We don't trust the government, or the ISPs, or the majority of the American people. We expect that as long as the freedoms of the majority are not impaired, the freedoms of the minorities, such as Linux users, will be ignored. Linux users don't need priority, we just need enough allotted time to survive, whatever that ends up being.
It isn't simply a matter of what I want. Besides, what I want to avoid is subsidizing the American greed. I don't want to pay unnecessary premiums which primarily only support streaming video content, or other nonsense which doesn't require prioritization.
There are many high bandwidth uses of the web which are neither time nor latency sensitive. These services shouldn't be given priority over that which depends on latency, to satisfy greed.
More buffering, and VoIP/SIP protocols cost more or are useless.
Paid prioritization enables ISPs to increasingly oversell available bandwidth. Bandwidth won't be throttled, it simply won't be there.
I might agree to to paid priotization as long as key critical sites are not allowed to have priority. Such as ALL government agencies. All branches of the US government must be explicitly prohibited from having any prioritization of traffic, so as to be able to monitor the conditions of the network and ensure degredation of service is not allowed to happen.
And the concern is how to protect websites from being "down voted" out of existence, in respect to QoS priority, etc.
My concern is what is this going to do to VoIP providers. Aside from VoIP/SIP providers, I don't know what is latency sensitive. I actually don't give a rooty toot toot if a Facebook page takes a few seconds longer to load, or a video stream has to buffer a little longer before playing (as long as it doesn't buffer during the stream). VoIP prioritization, and video game lag are about the only things that concern me.
Not sure what that rebuttal was about, but that AC wasn't me.
Call the area I live in a moron area if you want, but it doesn't provide me with anything to take back to them to change their minds.
Not sure what, if anything, would convince them. Their focus is a bit more near term. Profits, the economy, etc. Dog eat dog world. Worrying about the environment is a luxury we apparently cannot afford.
We don't care about the environment. I talked it over with the guys in my area. Thr sentiment is "What does caring about the environment buy us?". The perception is that mother nature can't be budged. It is an absolute force. Mother nature decides what the environment is going to be, regardless of any and all human impact. There is nothing we can do about it "global warming", because we lack the ability to affect the climate in any fashion, especially when that impact is supposedly a side effect. What is the point in worrying about something that is beyond your control?
Net Neutrality is about keeping services available across the entire internet, within reason.
Amazon's removal of the Google device from the online store doesn't match with NN.
However, Google's blocking of a device from accessing their site is remarkably similar, and potentially has the same implications. If devices can't connect, except to authorized resources, then how is that any different from a tiered web?
I'll admit, NN remains a greater concern, but the question is, by how much?
That is capitalism. Each company has to protect their own interests. It is difficult to guarantee quality of a service you don't own. And allowing your competitor's service to run in an inferior manner on your device is a recipe for failure.
The spirit of Net Neutrality is what might have influenced Google's position.
Right now Google owns the largest provider of "free" streaming content on the internet. Restricting a hardware provider from accessing that content isn't neutral.
Although, I had forgottent that Amazon is guilty of a terms of use violation. This all began because Amazon was selling an "ad free" device without any other means of compensating Google/YouTube and channel owners for the service itself. Firefox may indeed be a work-around, as log as it plays the ads it is supposed to play.
A decent level of tech savvy is required to know the nature of the issue, and to know of the existence of a means to resolve it.
Remember, most people who look for a
work-around use Google or YouTube. As Alphabet/Google controls both entities, it can affect how accessible work-arounds are.
Is Google not in a position to block the user agent string for Firefox for Fire TV? Net Neutrality has been repealed, any other rules in place to prevent this?
Twitter is no longer about being hip. It is about raising the bar for customer service. Once one company raised the bar, the others had to follow suite to meet the expectations of the customer.
Twitter is a somewhat cost effective P.R. platform to respond to complaints at their source. The money paying these Twitter workers would have likely been spent on Surveys and advertising, or other P.R. efforts.
That sucks. Got to have at least 3mbps this day in age. 5+mbps for streaming.
I get between 5mpbs to 6mbps on DSL. Don't have choices though. 3G takes about an hour to load a website out here, using who knows how much data for retransmitting the same packets so many times. Might actually be LTE kicking in momentarily. All other carriers, including AT&T, have pulled out of the market, save for "grandfathered" customers. Be lucky to get service inside the city limits, much less outside.
My experience, which is extensive, indicates otherwise. Sure the automated systems for ISPs is a waste of time, and it is a hassle to prove to the ISP over the phone that the issue is with their equipment, and not mine. However, most ISPs are capable of fixing a problem within 48 hours.
However, AT&T's service has been rock solid at my home address. I think I had to call them once in three years. Maybe twice.
