Conservatism a confirmed brain illness?

[Elok]

So . . . what happened to Netflix in the Oatmeal's recent example is either made-up or morally justified?

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

(I like how we give so few ****s about Glenn Beck that we drag up one of our most recycled arguments rather than talk about him)

[ZEE]

Elok is a nerd.

[regexcellent]

So . . . what happened to Netflix in the Oatmeal's recent example is either made-up or morally justified?

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

(I like how we give so few ****s about Glenn Beck that we drag up one of our most recycled arguments rather than talk about him)

Yeah I saw that linked on facebook already. Ugh.

Basically, if the ISP is a stub ISP i.e. it doesn't have any traffic crossing its network from one ISP to another, then it as a tier 3 ISP can do pretty much what it wants with traffic in its own network, subject to the agreements it has made with its customers on the commodity internet market.

But if that ISP is peering with or providing for another ISP, it is generally not going to be able to throttle traffic and it would also not make any business sense. You don't need to worry about Level 3 saying or Cogent that all the stuff from Google gets lower priority. That's not happening.

That said, I'm really skeptical about companies like Comcast or TimeWarner doing it too. I've thought about how it would have to be implemented, and I think the only reasonable way of doing it is to set the priority field in the IP header when it enters your AS based on the IP address. But I don't see how to do that without ****ing up your existing QoS agreements with customers, since almost all traffic is already transmitted at lowest priority.

As for blocking sites altogether...well, I *suppose* yes you could do that.

edit: Hmm, I guess another way of doing it would be at the border with the customer.

[Elok]

AAHZ gets donkey-punched by meth-heads for pocket change.

XPost

[ZEE]

[Dinner]

SB net neutrality is a horrible ****ing idea because paying for higher quality of service is a really really important thing that enables voice over IP, teleconferencing, video streaming, etc. to actually work. With net neutrality rules the system of provider QoS that is finally getting implemented everywhere would disappear immediately and all the tech gains we've made in realtime data would be lost.

You have no idea what you are talking about. All net neutrality does is say that the ISP can't discriminate among traffic. That is it. Time Warner would love to charge websites for the privilage of their customers being allowed to visit the web site. If the website doesn't pay then customers trying to visit the website either get slowed down or blocked. No, moron, it is not a good idea to let an ISP decide whither or not I can visit a web site.

Net neutrality has ALWAYS been how the internet has worked and only a few big monopoly providers want to change that for their private financial benefit. Ending net neutrality isn't just a bad idea, it should be ****ing criminal.

[regexcellent]

You have no idea what you are talking about. All net neutrality does is say that the ISP can't discriminate among traffic. That is it. Time Warner would love to charge websites for the privilage of their customers being allowed to visit the web site. If the website doesn't pay then customers trying to visit the website either get slowed down or blocked. No, moron, it is not a good idea to let an ISP decide whither or not I can visit a web site.

Net neutrality has ALWAYS been how the internet has worked and only a few big monopoly providers want to change that for their private financial benefit. Ending net neutrality isn't just a bad idea, it should be ****ing criminal.

Except discriminating among traffic is an important and useful thing that allows things like VoIP to work. I absolutely do know what I'm talking about. This is a real thing that is really done. IPv4 and IPv6 were both designed with traffic discrimination in mind, so it's been around since the beginning of the internet.

[Dinner]

Nope, VOIP already works and we don't need to let Comcast block any websites to make it better. Especially since something like 3/4ths of the country only has one "high speed" (read: slow by world standards) ISP so there is very, very little market based forces effecting those markets.

[regexcellent]

Oerdin, please follow what I'm saying. In order for VoIP to get decent service quality in many cases you need to get preferential forwarding from the ISP. This is because it has very demanding latency requirements, generally <150ms in the worst case. Net neutrality laws would forbid this kind of preferential treatment that makes real time data work.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oerdin, this is what Reg does for a living, you should probably listen to him.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ted Cruz himself is an extremely strong argument against net neutrality. Would you want someone like Ted Cruz regulating the internet? No? How about Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? No? How about Eric Cantor? Still no? Well guess what? Those are your choices. Don't like them? Don't support the government regulating the internet.

[Kidlicious]

This thread has gone from two stars to one.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Ted Cruz himself is an extremely strong argument against net neutrality. Would you want someone like Ted Cruz regulating the internet? No? How about Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? No? How about Eric Cantor? Still no? Well guess what? Those are your choices. Don't like them? Don't support the government regulating the internet.

Why not a government agency instead of the dumb****s in Congress?

[Ben Kenobi]

Right, because that's SO MUCH BETTER. FFS.

[Kidlicious]

"I'm from the govt. I'm here to help.".