4 ms·

Pre-2015 - keep the govt out of our internet! 2017 - save us government we need your kind regulations! No thanks. It’s amazing what a little bit of polishing a

by jquery 9y ago

Pre-2015 - keep the govt out of our internet! 2017 - save us government we need your kind regulations! No thanks. It’s amazing what a little bit of polishing a turd and renaming it will do.

extra88 9y ago
Wrong. Net neutrality proponents have been advocating for the FCC's pro-NN actions long before 2015, the problem was courts kept shooting them down because they said (probably correctly) that they didn't use their authority the right way.
- jquery 9y ago
  Most people want NN, when it comes to censorship (this is why I use Sonic.net). They don't want NN when it comes to gaming latency vs. email latency. There's a big difference, but NN lumps them in as the same thing. This is why we should punt to Congress that ensures NN applies to the First Amendment but not to voluntary trade.
  - comex 9y ago
    > There's a big difference, but NN lumps them in as the same thing. No it doesn't. The FCC's net neutrality orders have always included an exception for "reasonable network management", most recently defined as: > (f) Reasonable network management. A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. (emphasis mine; source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/8.2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/8.2) Prioritizing gaming latency is clearly a "primarily technical" concern rather than a matter of "business practices" - at least as long as the ISP didn't try to charge game publishers for the service. So it would be fine.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > They don't want NN when it comes to gaming latency vs. email latency. That isn't a thing. ISPs don't actually do that. Latency on any reasonably provisioned network is determined by distance and the speed of light. There is no magic thing routers can do for special packets to make it go down, it's just the laws of physics. They could only do something when the network isn't reasonably provisioned and the ISP's uplinks are fully saturated, but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons. See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. So what we have here is dilettantes talking about a how they think the world should be or is today rather than acknowledging that net neutrality stopped existing in 1995 when AS1239 started asking for $$ to get peering routes.
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.
        notyourday 9y ago
        Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast. The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.
dirtshell 9y ago
That's a nice straw man you got there. Be a shame if someone set it ablaze... Pre 2015 people were worried about the government actively monitoring and controlling what could be said on the internet. It was a fight to protect free speech on the web. The current issue about the actions of the FCC focuses on net neutrality. While also being essential for free speech on the web, this issue focuses on the prevention of monopolization and antitrust practices by internet service providers. Or did I miss some point you made?
kenning 9y ago
I've been looking through your comment history and the majority of stuff you say is unsubstantiated, provocative, and immediately refuted by comments 5x longer than yours with a bunch of sources because your original comment sounded informed but was actually way off base. Your six comments on this story fit this pattern as well.
- jquery 9y ago
  Argumentum by verbosity [1] is a fallacy. So is argumentum via comment history [2]. Maybe you noticed my account is 10x older than yours and couldn’t call me a shill? Perhaps you should lurk a bit longer instead of using the downvote button as a disagree button like it is on the site you came from. You’ll notice even my heavily downvoted posts in this emotional and poltical thread aren’t hidden because I have a long history of discussing things in good faith on this forum. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree about whether the FCC can make ISPs Title II by fiat. EDIT: I do not claim everything I say is right. But I will stand the courage of my convictions and am happy to be proven wrong. So far this thread is a total disaster of emotional pleas, doomsday predictions, and bad reddit-like behavior (such as yours). [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    I feel like I've read comments of yours I disagreed with before, but in this case we agree completely. I'm not interested in winning a debate per se, but I wish we had more people looking at the fundamental principles at stake here rather than using ends-justify-the-means thinking. The hysteria surrounding this topics seems really odd.

by jquery 9y ago

Pre-2015 - keep the govt out of our internet! 2017 - save us government we need your kind regulations! No thanks. It’s amazing what a little bit of polishing a turd and renaming it will do.

extra88 9y ago

Wrong. Net neutrality proponents have been advocating for the FCC's pro-NN actions long before 2015, the problem was courts kept shooting them down because they said (probably correctly) that they didn't use their authority the right way.

jquery 9y ago
Most people want NN, when it comes to censorship (this is why I use Sonic.net). They don't want NN when it comes to gaming latency vs. email latency. There's a big difference, but NN lumps them in as the same thing. This is why we should punt to Congress that ensures NN applies to the First Amendment but not to voluntary trade.
- comex 9y ago
  > There's a big difference, but NN lumps them in as the same thing. No it doesn't. The FCC's net neutrality orders have always included an exception for "reasonable network management", most recently defined as: > (f) Reasonable network management. A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. (emphasis mine; source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/8.2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/8.2) Prioritizing gaming latency is clearly a "primarily technical" concern rather than a matter of "business practices" - at least as long as the ISP didn't try to charge game publishers for the service. So it would be fine.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > They don't want NN when it comes to gaming latency vs. email latency. That isn't a thing. ISPs don't actually do that. Latency on any reasonably provisioned network is determined by distance and the speed of light. There is no magic thing routers can do for special packets to make it go down, it's just the laws of physics. They could only do something when the network isn't reasonably provisioned and the ISP's uplinks are fully saturated, but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    > but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons. See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. So what we have here is dilettantes talking about a how they think the world should be or is today rather than acknowledging that net neutrality stopped existing in 1995 when AS1239 started asking for $$ to get peering routes.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast. The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.

dirtshell 9y ago

That's a nice straw man you got there. Be a shame if someone set it ablaze... Pre 2015 people were worried about the government actively monitoring and controlling what could be said on the internet. It was a fight to protect free speech on the web. The current issue about the actions of the FCC focuses on net neutrality. While also being essential for free speech on the web, this issue focuses on the prevention of monopolization and antitrust practices by internet service providers. Or did I miss some point you made?

kenning 9y ago

I've been looking through your comment history and the majority of stuff you say is unsubstantiated, provocative, and immediately refuted by comments 5x longer than yours with a bunch of sources because your original comment sounded informed but was actually way off base. Your six comments on this story fit this pattern as well.

jquery 9y ago
Argumentum by verbosity [1] is a fallacy. So is argumentum via comment history [2]. Maybe you noticed my account is 10x older than yours and couldn’t call me a shill? Perhaps you should lurk a bit longer instead of using the downvote button as a disagree button like it is on the site you came from. You’ll notice even my heavily downvoted posts in this emotional and poltical thread aren’t hidden because I have a long history of discussing things in good faith on this forum. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree about whether the FCC can make ISPs Title II by fiat. EDIT: I do not claim everything I say is right. But I will stand the courage of my convictions and am happy to be proven wrong. So far this thread is a total disaster of emotional pleas, doomsday predictions, and bad reddit-like behavior (such as yours). [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  I feel like I've read comments of yours I disagreed with before, but in this case we agree completely. I'm not interested in winning a debate per se, but I wish we had more people looking at the fundamental principles at stake here rather than using ends-justify-the-means thinking. The hysteria surrounding this topics seems really odd.