So in such a scenario I would call my ISP, who would call the local municipality, so that we can both sit on our hands until the next election year?
I suppose I could yell at or berate some tech from my ISP for not running a last mile to my home, or not sending a tech out to my home to resolve the issue?
Alternatively, I could risk jail time to troubleshoot and repair the line with my own equipment?
Heavier trucks cause more wear and tear on roads, increasing the cost of maintaining those roads. So, it wouldn't be because of the value of services rendered, but the cost of rendering those services.
Another thing to consider is that Google entering the ISP market indicates a threat to established ISP businesses. What happens when Netflix or Amazon or Google become major ISPs? Cities will no longer be available to subsidize developing or rural areas. ISPs are putting themselves out of business, so who will further the objective of bringing internet to the entire country?
Who maintains the last mile then? Individuals, or the local government?
Who do you call when you have internet problems?
So you end up with a single municipal ISP, which has a peering agreement with other "backbone" ISPs. Which ain't really that much different from what we have now.
A "reasonable practitioner of the craft" is not a new recruit or amatuer.
It is possible to create bots without being a fully realized "reasonable practitioner", or otherwise being aware of the robots.txt file. Discovering or being introduced to the "robots.txt" file is part of the process of becoming a "reasonable practitioner". Let's not make lacking experience a crime before we can download Bachelor's degree levels of job knowledge and experience.
I disagree that the Pope admitting church attendance can be harmful would indicate that the church itself is rotten to the core. I would argue the opposite is true, failing to admit failure indicates a lack of or fear of accountability, an unwillingness to face or admit failure, and therefore an unwillingness to fix the flaws at the center.
However I doubt it would be spoken by the Pope for a different reason. It would be admitting that the church can't solve the problem. Such an admittence is acceptable at a small scale, but not at the international level where the Pope speaks.
By admitting that Facebook and social media use can be harmful, Facebook is admitting it is a problem, and is admitting they can't resolve the issue by themselves. This opens the way for a solution to be discovered and implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't trust the government, or the ISPs, or the majority of the American people. We expect that as long as the freedoms of the majority are not impaired, the freedoms of the minorities, such as Linux users, will be ignored. Linux users don't need priority, we just need enough allotted time to survive, whatever that ends up being.
It isn't simply a matter of what I want. Besides, what I want to avoid is subsidizing the American greed. I don't want to pay unnecessary premiums which primarily only support streaming video content, or other nonsense which doesn't require prioritization.
There are many high bandwidth uses of the web which are neither time nor latency sensitive. These services shouldn't be given priority over that which depends on latency, to satisfy greed.
More buffering, and VoIP/SIP protocols cost more or are useless.
Paid prioritization enables ISPs to increasingly oversell available bandwidth. Bandwidth won't be throttled, it simply won't be there.
I might agree to to paid priotization as long as key critical sites are not allowed to have priority. Such as ALL government agencies. All branches of the US government must be explicitly prohibited from having any prioritization of traffic, so as to be able to monitor the conditions of the network and ensure degredation of service is not allowed to happen.
So the new rules are "paid prioritization". https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
And the concern is how to protect websites from being "down voted" out of existence, in respect to QoS priority, etc.
My concern is what is this going to do to VoIP providers. Aside from VoIP/SIP providers, I don't know what is latency sensitive. I actually don't give a rooty toot toot if a Facebook page takes a few seconds longer to load, or a video stream has to buffer a little longer before playing (as long as it doesn't buffer during the stream). VoIP prioritization, and video game lag are about the only things that concern me.
Not sure what that rebuttal was about, but that AC wasn't me.
Call the area I live in a moron area if you want, but it doesn't provide me with anything to take back to them to change their minds.
Not sure what, if anything, would convince them. Their focus is a bit more near term. Profits, the economy, etc. Dog eat dog world. Worrying about the environment is a luxury we apparently cannot afford.
We don't care about the environment. I talked it over with the guys in my area. Thr sentiment is "What does caring about the environment buy us?". The perception is that mother nature can't be budged. It is an absolute force. Mother nature decides what the environment is going to be, regardless of any and all human impact. There is nothing we can do about it "global warming", because we lack the ability to affect the climate in any fashion, especially when that impact is supposedly a side effect. What is the point in worrying about something that is beyond your control?
Net Neutrality is about keeping services available across the entire internet, within reason.
Amazon's removal of the Google device from the online store doesn't match with NN.
However, Google's blocking of a device from accessing their site is remarkably similar, and potentially has the same implications. If devices can't connect, except to authorized resources, then how is that any different from a tiered web?
I'll admit, NN remains a greater concern, but the question is, by how much?
That is capitalism. Each company has to protect their own interests. It is difficult to guarantee quality of a service you don't own. And allowing your competitor's service to run in an inferior manner on your device is a recipe for failure.
