Plan B Forum

... for now.

Let's hope the Supremes agree when the issued is presented there. With so many big time players involved, and with billion$ to be lost, I'm guessing this ruling get fast tracked, especially while Antonin Scalia is still dead.

""Net neutrality advocates just scored a major victory in the fight to keep the Internet free of “fast lanes.”"
http://www.wired.com/2016/06/net-neutra ... -just-yet/

What! The evil gun-grabbing, totalitarian, Libbrul, Taxenspend, government took a few moments out of its busy schedule of pillaging and handcuffing free Americans with <<regulations>> and did something as good and pure as baby ducks and warm puppies?

ooooh! I feel all warm inside.


yrs,
rubato

Gob wrote:

You know. Most people can appreciate baby ducks and warm puppies without being assholes about it.


Not you. But most people.


yrs,
rubato

LOL!! the post I replied to was just FULL of "baby ducks and warm puppies" wasn't it?

Not just full of the usual stupid spite your Aspergers leads you to repeat ad infinitum.

So you disagree that 'net neutrality' is a good thing?

Yes?

Or you are just being your usual asshole self?

Yes.

yrs,
rubato

Oh I agree with net neutrality, but not with you being a shithead as per norm.

And again, more shit bombs.

Guinevere wrote:And again, more shit bombs.

All from Gob, per usual.

yrs,
rubato

Diddums.

""Net neutrality advocates just scored a major victory in the fight to keep the Internet free of “fast lanes.”"

So we all get stuck with "speed limited lanes" instead.

The article would not open for me so maybe I am talking out of my a$$, but it seems to me that people not being able to choose (aka pay extra for) a better service is not the way we want to go.
It's like people not being able to pay extra for the speed and handling of a bmw and having to settle "along with everyone else" for a yugo.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

""Net neutrality advocates just scored a major victory in the fight to keep the Internet free of “fast lanes.”"

So we all get stuck with "speed limited lanes" instead.

The article would not open for me so maybe I am talking out of my a$$, but it seems to me that people not being able to choose (aka pay extra for) a better service is not the way we want to go.
It's like people not being able to pay extra for the speed and handling of a bmw and having to settle "along with everyone else" for a yugo.

As I understood it, it's not so much the consumer who was paying for the "express lane" to your computer, it was the content owner.  The providers were willing to cut special deals with Netflix, let's say, to send their content along the system at warp speed while other services were told that "slower traffic must keep right", or usage for specific services did not count against your monthly data access allocation.  So if you wanted to stream movies and crap you either went to Netflix and paid their prices for their service (and if you don't think that if they had gotten priority among internet traffic that they wouldn't have jacked up their prices accordingly then you'd better think again) or stayed with some other cheaper service but had to put up with longer download times, stalling, buffering, and second-rate content.  It would be as if FedEx was the only delivery service allowed to use airplanes to send packages across country, and everybody else — UPS, DHL, USPS, whatever — had to use Pony Express.

-"BB"-

It wasn't so much about speed- internet speed in dependent on many factors, bandwidth being the biggest one, but load is a big portion of it. You already pay for a certain bandwidth, which dictates the theoretical maximum your current connection can handle. It can be as small as dial-up, at 56k or lower. You can have gigabit service through fiber-optic. Every physical link in an internet route has a set bandwidth due to technological limitations, the only way to raise that limit is add more physical bandwidth. Companies and consumers can already buy bandwidth at their end- that's been the case since the internet was created. It's the speed through the rest of the system- the "backbone", that was the issue in Net Neutrality.

Load is how much of that bandwidth is being used. Once it's saturated, "packets" (which is how data is handled) have to form a queue. Data packets travel at the speed of light- from router to router. Routers are what hand the packet from one "link" to another, via the physical connections. That's where the queues happen- inside the routers. The routers feed packets into the links based on load. When the load is high, packets end up in the queue.

