4 ms·

That’s bullshit. I run a small telehealth company and latencies are not “just fine.” I spend much of my day dealing with internet connections for telehealth tha

That’s bullshit. I run a small telehealth company and latencies are not “just fine.” I spend much of my day dealing with internet connections for telehealth that are far from just fine, and it isn’t because of raw speeds, but the fact that “everything should be equal” is to ignore the fact that bandwidth is finite. Streaming YouTube is not as latency sensitive as telemedicine. Yet under NN — that traffic has to be treated equally. If I could pay a surcharge to have my traffic prioritized, I would, but under existing rules, real-time telehealth is if equal importance as some kid watching Kinder Suprise egg videos on YouTube, yet if an ISP wanted to prioritize real time traffic, under NN they couldn’t. Now, maybe ISPs could compete on offering things like “optimized for video conferencing or VOIP” or “optimized for large downloading needs” or whatever. Not all traffic is equal and not all consumers have identical needs. What the REAL issue is is local governments providing de facto monopoly power to ISPs thus preventing the sort of competition that would make a much more innovative and customizable product for consumers. My needs are more geared around real-time and less around large downloads, yet here in France where I live, all traffic is identically treated, supposedly. There are unintended consequences with NN that I feel that people don’t understand. The internet isn’t the same as a phone call — some traffic has different requirements in order to be successful, while phone calls are all pretty much the same.

nawgszy 9y ago
Like I said, the most latency-sensitive topic I can relate to is first-person shooters; in particular, I play the game CS:GO, where one shot can knock you out of a round. I play within a 40ms ping area, generally around 20-30ms of ping, and that seems to get me (from California) more or less the whole west coast of America. I experience virtually no issues from my internet, and like I said, I pay $30 a month for this service. I don't use a lot of band-width, I simply use a consistent stream, and I see no reason why I should have to pay more for that right. It's an automaton wiring packets, not people scrambling to move data. Back to you, though: what sort of issues arise from this extreme sensitivity to latency you have? Is 'telehealth' just a doctor skyping with a patient or do you have some kind of real-time devices that depend on communication over a distance? If the latter, how sure are you that your architecture isn't the issue, and some computations couldn't be done in a different link in the chain? >the REAL issue is local governments providing de facto monopoly power to ISPs I totally agree. Like I literally said in my comment, the whole calculus of this conversation would change if ISPs actually had to compete, but since they obviously don't, I can't possibly see how revoking net neutrality is a good idea. It simply lets them tighten their stranglehold in a fashion that costs everyone more money and extends the anti-competitive sphere they exist in into the whole realm of business that relies on sending traffic over the internet. So sure, it's easy to say "telehealth has a real impact on lives and YouTube for children doesn't", but that doesn't mean eliminating net neutrality here and now is a good choice.

nawgszy 9y ago

Like I said, the most latency-sensitive topic I can relate to is first-person shooters; in particular, I play the game CS:GO, where one shot can knock you out of a round. I play within a 40ms ping area, generally around 20-30ms of ping, and that seems to get me (from California) more or less the whole west coast of America. I experience virtually no issues from my internet, and like I said, I pay $30 a month for this service. I don't use a lot of band-width, I simply use a consistent stream, and I see no reason why I should have to pay more for that right. It's an automaton wiring packets, not people scrambling to move data. Back to you, though: what sort of issues arise from this extreme sensitivity to latency you have? Is 'telehealth' just a doctor skyping with a patient or do you have some kind of real-time devices that depend on communication over a distance? If the latter, how sure are you that your architecture isn't the issue, and some computations couldn't be done in a different link in the chain? >the REAL issue is local governments providing de facto monopoly power to ISPs I totally agree. Like I literally said in my comment, the whole calculus of this conversation would change if ISPs actually had to compete, but since they obviously don't, I can't possibly see how revoking net neutrality is a good idea. It simply lets them tighten their stranglehold in a fashion that costs everyone more money and extends the anti-competitive sphere they exist in into the whole realm of business that relies on sending traffic over the internet. So sure, it's easy to say "telehealth has a real impact on lives and YouTube for children doesn't", but that doesn't mean eliminating net neutrality here and now is a good choice.