Net Neutrality

[The Conservative]

A self-driving vehicle that requires TCP/IP packets to not drop in order not to kill people is probably a non-starter.

TCP/IP was not designed for critical systems.

Yes, all data is equal. It's just fucking data, people. 1s and 0s.

LOL

Brilliant emotional retort.

Your ability to spout emotional nonsense while whoring for attention is rivaled only by SJW tweens. And yet, you’ve done a 180 on the topic based on nothing. Derp derp.

Second, “all data is equal because it’s 1s and 0s” is so monumentally stupid it can scarcely be considered a serious statement. Akin to saying “all matter is equal because it’s all made of atoms”. Hella derp.

As for HM, you understand it wrong.

Weird how you emotionally responded to a statement of rational fact and labeled facts as "emotion".

The Internet cannot be used for critical systems. It's literally designed for packet loss, built into the thing from the start. So, yeah, all data is equal. There is no -- or should be no -- any critical information flowing across the Internet. By that I mean data that, if it is dropped or latent, could result in serious harm to systems or humans. If you design such a system and market it, then you will be held liable in court for damages.

Any kind of data that is critical in that way has to be transmitted across a reliable network. The Internet -- this apparently is news to you -- is *not* reliable.

Like I said before (and you ignored), it's better to look at the wireless systems because the manufacturers of that network hardware are required by contract to produce systems that have downtime measured in a fraction of a second per year. They don't use the Internet. LOL

I realize I am trying to explain this to an IT person, and this is engineering, but come on. This is not complicated to understand.

Wow, just wow... you are truly behind the times when it comes to this shit... wireless communications are anything but secure.

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/2 ... -for-2016/

[DBTrek]

You’ve seen the blather spammed, now cleanse that emotional drivel from your palate with an actual article (which I cited back on page 77, but whatever):
http://fortune.com/2017/12/11/fcc-net-n ... ty-repeal/

The Internet of Things, and the 5G connectivity that supports it, will give us greener buildings and factories, more productive farms, safer cars, and 4K video streamed almost everywhere. But each of these services will make unique demands on the network—demands that can best be met if ISPs offer different levels of network performance tailored to each service. For example, a shipping container crossing the ocean needs extended wireless range; virtual reality’s high-resolution video takes serious bandwidth; and driverless cars will require ultra-low latency to ensure that signals reach the brakes in time to prevent a collision. In a world where every packet of digital data gets treated the same as every other, this would not be possible.

5G marks the next phase of a digital revolution whose arrival policymakers can accelerate or retard by pulling on the right levers. Net neutrality, aimed at protecting innovation, would have the unintended consequence of deferring investment in the network on which society increasingly depends. That is an outcome we cannot afford.

We need regulations that promote innovation, ensure fair competition, protect consumers, and give the companies that operate the network enough flexibility to support digital services that don’t exist today.

This is why StA does his whole “no arguments” diatribe in hopes that people will forget that he’s unable to refute even the simplest argument.

Derp derp.

[Speaker to Animals]

Brilliant emotional retort.

Your ability to spout emotional nonsense while whoring for attention is rivaled only by SJW tweens. And yet, you’ve done a 180 on the topic based on nothing. Derp derp.

Second, “all data is equal because it’s 1s and 0s” is so monumentally stupid it can scarcely be considered a serious statement. Akin to saying “all matter is equal because it’s all made of atoms”. Hella derp.

As for HM, you understand it wrong.

Weird how you emotionally responded to a statement of rational fact and labeled facts as "emotion".

The Internet cannot be used for critical systems. It's literally designed for packet loss, built into the thing from the start. So, yeah, all data is equal. There is no -- or should be no -- any critical information flowing across the Internet. By that I mean data that, if it is dropped or latent, could result in serious harm to systems or humans. If you design such a system and market it, then you will be held liable in court for damages.

Any kind of data that is critical in that way has to be transmitted across a reliable network. The Internet -- this apparently is news to you -- is *not* reliable.

Like I said before (and you ignored), it's better to look at the wireless systems because the manufacturers of that network hardware are required by contract to produce systems that have downtime measured in a fraction of a second per year. They don't use the Internet. LOL

I realize I am trying to explain this to an IT person, and this is engineering, but come on. This is not complicated to understand.

Wow, just wow... you are truly behind the times when it comes to this shit... wireless communications are anything but secure.

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/2 ... -for-2016/

This is what I mean by retarded. Nothing in that post had anything to say about security. I was discussing latency and packet loss, and their impact upon critical systems that require packet data in order not to fail catastrophically

[The Conservative]

Weird how you emotionally responded to a statement of rational fact and labeled facts as "emotion".