My thoughts about NN may have missed the mark, but the "spirit" or "intent" of a law matters.
The spirit of a law is in the goals or ideal it was created to uphold. The hope it was created to protect.
Focusing on the letter of the law is a concession of the many failures of humanity.
The spirit of Net Neutrality is what might have influenced Google's position.
Right now Google owns the largest provider of "free" streaming content on the internet. Restricting a hardware provider from accessing that content isn't neutral.
Although, I had forgottent that Amazon is guilty of a terms of use violation. This all began because Amazon was selling an "ad free" device without any other means of compensating Google/YouTube and channel owners for the service itself. Firefox may indeed be a work-around, as log as it plays the ads it is supposed to play.
A decent level of tech savvy is required to know the nature of the issue, and to know of the existence of a means to resolve it.
Remember, most people who look for a work-around use Google or YouTube. As Alphabet/Google controls both entities, it can affect how accessible work-arounds are.
Is Google not in a position to block the user agent string for Firefox for Fire TV? Net Neutrality has been repealed, any other rules in place to prevent this?
Earlybird gets the worm. Whoever gets autonomous trucks first makes the most money. Empathy for others is not going to stop human greed.
Twitter is no longer about being hip. It is about raising the bar for customer service. Once one company raised the bar, the others had to follow suite to meet the expectations of the customer.
Twitter is a somewhat cost effective P.R. platform to respond to complaints at their source. The money paying these Twitter workers would have likely been spent on Surveys and advertising, or other P.R. efforts.
Friendly Fire incidents are likely to increase.
That sucks. Got to have at least 3mbps this day in age. 5+mbps for streaming.
I get between 5mpbs to 6mbps on DSL. Don't have choices though. 3G takes about an hour to load a website out here, using who knows how much data for retransmitting the same packets so many times. Might actually be LTE kicking in momentarily. All other carriers, including AT&T, have pulled out of the market, save for "grandfathered" customers. Be lucky to get service inside the city limits, much less outside.
My experience, which is extensive, indicates otherwise. Sure the automated systems for ISPs is a waste of time, and it is a hassle to prove to the ISP over the phone that the issue is with their equipment, and not mine. However, most ISPs are capable of fixing a problem within 48 hours.
However, AT&T's service has been rock solid at my home address. I think I had to call them once in three years. Maybe twice.
So in such a scenario I would call my ISP, who would call the local municipality, so that we can both sit on our hands until the next election year?
I suppose I could yell at or berate some tech from my ISP for not running a last mile to my home, or not sending a tech out to my home to resolve the issue?
Alternatively, I could risk jail time to troubleshoot and repair the line with my own equipment?
Huh?
I was a big fan of Windows Me. Most of my blue screens were only because I ejected the CD-ROM.
Heavier trucks cause more wear and tear on roads, increasing the cost of maintaining those roads. So, it wouldn't be because of the value of services rendered, but the cost of rendering those services.
Another thing to consider is that Google entering the ISP market indicates a threat to established ISP businesses. What happens when Netflix or Amazon or Google become major ISPs? Cities will no longer be available to subsidize developing or rural areas. ISPs are putting themselves out of business, so who will further the objective of bringing internet to the entire country?
Who maintains the last mile then? Individuals, or the local government?
Who do you call when you have internet problems?
So you end up with a single municipal ISP, which has a peering agreement with other "backbone" ISPs. Which ain't really that much different from what we have now.
Thank you. 100% in agreement.
What I understood was hewas opposed to technology because people are stupid. Corporations being made up of people,...
Which is more along the lines of being opposed to Microsoft and Apache, AND especially the credit system itself, because of Equifax.
A "reasonable practitioner of the craft" is not a new recruit or amatuer.
It is possible to create bots without being a fully realized "reasonable practitioner", or otherwise being aware of the robots.txt file. Discovering or being introduced to the "robots.txt" file is part of the process of becoming a "reasonable practitioner". Let's not make lacking experience a crime before we can download Bachelor's degree levels of job knowledge and experience.
I disagree that the Pope admitting church attendance can be harmful would indicate that the church itself is rotten to the core. I would argue the opposite is true, failing to admit failure indicates a lack of or fear of accountability, an unwillingness to face or admit failure, and therefore an unwillingness to fix the flaws at the center.
However I doubt it would be spoken by the Pope for a different reason. It would be admitting that the church can't solve the problem. Such an admittence is acceptable at a small scale, but not at the international level where the Pope speaks.
By admitting that Facebook and social media use can be harmful, Facebook is admitting it is a problem, and is admitting they can't resolve the issue by themselves. This opens the way for a solution to be discovered and implemented.