marketing ideas like the one from the summary, which has nothing to do with NN as its the ISP using their own bandwidth for their own purposes (see below).
If we really wanted to do something concrete to improve internet for everyone, disallow local/regional ISP monopolies in their various forms and see what happens.
Again, complete lack of imagination, the fact that you can put forward of 1 scenario out of an infinite supply of them is nonsense, the point of what i'm saying is that a human is much more capable of handling random problems, certainly we can get robotic control to some number of 9's, for the routine operation 99.99% who knows but something out of the ordinary happens 1/10000 then the computer at best can just brake, report a failure and stop.
And pay attention, i'm not arguing against computer controlled trains, just that its far from the trivial 'challenging?' the OP started with, thats all.
the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.
There is nothing you can do about possibilities that were unforeseen. Trains don't react fast enough for that to even be a thing. You would absolutely need planning for the human in the train to be able to do anything to solve some sort of problem.
And I consider that a perfect example of lack of imagination, you are suggesting that there is 'nothing ever' that could be done? Certainly if it was the best robot 'AI' today then I agree, but a human can do orders of magnitude more than the best AI today let alone a good expert system robot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Was just thinking about this some more, and I dont know if the average commercial or custom robot control system is hardened to external bit shifts, that happens often enough to be a worry.
A sensor breaks down or just reports wrong values somewhere or some 'simple' logic in the programming doesn't cover an infinite number of 'unforeseeable circumstances' the new better and cheaper than a human robot will cause an accident as well.
This is nothing new in engineering, human failures in imagination have caused innumerable disasters over history
Cue someone coming in and blithely saying 'but bounds checking and error control you eediot11!!', and the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.
Yes yes 99.99% of it will be ironed out, and I have no doubt it will be very reliable but an accident will still happen where human interaction could have prevented it.
What more do you need to say, where does all this magical money come from and what happens when it runs out?
Its serfdom V3.0, people dependent on the new feudal overlords, rent your computer power, you dont own the stuff you bought its licensed, you can't fix your stuff its restricted, rent your place to live, bend the knee to get your 'income', dont complain we are tracking everything you say online.
I still prefer the ladder we build ourselves over the rope they dangle down for you at their whim.
"Citizen get in line for your rations, and watch what you say online, we are monitoring and scoring you. As always we do this is for your own good, and remember to praise your superior leaders."
Paraphrasing Dinesh D'Souza: I would rather have the ladder to climb, and yes its 'harder', but at least its not the rope controlled by someone else to be just holding on to and hoping.
The reason the first versions of DOOM brought down networks was its use of broadcast packets, it was patched out in later versions.
Those packets would repeat across routers to other locations over wan links and more, total network mayhem back then. I dont recall the game using any special amount of bandwidth at all beyond the broadcast packet problem.
Once it was patched it was mostly benign on a local segment.
I have already conceded that the strict literal governmental protections are there, and have nothing specifically to do with the liberal freedoms any business or other group may exercise.
The point is that free speech is in law because we the people want it to be the ideal for our civilization, and calling out assholes who want to restrict speech has nothing to do with government.
Or put another way since you seem to have difficulty getting the point, I have not been calling for any government remedy at all, quite the contrary.
Hardly, it is the bedrock of Western Civilization, it underpins everything.
While you are specifically correct in the literal, in practice its not important that its not a government thing, pointing out those groups are assholes for actively attempting (at the very least) to restrict speech is exactly the kind of thing we all need to do.
The fact that free speech is embedded in a government structure is not the be all end all of the point, we collectively instantiate in law(especially and maybe specifically in common law), what we believe to be our best ideas as a guide towards the ideal. So when assholes like those who want to restrict speech in our private lives use their tools to do so we point it out and call them for what they are.
I will decide for myself what ideas are bad/wrong and act accordingly, dont want someone else to decide for me 'for my own good', i'm not a child.
Many of hitlers earliest moves were to control the media, which was much easier to achieve back then. During the worst of it he had total control over all public speech formats.
It may even be possible to argue that had he not controlled the media as early and as well, allowing for actual info to reach them that the public would have rejected him or at least his worst ideas let alone the actions that followed.
All these virtue signalling assholes have lost the plot. WE dont need to be saved, we want free speech.
If you can't see the vile disgusting edges of speech, then you dont know where the middle is. When you hide, curtail, restrict, and lie about speech then the publics perception of it over time becomes warped and allows for true evil.
Let the other assholes say their stupid and vile stuff and we are big enough to point our fingers and laugh at them or even take them seriously and fix it ourselves.
We have good expert systems that can do amazing things with ultra controlled inputs.
Pretending computers have a bias vs anything is really dumb, articles and submissions like this are for controlling the narrative and keeping people poorly informed. The general populace is much smarter than they are given credit for, especially when they have the right information.
