4 ms·

Yes, we could go far down that road, I just think Netflix makes for a poor example case. They have stirred up a lot of this discussion, which is not about them

Yes, we could go far down that road, I just think Netflix makes for a poor example case. They have stirred up a lot of this discussion, which is not about them at all. Furthermore, "configured sanely" would not be neutral, IMO. I'm in favor of regulating, but you just described why neutral networks are bad. ;)

wtallis 12y ago
You're presenting a horrible false dichotomy here. There are options other than racketeering or having all your equipment limited to large dumb FIFO queues. Active queue management strategies can ensure that flows with different traffic patterns cannot starve each other, without explicitly classifying them based on protocol or customer; all ports and IPs get the same rules applied to them. VoIP and streaming video and email and everything else can coexist automatically just like interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers. Furthermore, good AQM/SQM usually results in better performance for everyone - even the Netflix users - by eliminating unnecessary retransmissions and other harmful side-effects of poorly managed congestion. Nobody is advocating for a definition of "neutral" that would exclude such techniques except for people who are trying to make neutrality sound bad.
- justizin 12y ago
  interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers? ;) Look, I'm just saying that the non-technical language being used to advocate for net neutrality poorly matches the technical language, and that will cause problems when properly writing or understanding the language of such law is viewed by non-technical people as providing an opportunity for the industry to self-regulate. I don't entirely disagree, but it's irrelevant if I do, because such human concerns are likely to be raised and it would be possible to write better regulation, IMO, if we avoided the word 'neutral'. I think, for instance, that a lot of people outside the industry conflate paid prioritization with paying for dedicated bandwidth capacity via high commits. Furthermore, some of the most popular arguments have been provided by Netflix and don't entirely hold water when applied to all parties - if I have bytes and enough people want them, should my provider be required to come to my place and constantly upgrade the link until it cannot be saturated? [ I know that over time, Netflix refined their argument, but that was more or less how they started the conversation ] I just think there's a disconnect, I am particularly concerned at how many people are like, "I am for Net Neutrality because I want the government's hands off my Internet!". [ tilts head ] I'm not sure that's the conversation I want to be having. ;)
belorn 12y ago
The EU net neutrality rules include that a neutral network can use throttling tools in order to handle temporary network congestion. The key word here is "temporary", which mean a ISP can't oversell their capacity and then use throttling in order to continue selling once the capacity is full 24/7. You turn throttling from being a tool to generate profits, into a technical tool for handling congestion and establish reliability of the network. A term that technicians has in their tool belt, rather than business executives. FCC decision is about policy. Deciding whom and why throttling is used is in my view the core issue being described with NN rules, and is 100% political in nature rather than technical.

wtallis 12y ago

You're presenting a horrible false dichotomy here. There are options other than racketeering or having all your equipment limited to large dumb FIFO queues. Active queue management strategies can ensure that flows with different traffic patterns cannot starve each other, without explicitly classifying them based on protocol or customer; all ports and IPs get the same rules applied to them. VoIP and streaming video and email and everything else can coexist automatically just like interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers. Furthermore, good AQM/SQM usually results in better performance for everyone - even the Netflix users - by eliminating unnecessary retransmissions and other harmful side-effects of poorly managed congestion. Nobody is advocating for a definition of "neutral" that would exclude such techniques except for people who are trying to make neutrality sound bad.

justizin 12y ago
interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers? ;) Look, I'm just saying that the non-technical language being used to advocate for net neutrality poorly matches the technical language, and that will cause problems when properly writing or understanding the language of such law is viewed by non-technical people as providing an opportunity for the industry to self-regulate. I don't entirely disagree, but it's irrelevant if I do, because such human concerns are likely to be raised and it would be possible to write better regulation, IMO, if we avoided the word 'neutral'. I think, for instance, that a lot of people outside the industry conflate paid prioritization with paying for dedicated bandwidth capacity via high commits. Furthermore, some of the most popular arguments have been provided by Netflix and don't entirely hold water when applied to all parties - if I have bytes and enough people want them, should my provider be required to come to my place and constantly upgrade the link until it cannot be saturated? [ I know that over time, Netflix refined their argument, but that was more or less how they started the conversation ] I just think there's a disconnect, I am particularly concerned at how many people are like, "I am for Net Neutrality because I want the government's hands off my Internet!". [ tilts head ] I'm not sure that's the conversation I want to be having. ;)

belorn 12y ago

The EU net neutrality rules include that a neutral network can use throttling tools in order to handle temporary network congestion. The key word here is "temporary", which mean a ISP can't oversell their capacity and then use throttling in order to continue selling once the capacity is full 24/7. You turn throttling from being a tool to generate profits, into a technical tool for handling congestion and establish reliability of the network. A term that technicians has in their tool belt, rather than business executives. FCC decision is about policy. Deciding whom and why throttling is used is in my view the core issue being described with NN rules, and is 100% political in nature rather than technical.