The Internet cannot be used for critical systems. It's literally designed for packet loss, built into the thing from the start. So, yeah, all data is equal. There is no -- or should be no -- any critical information flowing across the Internet. By that I mean data that, if it is dropped or latent, could result in serious harm to systems or humans. If you design such a system and market it, then you will be held liable in court for damages.

Any kind of data that is critical in that way has to be transmitted across a reliable network. The Internet -- this apparently is news to you -- is *not* reliable.

Like I said before (and you ignored), it's better to look at the wireless systems because the manufacturers of that network hardware are required by contract to produce systems that have downtime measured in a fraction of a second per year. They don't use the Internet. LOL

I realize I am trying to explain this to an IT person, and this is engineering, but come on. This is not complicated to understand.

Wow, just wow... you are truly behind the times when it comes to this shit... wireless communications are anything but secure.

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/2 ... -for-2016/

This is what I mean by retarded. Nothing in that post had anything to say about security. I was discussing latency and packet loss, and their impact upon critical systems that require packet data in order not to fail catastrophically

Wireless has a greater packet loss than any others, plus the fact you are also ignoring that most wireless needs a direct line of sight, in where the way our cities are made today is impossible to use.

Also, you don't put mission-critical systems on any network without security first put into place.

[SuburbanFarmer]

A self-driving vehicle that requires TCP/IP packets to not drop in order not to kill people is probably a non-starter.

TCP/IP was not designed for critical systems.

Yes, all data is equal. It's just fucking data, people. 1s and 0s.

LOL

So the cure for cancer is just as important as streaming Patton while you whack off to it?

In a data networking sense, yes. Transmitting the cure for cancer is done at the same speed as Patton.

The routers may prioritize delivery of streaming video over other data packets, but it makes little difference in the end. They're only buffering 1-2 packets at a time.

IT Director you said, right?

[brewster]

So the cure for cancer is just as important as streaming Patton while you whack off to it?

THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS FROM THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY MEETING
#3 "I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and autonomous car technology over cat videos...Consider that each autonomous vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four terabytes of data a day, much of which will be carried by wireless networks. It’s hard to imagine that some prioritization of traffic won’t be necessary, further undermining attempts to ban such practices."—Commissioner O’Rielly"

You know who else believed telemedicine services should be prioritized over cat videos? The 2015 FCC that passed the net neutrality order. In that order, the commission created a category of services called “non-BIAS data services,” which include heart monitors and internet phone services, which are entitled to greater speeds. As Ars Technica recently pointed out, the 2015 rules specifically noted that “telemedicine services might alternatively be structured as ‘non-BIAS data services,’ which are beyond the reach of the open Internet rules.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest ... y-meeting/

[DBTrek]

So under net neutrality the FCC has a special category for critical services that they approved, and their approval covered heart monitors and VOIP?

... and now innovation will continue without the FCC needing to be consulted for approval? The FCC won’t be able to quash innovative startups by refusing them “non-BIAS” status?

Sounds terrible.
Clearly the internet is over.

[The Conservative]

So the cure for cancer is just as important as streaming Patton while you whack off to it?

THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS FROM THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY MEETING
#3 "I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and autonomous car technology over cat videos...Consider that each autonomous vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four terabytes of data a day, much of which will be carried by wireless networks. It’s hard to imagine that some prioritization of traffic won’t be necessary, further undermining attempts to ban such practices."—Commissioner O’Rielly"

You know who else believed telemedicine services should be prioritized over cat videos? The 2015 FCC that passed the net neutrality order. In that order, the commission created a category of services called “non-BIAS data services,” which include heart monitors and internet phone services, which are entitled to greater speeds. As Ars Technica recently pointed out, the 2015 rules specifically noted that “telemedicine services might alternatively be structured as ‘non-BIAS data services,’ which are beyond the reach of the open Internet rules.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest ... y-meeting/

4Tb of data a day... Comcast limits 1TB a month... the US infrastructure can't handle that as it stands today.

[DBTrek]

A little story about self driving cars for our “engineer” friend, who hasn’t engineered shit but excuses, outrage, and hyperbole as long as anyone has known him:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-r ... p-highway/

[brewster]

... and now innovation will continue without the FCC needing to be consulted for approval? The FCC won’t be able to quash innovative startups by refusing them “non-BIAS” status?

So it would be better for high data medical startups to not be able to purchase the bandwidth they need because of biased pricing rather than them having to get certified as falling under the exception in NN?