4 ms·

Hate me all you want, but I think poor Indians would be better off with Free Basics. I also don't believe in net neutrality. I believe carriers should be able

Hate me all you want, but I think poor Indians would be better off with Free Basics. I also don't believe in net neutrality. I believe carriers should be able to discriminate data based on economic value of the data. If we ever desire to see real usages of the Internet(that is more than just information exchange medium) which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc), then that would require to get rid of net neutrality.

deciplex 11y ago
> If we ever desire to see real usages of the Internet(that is more than just information exchange medium) We don't, or rather we see any and all "real usages" of the Internet to be that of (agnostic) information exchange, at their core. > which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc), then that would require to get rid of net neutrality. If you need truly real time behavior like this, then the Internet is not suited for your purposes, Net Neutrality or not.
- splintercell 11y ago
  Wouldn't it be more preferable to build a neutral layer on the top of a non-neutral network, only aimed at information exchange? I mean what's more preferable/useful, a network where moderation is made illegal on all sites or a network where various sites moderation is based on a site's values and nature, and 4chan being one such (relatively) moderation free site?
  - deciplex 11y ago
    > Wouldn't it be more preferable to build a neutral layer on the top of a non-neutral network...? How do you propose doing that?
chris_wot 11y ago
If we ever desire to see real usages of the Internet(that is more than just information exchange medium) which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc), then that would require to get rid of net neutrality. I just don't see how this can be the case. Show me your evidence that some data is causing real time data transfers to slow?
- splintercell 11y ago
  Real time data needs reliable and fast ping rate. This isn't dictated by the bandwidth, rather by the speed of the network devices. One way to achieve that is introduction of QoS, the network devices prioritize some data over the other. If you want to observe this effect then try turning QoS on or off on your router during your wife's Netflix session while you're playing a multi-player RPG.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Are you saying that users of realtime applications should be subsidized by all other internet users?
    - splintercell 11y ago
      No, they should (and will) pay for themselves. On the other hand they will subsidize the rest of us. Kinda like how first class subsidizes the economy class. We let them board first, but our ticket becomes cheaper because of that.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        ISTM the ratios involved are very different. Even a first class air passenger with fifty kilos of baggage only takes up slightly more space and weight than an economy air passenger. Since they might be paying five or more times as much, the service makes sense for airlines. The realtime network you envision is already available to users willing to buy e.g. dark fiber, for less of a premium (relative to bandwidth) than that. If that doesn't work for you, why not? Yes we know that big ISPs regularly raise examples like this as a reason why they shouldn't have to provide neutral service, but that is manifestly self-serving on their part.
MaulingMonkey 11y ago
> which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc) And when a backhoe destroys a fiber line...? Or copper thieves steal cables? Or when an anchor destroys connectivity to yet another country? Datacenter fire takes out the router? AC failure overheats the router? Cosmic ray flips bits? Electrician doing a backup generator / UPS battery upgrade flips the wrong breaker? China posts a bad BGP route? Michael Jackson dies again? Amazon S3 goes down again? Landslides take out cables after earthquake? Windstorm? How many of these scenarios is traffic shaping really going to fix? Not enough to be the camel-breaking straw, IMO. Even the U.S. power grid isn't reliable enough for this kind of thing - e.g. hospitals roll their own generators as a result. As for remote operation - it's already happening with mining trucks, via failsafe robotics (which don't require real time data transfer) and dedicated networks (which can be properly secured against single failure points, and be kept small and separate enough to control and mitigate some of those concerns.)
lagudragu 11y ago
You really deserve the downvote, mate.
- splintercell 11y ago
  Great, just letting you know it is a fight you cannot win in real life. I understand that people on HN (and those who support Net Neutrality) have good intentions, unfortunately what they are trying to do is step between two private entities (network providers and data providers) whose business dealings are just (as much as UPS's priority shipping to those who want to pay for it is just). The fact is, people need to stop and think. Things aren't what they seem to be. The whole Net Neutrality movement has become an echo chamber (to which you contribute by down voting). All this does is piss people off in real life when they see that they are on a losing side of things. Right now the market thinks that profit can be made by getting rid of Net Neutrality. Once it starts to think that current Internet infrastructure cannot get rid of NN(Say some sort of law is passed), then that means more profitable venture would be a new network which can avoid the regulatory restriction of net neutrality.