People that push this kind of nonsense ought to be ashamed. Slashdot used to be about the cool tech, anyone can go to vice(or pick your politically correct preference) and look at all the current crop of slashdot articles there, why be here?
Its a moving target, NN doesn't allow for the next big thing, let alone however many other factors that determine usage.
Tomorrow SuperNetflix will start up and offer 8K video DIRECT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR, using 95% of all bandwidth everywhere and somehow its going to all be the ISP and trunking operators faults because they can't magically meet the new demand and or renegotiate their deals because all traffic has to be treated equally.
Therefore all the base prices rise equally, and the biggest operators pay very much similar rates to the smaller operators if not the same rates, creating some level of a barrier to entry for the smaller operators.
So the prediction would be that with highly restrictive 'Net neutrality' in place that new construction of high speed trunking will stagnate or decline over time vs the opposite.
I'm sure there are some studies out there to cover this, but I have to go to work and can't do the research now.
False dichotomy, we can all simultaneously reject the grossly absurdly evil machinations of post modern identity politics and one of is main weapons political correctness, and reject all those things you mentioned.
No one would be happier because one of the first of many casualties of that way of thinking is the loss of free will.
Yes, it is entirely possible that Linux is destroyed here, as the goal is naked power nothing more. 'Give and inch they'll take a mile' is exactly correct and they wont even stop there.
Currently its the resurgence of the post modernistic, identity politics, which if boiled down to the most simplistic concept maybe could be described as artificially constructed power wars for furthering utopian totalitarian fascism.
It (merit based competence hierarchies) will come back in every area, the only question is how much damage has been done to that particular field in the meantime.
Those simplistic utopian worldviews normally/historically dont survive long into adulthood but 'we' made the world too soft and easy for too long, many of these people genuinely believe they are victims and are oppressed while living in the most free and advanced civilization ever in history.
They will seriously try to 'save us' for our own good because they believe their ridiculous nonsense, and in that way do real evil.
All the while completely satisfied they are doing good as CS Lewis described: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Slashdot Mirror
The average person blathering on about 'BUT MUH BANDWIDTH!' has no clue about the problems, its no wonder that various ISP want to be able to negotiate with the massive companies putting completely unrestricted traffic on their networks, now they are going to be hit with 4K game streaming on top of Youtube and Netflix and all the spam etc.
I want some version of NN too but not the short sighted heavy handed restrictive version that was imposed previously.
Its only the biggest companies putting massive traffic on the network that benefit from NN, not any users.
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Very political yep, the wrong side used the data so it must be somehow illegal.
Pure nonsense, just another 'Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLIFIED!' ignorance thing and an assumption of other perspectives to suit that drivel.
1. Total bandwidth is a fixed thing at each hop between you and the destination, even if its local, you are not guaranteed max speed to any site anywhere. All available bandwidth is zero sum so if something else is using up 99% of the max then you only get 1%.
2. Someone has to pay to handle the streaming volume now let alone the 4K-8K-3D streaming to come in the future. So you pay for upgrades to your local ISP network or they 'have to' and or will throttle or make new agreements with their peers, and or make new agreements with companies putting large amount of data across their network. The current version of NN screws these custom agreements in every way possible so the highest probability is the cost for upgrading goes to the local subscribers.
3. Historically the peering agreements were balanced on how much traffic was added to the network, and there have been many agreements for various companies to pay extra for their content at various stages over the years, the current NN makes this very difficult or impossible.
4. Notice how ALL the major companies (Youtube/Google/Netflix/Facebook/etc) which add large bulk data to the network are for NN, vs all the companies which via hardware upgrade outlays and peering agreements that ultimately support this bandwidth use are not (pick your local ISP or trunking company here). Fair arguements can be made that the version of NN 'everyone' seems to want seriously impacts competition for ISP and routing companies, as in 'why upgrade, everyone has to pay the same, we'll wait for enough complaints then when forced we'll spend'.
The NN question is not as simple as Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!
I'm sure there are lots of other ideas, but I think if we really wanted to do something concrete to improve internet for everyone, keep that bad version of NN repealed, and then disallow local/regional ISP monopolies in their various forms and see what happens.
Clearly you do not understand. The speeds quoted at the ISP side barely matter beyond a certain point, no doubt most of the time they are able to deliver that rate for their local connection as advertised, but to suggest that getting that advertised packet rate everywhere on the internet is completely ignorant of how the thing works.
You will not get your 'rated' bandwidth pretty much anywhere but very local to you say within a hop or 3, every hop away adds more latency and all packet speeds are determined by local throughput of each.
Quick sample trace edited to show some important bits, me on my computer somewhere.
