Goodbye Net Neutrality

Quote: JB

Net neutrality is optimal strategy. That's not an opinion, it's not up for debate, it's a technical fact. With net neutrality, every packet of data is top priority, so there is no need to inspect each one to decide if it is high priority or low priority according to some corporate/political agenda. Without this delay, the internet runs like a well-oiled machine.

Sounds so nice, but the people on the pro side have a history of selling you government control for "good" things then it ends up taking away your freedoms. IOW, don't buy what they are selling on face value because they do not have the good intentions of helping the little guy running a small website as their motive.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sounds so nice, but the people on the pro side have a history of selling you government control for "good" things then it ends up taking away your freedoms. IOW, don't buy what they are selling on face value because they do not have the good intentions of helping the little guy running a small website as their motive.

This is the second time that your argument against net neutrality is whose idea it is / who is backing it.

Quote: Dalex64

This is the second time that your argument against net neutrality is whose idea it is / who is backing it.

And the whatever time the post I am replying to is giving their same reason.

A wolf in sheep clothes at the door is still a wolf.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sounds so nice, but the people on the pro side have a history of selling you government control for "good" things then it ends up taking away your freedoms. IOW, don't buy what they are selling on face value because they do not have the good intentions of helping the little guy running a small website as their motive.

It's a much bigger can of worms than helping the small website owner. I wouldn't be so dead set against eliminating NN if the ISPs weren't monopolies, but they are. If NN goes away, it's the final nail in the coffin for everyone. The monopoly ISPs will have complete control over the content that their paying customers can and cannot access, and tough cookies for the customer if they don't like it because they have no other choice of ISP.

Before I forget, when we were talking earlier about "free market" the term I actually meant / should have said was "free and open internet". My apologies for the confusion, they're different things.

Do you want your ISP denying you access to foxnews.com because of their political agenda? If you have Comcast = NBC = MSNBC, this becomes a very real threat without NN. I can't understand why you would support that. Even if you don't have Comcast, the concept of a filtered (censored) internet should be alarming. NN is the equivalent of free speech on the internet.

Being against net neutrality is like being against "the only rule is that there are no rules" because you don't like rules.

(For the record, I'm not relying on any political sources for my position. I don't do politics and I'm speaking from a purely technical point of view. The heart of the matter is technical in nature and shouldn't even be up for debate any more than "what does 2+2 equal?" should be. Everybody's making it a mountain out of a molehill. Nevertheless, I suspect the decision to irreversibly damage the internet has already been made, and the "we're accepting comments from the public" business from the FCC is just for show.)

Quote: AZDuffman

And the whatever time the post I am replying to is giving their same reason.

A wolf in sheep clothes at the door is still a wolf.

His reason is discussing the merits of the policy.

Your is because you are against the people supporting it.

A wolf in sheeps clothing? What is that supposed to mean? What exactly is so bad about the policy of net neutrality? What huge consequences will there be, the wolf at the door, for continuing net neutrality?

In other words, why are you against it, other than being opposed to the people who support it?

Quote: Dalex64

In other words, why are you against it, other than being opposed to the people who support it?

AZ is like that
he supports freedom unless the left supports that same freedom then he comes out against
take pot. because the left supports that freedom, AZ is against.
Its illogical

Quote: Dalex64

His reason is discussing the merits of the policy.

Your is because you are against the people supporting it.

No, I have other reasons which I stated. I am saying that if you are not so sure then look at who is supporting it. Same people saying they want a "free and open internet" are the same ones that have said political speech needs to be regulated. I even once heard Pelosi say the 1st Amendment should NOT protect political speech.

Quote:

A wolf in sheeps clothing? What is that supposed to mean?

It means that the people wanting to regulate more will tell you it is about freedom so the sheep think it is. Same people who wanted the Fairness Doctrine reinstated somehow are all of the sudden for "neutrality?" Which reminds me, anytime there is a name that is meant to sound good pushed by government it probably means the opposite intentions.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, I have other reasons which I stated. I am saying that if you are not so sure then look at who is supporting it. Same people saying they want a "free and open internet" are the same ones that have said political speech needs to be regulated. I even once heard Pelosi say the 1st Amendment should NOT protect political speech.

I am sure of my position, but there's nothing political about it. If all the politicians from both sides disappeared tomorrow, I'd be a happy camper.

Alas, my position is from the technical, programmer point of view. I'm in favor of simple, lean and mean, efficient code. That's what we have today with NN. Without NN, the code which currently just forwards packets of data to their destination will become encumbered with database queries (slow) and "if - then" policies applied to each packet to determine if it belongs in First Class or Steerage. As a result, these extra checks will slow down even First Class data (compared to what we have today) because it can't know it's First Class until it performs the check. Now multiply this slowdown by umpteen billion packets of data being transferred every second, and you've got yourself a slow internet.

Quote: JB

Do you want your ISP denying you access to foxnews.com because of their political agenda? If you have Comcast = NBC = MSNBC, this becomes a very real threat without NN. I can't understand why you would support that. Even if you don't have Comcast, the concept of a filtered (censored) internet should be alarming. NN is the equivalent of free speech on the internet.

Then why do they not carry FNC now, as they could just eliminate it if they wanted to?

Quote:

Being against net neutrality is like being against "the only rule is that there are no rules" because you don't like rules.

I don't like rules for the sake of rules. Somehow the commercial internet has survived 25ish years without the need for NN. All of the sudden we need it?

Quote: JB

I am sure of my position, but there's nothing political about it. If all the politicians from both sides disappeared tomorrow, I'd be a happy camper.

Alas, my position is from the technical, programmer point of view. I'm in favor of simple, lean and mean, efficient code. That's what we have today with NN. Without NN, the code which currently just forwards packets of data to their destination will become encumbered with database queries (slow) and "if - then" policies applied to each packet to determine if it belongs in First Class or Steerage. As a result, these extra checks will slow down even First Class data (compared to what we have today) because it can't know it's First Class until it performs the check. Now multiply this slowdown by umpteen billion packets of data being transferred every second, and you've got yourself a slow internet.

Would it be as. Ad as China? The internet in China is painfully slow. All that snooping and censoring gums things up.
NN rules are only a couple of years old. Why did everything run fine in 2014?