deciplex 11y ago

> If we ever desire to see real usages of the Internet(that is more than just information exchange medium) We don't, or rather we see any and all "real usages" of the Internet to be that of (agnostic) information exchange, at their core. > which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc), then that would require to get rid of net neutrality. If you need truly real time behavior like this, then the Internet is not suited for your purposes, Net Neutrality or not.

splintercell 11y ago
Wouldn't it be more preferable to build a neutral layer on the top of a non-neutral network, only aimed at information exchange? I mean what's more preferable/useful, a network where moderation is made illegal on all sites or a network where various sites moderation is based on a site's values and nature, and 4chan being one such (relatively) moderation free site?
- deciplex 11y ago
  > Wouldn't it be more preferable to build a neutral layer on the top of a non-neutral network...? How do you propose doing that?

chris_wot 11y ago

If we ever desire to see real usages of the Internet(that is more than just information exchange medium) which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc), then that would require to get rid of net neutrality. I just don't see how this can be the case. Show me your evidence that some data is causing real time data transfers to slow?

splintercell 11y ago
Real time data needs reliable and fast ping rate. This isn't dictated by the bandwidth, rather by the speed of the network devices. One way to achieve that is introduction of QoS, the network devices prioritize some data over the other. If you want to observe this effect then try turning QoS on or off on your router during your wife's Netflix session while you're playing a multi-player RPG.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Are you saying that users of realtime applications should be subsidized by all other internet users?
  - splintercell 11y ago
    No, they should (and will) pay for themselves. On the other hand they will subsidize the rest of us. Kinda like how first class subsidizes the economy class. We let them board first, but our ticket becomes cheaper because of that.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      ISTM the ratios involved are very different. Even a first class air passenger with fifty kilos of baggage only takes up slightly more space and weight than an economy air passenger. Since they might be paying five or more times as much, the service makes sense for airlines. The realtime network you envision is already available to users willing to buy e.g. dark fiber, for less of a premium (relative to bandwidth) than that. If that doesn't work for you, why not? Yes we know that big ISPs regularly raise examples like this as a reason why they shouldn't have to provide neutral service, but that is manifestly self-serving on their part.

MaulingMonkey 11y ago

> which requires real time data transfer (for instance remote surgeries, remote operation of machines by a human operator, etc etc) And when a backhoe destroys a fiber line...? Or copper thieves steal cables? Or when an anchor destroys connectivity to yet another country? Datacenter fire takes out the router? AC failure overheats the router? Cosmic ray flips bits? Electrician doing a backup generator / UPS battery upgrade flips the wrong breaker? China posts a bad BGP route? Michael Jackson dies again? Amazon S3 goes down again? Landslides take out cables after earthquake? Windstorm? How many of these scenarios is traffic shaping really going to fix? Not enough to be the camel-breaking straw, IMO. Even the U.S. power grid isn't reliable enough for this kind of thing - e.g. hospitals roll their own generators as a result. As for remote operation - it's already happening with mining trucks, via failsafe robotics (which don't require real time data transfer) and dedicated networks (which can be properly secured against single failure points, and be kept small and separate enough to control and mitigate some of those concerns.)

lagudragu 11y ago

You really deserve the downvote, mate.

splintercell 11y ago
Great, just letting you know it is a fight you cannot win in real life. I understand that people on HN (and those who support Net Neutrality) have good intentions, unfortunately what they are trying to do is step between two private entities (network providers and data providers) whose business dealings are just (as much as UPS's priority shipping to those who want to pay for it is just). The fact is, people need to stop and think. Things aren't what they seem to be. The whole Net Neutrality movement has become an echo chamber (to which you contribute by down voting). All this does is piss people off in real life when they see that they are on a losing side of things. Right now the market thinks that profit can be made by getting rid of Net Neutrality. Once it starts to think that current Internet infrastructure cannot get rid of NN(Say some sort of law is passed), then that means more profitable venture would be a new network which can avoid the regulatory restriction of net neutrality.