What the net neutrality argument was about was priority. Under net-neutral rules, every packet is treated the same and goes into the "queue" one by one. What companies wanted to do was buy priority- their packets would go to the front of the queue no matter how many more were in front of it. While that would make their services faster- much less buffering of videos due to saturated bandwidth, for instance- it would slow everyone else's data down because their packets not only would have to wait their turn in the queue they would always have to wait behind "prioritized" packets.

Excellent--and exceptionally clear--explanation, datsunaholic. Thank you.

I second econoline's post, thanks DA.

Probably wouldnt apply to me ,yes we have fiber DSL ,but the last one hundred yards coming to the Casa is a pair of copper conducters and even at the purported 3 meg speed it takes forever to load sometimes ,when I finally got decent dail up it seemed almost as fast as the Hooterville DSL.

Gob wrote: I second econoline's post, thanks DA.

Adding my thanks!

datsunaholic wrote:It wasn't so much about speed- internet speed in dependent on many factors, bandwidth being the biggest one, but load is a big portion of it. You already pay for a certain bandwidth, which dictates the theoretical maximum your current connection can handle. It can be as small as dial-up, at 56k or lower. You can have gigabit service through fiber-optic. Every physical link in an internet route has a set bandwidth due to technological limitations, the only way to raise that limit is add more physical bandwidth. Companies and consumers can already buy bandwidth at their end- that's been the case since the internet was created. It's the speed through the rest of the system- the "backbone", that was the issue in Net Neutrality.

Load is how much of that bandwidth is being used. Once it's saturated, "packets" (which is how data is handled) have to form a queue. Data packets travel at the speed of light- from router to router. Routers are what hand the packet from one "link" to another, via the physical connections. That's where the queues happen- inside the routers. The routers feed packets into the links based on load. When the load is high, packets end up in the queue.

What the net neutrality argument was about was priority. Under net-neutral rules, every packet is treated the same and goes into the "queue" one by one. What companies wanted to do was buy priority- their packets would go to the front of the queue no matter how many more were in front of it. While that would make their services faster- much less buffering of videos due to saturated bandwidth, for instance- it would slow everyone else's data down because their packets not only would have to wait their turn in the queue they would always have to wait behind "prioritized" packets.

The driving force for a multi-tiered system was the owners of the infrastructure wanting to "monetize" that ownership by being able to charge more to some customers for a different level of service. I don't fault them for wanting that but giving it to them would be so harmful to everyone else that it cannot be allowed.

Although it must be said that a consistent Libertarian or most Conservatives would have to support their side of it. What did the Paul clan say about it?

Ohh look:

WASHINGTON — Silicon Valley companies want strong rules to protect net neutrality, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a likely GOP presidential contender who is vying to be seen as tech-friendly, is not in their corner.

When asked by The Huffington Post on Tuesday morning whether he has concerns about a plan backed by President Barack Obama, which would reclassify the Internet as a utility and ban companies from charging for better Internet access, Paul said, “Yeah, I don’t want to see regulation of the Internet. I think it’s the wrong way to go about it.”

The Federal Communications Commission is currently weighing net neutrality proposals, including the one supported by the president and much of the public that would reclassify consumer broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Telecom and cable companies oppose this plan, because they favor less government regulation. Net neutrality advocates argue that without regulation, these companies will force content providers to pay for faster Internet access, a move that would stifle innovation.

When Obama announced his plan last month, prominent Republicans were eager to slam it. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it “Obamacare for the Internet.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “Net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.” Paul did not issue a statement or tweet about the plan, instead remaining fairly quiet on the issue.

But Paul has a history of opposing net neutrality, and his aversion to reclassifying the Internet as a utility is consistent with that. In 2011, he co-sponsored a bill to repeal net neutrality regulations adopted by the FCC. The next year, BuzzFeed reported that Paul backed an online manifesto that sought to block government net neutrality rules. ... "

yrs,
rubato