5 ms·
Members of Congress rake FCC over the coals in official net neutrality comment
- polotics 9y agoThanks for this post. The notion of separating legislative, executive and judiciary powers is under attack from a new model, not sure how best to define that new thing though: "financial, moneyed, social media"?
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoOligarchy.
- sgift 9y agoMore specifically: Plutocracy
- mirimir 9y agoI'd say kleptocracy.
- wheaties 9y agoIt always has been. D and R are guilty of doing this as much and as often as the other. When one side has a majority, it's always the other which attempts to pull the "independent from..." argument.
- anilgulecha 9y agoTo US law experts: does this letter carry any legal weight towards forcing FCC to act in favour of net-neutrality?
- dfabulich 9y agoThe letter carries no legal weight at all.
- GeneralMayhem 9y agoBinding? None whatsoever. If this goes to court (which it won't anytime soon), a judge who doesn't feel strongly one way or another but is a constitutional literalist might be vaguely influenced. And a judge who would already be inclined to rule in favor of net neutrality might cite it in a decision. (IANAL)
- martin1975 9y agoHas anyone put together a solid position on how QoS would operate in a world of net neutrality? QoS for particular services that might need it pretty much guarantees some packets will go ahead of others. My question or dilemma is, can QoS work while preventing abuses like abridging freedom of speech?
- ko27 9y agoCombination of QoS of important services (e.g. VoIP) and Net Neutrality works just fine in EU.
- tjoff 9y agoIn the very rare use cases where QoS for a specific service is needed it should be per subscriber, thus something that the subscribers router deals with. Not something the ISP needs to concern itself with at all.
- tw04 9y agoThat will do nothing for congestion within the core of the provider network. That's where qos is actually needed. Asking providers not to oversubscribe at all would literally increase the cost of broadband a minimum of 100x overnight.
- tjoff 9y agoI'm not asking them to not oversubscribe. Just don't do QoS. This isn't a problem today and there is nothing that suggest it will a problem in the future either.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago> That will do nothing for congestion within the core of the provider network. That's where qos is actually needed. It isn't. Congestion in the core of the network shouldn't happen. > Asking providers not to oversubscribe at all would literally increase the cost of broadband a minimum of 100x overnight. That's conflating two different things. It's possible to oversubscribe and still have no congestion, because having 100% of customers all use 100% of their connections at the same time literally never happens. As long as the uplink can carry the peak load in practice, there will not be any congestion. If it can't then the network is too oversubscribed, which should not happen.
- sam_goody 9y agoFrom a political point of view, it is in the interest of more and more congressman to openly support this letter (which has lots of ticks: non-binding, popular, subtly-anti-Trump..) Which IMO is a good thing. Practically, (ie. non-cynical for its own sake) we should ask as many senators for their opinion as possible, and make the FCC's position even more unpopular within Washington. Leading to (hopefully) more defection within FCC by members that worry about their future careers.
- greeneggs 9y agoThis is a remarkably optimistic comment. Ten Democratic congressmen writing a letter does not make the FCC's position more unpopular within Washington. Realistically, the letter could equally have the opposite effect, polarizing the issue further.
- mikeash 9y agoWhat a surprise, there's a "D" next to everyone's name. I agree with their sentiment, but nobody with power is going to care in the least. Might as well be "Old Man Yells At Cloud."