The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Forbes: Silk Road and Libertarians

What does border fence has to do with this? I ignored this because it was the usual conservative derp.



And horse your rode in too.

I don't absolutely trust government, I simply do not share your conservative paranoia that assumes that any and all government activity is nefarious and the only reason gov. exist to take away your guns or some other dumb shit like that.

Border fence is referring to the fact that back in the 60's there was legislation that included said fence, which was never actually built. Govt said one thing, did another. Thats where that comes from.

I am reading through this updated FCC NN crap. Will see if its better than it was the last time I read it, which was 2009 or 2010 or something.

-----------

Core issue: In some areas, certain telecoms are able to engineer a monopoly for practical purposes. We all know what happens when an entity is able to get a monopoly on an important service. Subsidies play into this as well.

Solution to problem: Ensure that telecoms are not able to effectively shut out competition. This can be reasonably easily accomplished in an even handed and transparent manner, antitrust and other existing law can also come into play.

Addressing symptom: Grant telecoms their monopoly, ignore the fact that monopolistic service will suck in general, have FCC claim additional power to regulate how the monopoly behaves.

-------------

I would be more predisposed to go with FCC NN plans, if the FCC had proven to be a competent actor in the past.

But this just has not been the case. And even if the FCC is sensible today, does not mean it will be sensible tomorrow.

http://news.cnet.com/Covad-tries-an-end-run/2100-7352_3-5306231.html

http://news.cnet.com/FCC-loosens-broadband-rules/2100-1037_3-985313.html

http://news.cnet.com/Baby-Bells-win-another-FCC-victory/2100-1036_3-5298098.html

http://news.cnet.com/New-broadband-rules-draw-criticism/2100-1034_3-5066885.html

Hell, many (non rural) areas STILL have shit for internet a decade later.

Also, a good paper on subsidies I dug back up :

http://www.ericchiang.org/files/Chiang_Hauge_Jamison_JRE.pdf

-----------------

Hopefully the FCC aims are true, and the actual regulatory enforcement details are good and workable. Thats the thing, the devil is in the details - you can have the highest minded goals on the planet, and still utterly fail, and cause even more problems that you had before. I would say that at *least* 60% of our major societal problems are iatrogenic in nature, where various pols thought they could "play doctor".

The bottom line is that I would be a lot more comfortable with a system that relied on competition to foster service and prevent douchebaggery, than I ever will be by leaving that task to politicians.

I was actually referring to something much more recent but thanks for adding to the point. Congress has said more than once that it would do this thing and still doesn't do it. It is nothing more the political posturing, and proves the point that just because something is written in a bill in the way that you like doesn't mean that the actual execution will look anything like that.

Net Neutrality is how Internet works right now (and the fact that it does work should tell you that Congress has nothing to do with it) and FCC decision on NN also has nothing to do with Congress.

You all barking up the wrong tree.

Ok, got bored wading through it so I will just ask you -

1) Does thee current NN still prohibit tiered service plans?

2) Does the current NN still prevent traffic prioritization based on sensitivity to latency?

In concrete terms, not just principles - my biggest objections to the NN plans circa 2010 were those were effectively prohibited. Or may have been, depending on how the FCC wanted to interpret specific wording at a specific time.

My biggest concrete fear, for the immediate term (ignoring for the time being, fears regarding the future ) was that under NN, the ISPs would just let everything through to everyone, on one uniform service plan (that they could still charge whatever they wanted for) and basically everything would be lagged to shit.

Instead of expanding land based infrastructure, the ISPS where a monopoly exists would favor wireless expansion, keep up all the shananigans there... and make a fortune. All the while every gamer would have 200ms+ pings, because of all the Netflix and flash video ads and whatnot because ISPs werent allowed to treat customers differently and offer service plans of varying quality (now the impetus , at least as far as what the blogoshpere is reporting indicates NN is supply/backbone oriented, this wasnt always the case) and have no incentive to upgrade their land based networks.

NN is not the way the internet has always worked, many ISPs have prioritized certain types of traffic like gaming and Voip traffic over video content. Otherwise any close to saturated link would cause everyone to lag balls.

I still think people are confused about Net neutrality.....Get ready for some ass raping by ISPs if they get rid of Net neutrality.

You will not benefit from the removal of these rules.

Did it ever? You pay x$ for YGB, where x and Y is any number between 0 and inf.



Traffic "prioritization" of any kind is still no-go. You can do QoS on your own network, but your GBs from #1 are FIFO.



Strange fear. What would be the business case for this?



This has everything to do with overselling and nothing to do with prioritization.

ISP wanted to be cheeky and sell more bandwidth than they had. When it became obvious (via lag) that they sold what they couldn't deliver, they decided to get nasty and punish people that used most of bandwidth they bought.

It is like selling more season tickets than you have seats in the stadium, and then penalizing fans that show up for every game in order to free up stadium space.

That should be illegal, right?

"Strange fear. What would be the business case for this?"

The business case is this: "This has everything to do with overselling and nothing to do with prioritization."

Almost all ISPs oversell. Thats how they make maximum profit.

The business case for aforementioned practices is - in order to provide quality service for latency sensitive packets in a FIFO you have to be massively overbuilt. If you think any ISP is going to overbuild or over-peer so your Counterstrike ping stays at 40ms your nuts.

People arent going to pay more money for the ultra wide connections where the service in general is shit. Some different tiers and types of package also have prioritization, at least with TWC where I live.

The fear is they just throw the whole business to the dogs, do nothing with it other than make cash on existing infrastructure - because there is no real incentive for them to do anything else.

Also, if NN had SLA requirements I would also be more predisposed to it. Even though it would raise the price of internet... I dont mind that, I pay a lot for internet anyhow compared to some people.

I used to pay a lot more... I used to live in a neighborhood with old terminals and poles and etc, net was constantly going out/degrading.. got water in the tap.

So I just said fuckit and got a "for the time" superfast business class line. They redid the entire neighborhood lol... cause I had SLA. (service level agreement) The neighbors should have been thanking me profusely for that... lol