7 47 ms 47 ms 49 ms rc2nr-be110-1.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.76.58]
8 69 ms 67 ms 67 ms rc3fs-hge0-7-0-0.mt.shawcable.net [66.163.76.22]
9 75 ms 79 ms 80 ms rc1eqn-tge0-0-0-0.uk.shawcable.net [66.163.78.14]
10 86 ms 83 ms 83 ms rc3ar-tge0-14-0-7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.75.81
11 83 ms 85 ms 85 ms ge-4-1-0.mpr1.iad10.us.mfnx.net [206.126.236.86]
12 89 ms 83 ms 83 ms ae6.cr1.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.20.117]
Destination site elsewhere, 5 networks crossed a total of 20 or so hops for 1 connection.
All of those routers are rate limited in some way, any one of them could be saturated temporarily or otherwise and cause a slowdown for through traffic.
I believe but haven't looked into it in a while that most peering agreements today are still voluntary and something close to 1:1 for traffic on/off. NN really puts a damper on this business angle of the equation.
In short no, you pay for a maximum rate not a guaranteed rate. And chances are you get more down rate than up rate, because generally peering costs are for putting traffic on the network.
Every time I see these 'net neutrality' things all I can think about is Idiocracy and the 'its got electrolytes' bit, and the NN version of the same is 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified'.
Competition in a zero sum environment:
The total bandwidth available is not short time frame elastic, its completely static. So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for:
Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules.
Along comes SUPERNetflix with double goodness and 4X the bandwidth use which everyone starts using because double is mo gooderer, and now they use say 99% of the available bandwidth and the same ISP/trunking/peering companies (yes these numbers are exaggerated) are unable to charge more or negotiate a throttling plan due to the imposed rules.
The net result is all internet traffic is essentially throttled down to a max of 1% and the ISP is handcuffed, unable to charge for fair use, or throttle in the best interest of its customers.
Thats just 1 example I could think of easily, there are probably many more, 1 more would be something along the lines of a barrier to entry for a modest bandwidth need company having to pay the higher average prices rather than working out a deal short or long term. Basically they have to compete against the biggest companies paying for the same services.
What we get is articles and reports of throttling which cannot be substantiated without having monitoring at every hop along the way to rule out bandwidth being used for other purposes. And bad marketing ideas like the one from the summary, which has nothing to do with NN as its the ISP using their own bandwidth for their own purposes (see below).
If we really wanted to do something concrete to improve internet for everyone, disallow local/regional ISP monopolies in their various forms and see what happens.
Again, complete lack of imagination, the fact that you can put forward of 1 scenario out of an infinite supply of them is nonsense, the point of what i'm saying is that a human is much more capable of handling random problems, certainly we can get robotic control to some number of 9's, for the routine operation 99.99% who knows but something out of the ordinary happens 1/10000 then the computer at best can just brake, report a failure and stop.
And pay attention, i'm not arguing against computer controlled trains, just that its far from the trivial 'challenging?' the OP started with, thats all.
the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.
There is nothing you can do about possibilities that were unforeseen. Trains don't react fast enough for that to even be a thing. You would absolutely need planning for the human in the train to be able to do anything to solve some sort of problem.
And I consider that a perfect example of lack of imagination, you are suggesting that there is 'nothing ever' that could be done? Certainly if it was the best robot 'AI' today then I agree, but a human can do orders of magnitude more than the best AI today let alone a good expert system robot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Was just thinking about this some more, and I dont know if the average commercial or custom robot control system is hardened to external bit shifts, that happens often enough to be a worry.
A sensor breaks down or just reports wrong values somewhere or some 'simple' logic in the programming doesn't cover an infinite number of 'unforeseeable circumstances' the new better and cheaper than a human robot will cause an accident as well.
This is nothing new in engineering, human failures in imagination have caused innumerable disasters over history
Cue someone coming in and blithely saying 'but bounds checking and error control you eediot11!!', and the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.
Yes yes 99.99% of it will be ironed out, and I have no doubt it will be very reliable but an accident will still happen where human interaction could have prevented it.
What more do you need to say, where does all this magical money come from and what happens when it runs out?
Its serfdom V3.0, people dependent on the new feudal overlords, rent your computer power, you dont own the stuff you bought its licensed, you can't fix your stuff its restricted, rent your place to live, bend the knee to get your 'income', dont complain we are tracking everything you say online.
I still prefer the ladder we build ourselves over the rope they dangle down for you at their whim.
"Citizen get in line for your rations, and watch what you say online, we are monitoring and scoring you. As always we do this is for your own good, and remember to praise your superior leaders."
Paraphrasing Dinesh D'Souza: I would rather have the ladder to climb, and yes its 'harder', but at least its not the rope controlled by someone else to be just holding on to and hoping.
