4 ms·

Makes sense. If you are offering a 'fast lane' then you are just slowing down everyone who doesn't pay.

by Cody-99 2y ago

tomohawk 2y ago
[flagged]
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Commonly other drivers must stop for emergency vehicles. And how can you give certain vehicles priority without dedicating lanes or requiring other drivers to yield? The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. They allow speed limits and congestion management also.
  - Cody-99 2y ago
    >The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. Exactly. FCC has required emergency responders and other critical agencies to have priority for years. The new rules have zero impact on that. Anyone acting like these rules somehow inhibit emergency response is either at best wrong or at worse arguing in bad faith.
- Cody-99 2y ago
  This is a silly argument IMO. > Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren? I don't know why you are trying to complicate the issue with a bad analogy. There is no reason for ISPs to be able to sell 'fast lanes' to consumers. There is no benefit to it at all and it directly impedes the service for everyone else. >Bandwidth is limited. If you have have a surge of data and have to drop some, is it too crazy to think that the videoconference for an emergency responder should be the thing to not drop instead of the youtube video? Sometimes bandwidth is limited. When it is truly limited latency goes up but it doesn't meant the ISP has to start blocking stuff. Anyways if an ISP is having bandwidth issues regularly they need to get that fixed and not try and gouge more money out of customers by offering 'fast lanes'. Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't do QoS. They just can't target specific applications or sources/destinations in an effort to pry more money out of customers. You video conference example just makes no sense. Under net neutrality ISPs can still give priority to emergency responders and other critical government agencies. Go read your ISPs service agreement policy and state/federal laws if you don't believe me.

Makes sense. If you are offering a 'fast lane' then you are just slowing down everyone who doesn't pay.

tomohawk 2y ago

[flagged]

pseudalopex 2y ago
Commonly other drivers must stop for emergency vehicles. And how can you give certain vehicles priority without dedicating lanes or requiring other drivers to yield? The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. They allow speed limits and congestion management also.
- Cody-99 2y ago
  >The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. Exactly. FCC has required emergency responders and other critical agencies to have priority for years. The new rules have zero impact on that. Anyone acting like these rules somehow inhibit emergency response is either at best wrong or at worse arguing in bad faith.
Cody-99 2y ago
This is a silly argument IMO. > Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren? I don't know why you are trying to complicate the issue with a bad analogy. There is no reason for ISPs to be able to sell 'fast lanes' to consumers. There is no benefit to it at all and it directly impedes the service for everyone else. >Bandwidth is limited. If you have have a surge of data and have to drop some, is it too crazy to think that the videoconference for an emergency responder should be the thing to not drop instead of the youtube video? Sometimes bandwidth is limited. When it is truly limited latency goes up but it doesn't meant the ISP has to start blocking stuff. Anyways if an ISP is having bandwidth issues regularly they need to get that fixed and not try and gouge more money out of customers by offering 'fast lanes'. Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't do QoS. They just can't target specific applications or sources/destinations in an effort to pry more money out of customers. You video conference example just makes no sense. Under net neutrality ISPs can still give priority to emergency responders and other critical government agencies. Go read your ISPs service agreement policy and state/federal laws if you don't believe me.