The reason the first versions of DOOM brought down networks was its use of broadcast packets, it was patched out in later versions.
Those packets would repeat across routers to other locations over wan links and more, total network mayhem back then. I dont recall the game using any special amount of bandwidth at all beyond the broadcast packet problem.
Once it was patched it was mostly benign on a local segment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Too many trees in your way to see the damn point.
I have already conceded that the strict literal governmental protections are there, and have nothing specifically to do with the liberal freedoms any business or other group may exercise.
The point is that free speech is in law because we the people want it to be the ideal for our civilization, and calling out assholes who want to restrict speech has nothing to do with government.
Or put another way since you seem to have difficulty getting the point, I have not been calling for any government remedy at all, quite the contrary.
Hardly, it is the bedrock of Western Civilization, it underpins everything.
While you are specifically correct in the literal, in practice its not important that its not a government thing, pointing out those groups are assholes for actively attempting (at the very least) to restrict speech is exactly the kind of thing we all need to do.
The fact that free speech is embedded in a government structure is not the be all end all of the point, we collectively instantiate in law(especially and maybe specifically in common law), what we believe to be our best ideas as a guide towards the ideal. So when assholes like those who want to restrict speech in our private lives use their tools to do so we point it out and call them for what they are.
I will decide for myself what ideas are bad/wrong and act accordingly, dont want someone else to decide for me 'for my own good', i'm not a child.
Many of hitlers earliest moves were to control the media, which was much easier to achieve back then. During the worst of it he had total control over all public speech formats.
It may even be possible to argue that had he not controlled the media as early and as well, allowing for actual info to reach them that the public would have rejected him or at least his worst ideas let alone the actions that followed.
All these damn trees are in the way!
All these virtue signalling assholes have lost the plot. WE dont need to be saved, we want free speech.
If you can't see the vile disgusting edges of speech, then you dont know where the middle is. When you hide, curtail, restrict, and lie about speech then the publics perception of it over time becomes warped and allows for true evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let the other assholes say their stupid and vile stuff and we are big enough to point our fingers and laugh at them or even take them seriously and fix it ourselves.
Most economies can handle small changes over shorter periods of time, but over the long haul we will see the actual results.
We have good expert systems that can do amazing things with ultra controlled inputs.
Pretending computers have a bias vs anything is really dumb, articles and submissions like this are for controlling the narrative and keeping people poorly informed. The general populace is much smarter than they are given credit for, especially when they have the right information.
People that push this kind of nonsense ought to be ashamed. Slashdot used to be about the cool tech, anyone can go to vice(or pick your politically correct preference) and look at all the current crop of slashdot articles there, why be here?
Its a moving target, NN doesn't allow for the next big thing, let alone however many other factors that determine usage.
Tomorrow SuperNetflix will start up and offer 8K video DIRECT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR, using 95% of all bandwidth everywhere and somehow its going to all be the ISP and trunking operators faults because they can't magically meet the new demand and or renegotiate their deals because all traffic has to be treated equally.
Therefore all the base prices rise equally, and the biggest operators pay very much similar rates to the smaller operators if not the same rates, creating some level of a barrier to entry for the smaller operators.
So the prediction would be that with highly restrictive 'Net neutrality' in place that new construction of high speed trunking will stagnate or decline over time vs the opposite.
I'm sure there are some studies out there to cover this, but I have to go to work and can't do the research now.
Thank you for the diagnosis, I genuinely wasn't certain, will change my diet immediately.
Unless i'm missing some irony here:
False dichotomy, we can all simultaneously reject the grossly absurdly evil machinations of post modern identity politics and one of is main weapons political correctness, and reject all those things you mentioned.
No one would be happier because one of the first of many casualties of that way of thinking is the loss of free will.
Yes, it is entirely possible that Linux is destroyed here, as the goal is naked power nothing more. 'Give and inch they'll take a mile' is exactly correct and they wont even stop there.
Nothing successfully succeeds merit.
But many things can tear it down for a while.
Currently its the resurgence of the post modernistic, identity politics, which if boiled down to the most simplistic concept maybe could be described as artificially constructed power wars for furthering utopian totalitarian fascism.
It (merit based competence hierarchies) will come back in every area, the only question is how much damage has been done to that particular field in the meantime.
Those simplistic utopian worldviews normally/historically dont survive long into adulthood but 'we' made the world too soft and easy for too long, many of these people genuinely believe they are victims and are oppressed while living in the most free and advanced civilization ever in history.
They will seriously try to 'save us' for our own good because they believe their ridiculous nonsense, and in that way do real evil.
All the while completely satisfied they are doing good as CS Lewis described: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Completely warped.