Net Neutrality

[DBTrek]

... 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?

You have it backwards.
Before, high data medical startups needed faster bandwidth *and* a decree from the FCC simply to operate.

Now, they can just pay for the bandwidth they need, no stamp of bureaucratic approval necessary.

The process is simplified, and biased, outside interests aren’t unbreachable gatekeepers.

[Speaker to Animals]

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/

LMFAO

You think that supported your argument that the Internet needs prioritized packet data routing so we can remotely control vehicles?

You certainly are a tool, but not the sharpest tool in the shed..

[brewster]

You have it backwards.
Before, high data medical startups needed faster bandwidth *and* a decree from the FCC simply to operate. Now, they can just pay for the bandwidth they need, no stamp of bureaucratic approval necessary. The process is simplified, and biased, outside interests aren’t unbreachable gatekeepers.

So you believe it's impossible the incumbent dominant medical company would leverage their relationship with the provider to pressure them to not give a viable data deal to a startup? Or Netflix will because of its size can get a much better streaming deal with your ISP than the startup? It just makes sense that they can get a better deal with their own connection, but now they can get a better deal with yours, locking in their advantage.

[DBTrek]

I think your inevitable slide into irrelevance has been pretty much cemented in this thread.
Again.

[heydaralon]

If Elon Musk actually cared about self driving cars, he would have looked into coal locomotives years ago. Tried and true tech+cheap. All you need is to put tracks on the highways for the cars to drive on. This infrastructure boost would get us out of the current depression. I am getting a bit tired of Luddites like Musk telling the American public how to spend. Number one, space tech is old. We went to the moon before the 70's. How about coming up with some better ideas Elon? Has this moron even considered inventing a calculator that would run on solar power? I doubt his mind is that open.

[DBTrek]

You have it backwards.
Before, high data medical startups needed faster bandwidth *and* a decree from the FCC simply to operate. Now, they can just pay for the bandwidth they need, no stamp of bureaucratic approval necessary. The process is simplified, and biased, outside interests aren’t unbreachable gatekeepers.

So you believe it's impossible the incumbent dominant medical company would leverage their relationship with the provider to pressure them to not give a viable data deal to a startup? Or Netflix will because of its size can get a much better streaming deal with your ISP than the startup? It just makes sense that they can get a better deal with their own connection, but now they can get a better deal with yours, locking in their advantage.

You’re describing problems that arise from government regulation, not market forces. Under NN the government regulators must be bribed into allowing you a non-BIAS status to operate. Meaning if they already have special interest donors those same bureaucrats can easily lock you out of the market.

Now, anyone who can afford a “fast lane” can compete with other businesses that have the same connection requirements. The gatekeeper is the dollar, not a bunch of faceless, self-interested bureaucrats. Everyone can compete on the dollar field. Not everyone can compete on the faceless bureaucrat field.

So you’re describing problems that arise from NN, not from its repeal.

[Fife]

You have it backwards.
Before, high data medical startups needed faster bandwidth *and* a decree from the FCC simply to operate. Now, they can just pay for the bandwidth they need, no stamp of bureaucratic approval necessary. The process is simplified, and biased, outside interests aren’t unbreachable gatekeepers.

So you believe it's impossible the incumbent dominant medical company would leverage their relationship with the provider to pressure them to not give a viable data deal to a startup? Or Netflix will because of its size can get a much better streaming deal with your ISP than the startup? It just makes sense that they can get a better deal with their own connection, but now they can get a better deal with yours, locking in their advantage.

You’re describing problems that arise from government regulation, not market forces. Under NN the government regulators must be bribed into allowing you a non-BIAS status to operate. Meaning if they already have special interest donors those same bureaucrats can easily lock you out of the market.

Now, anyone who can afford a “fast lane” can compete with other businesses that have the same connection requirements. The gatekeeper is the dollar, not a bunch of faceless, self-interested bureaucrats. Everyone can compete on the dollar field. Not everyone can compete on the faceless bureaucrat field.

So you’re describing problems that arise from NN, not from its repeal.

brewster, your question amounts to a false dichotomy. It is making an assumption that supply will not develop to meet demand, or put another way, that our policy decisions should be made assuming current year technology will obtain 5, 10, 20 years from now.

The real sadness of central planning is that the plans are self-fulfilling prophesies of stagnation, shortage, poverty, &c., too often.

[tue4t]

You have it backwards.
Before, high data medical startups needed faster bandwidth *and* a decree from the FCC simply to operate. Now, they can just pay for the bandwidth they need, no stamp of bureaucratic approval necessary. The process is simplified, and biased, outside interests aren’t unbreachable gatekeepers.

So you believe it's impossible the incumbent dominant medical company would leverage their relationship with the provider to pressure them to not give a viable data deal to a startup? Or Netflix will because of its size can get a much better streaming deal with your ISP than the startup? It just makes sense that they can get a better deal with their own connection, but now they can get a better deal with yours, locking in their advantage.

It's not impossible, and it certainly sounds scary at first but you gotta see your argument through to the end and actually game it out. Here's the rub, and it's why free markets tend to be very effective at eradicating racism and other kinds of nonsensical discrimination.

People making this argument keep forgetting the premise they started with - ISP's are still private, profit seeking entities. If you want favorable access, or pay them to throttle your competition, you're going to have to pay the ISP enough money to make up their losses from doing your bidding.

Those losses are generally quite substantial, including

• Loss of business from your competition switching to alternative ISP's
• Compensation for loss of reputation
• Compensation for increased risk of regulatory action
• Loss of ISP subscribers switching to alternative ISP's

This isn't a one off event either. You're constantly buying new contracts with however many multiple ISP's to throttle all new competition that you become aware of. And over the internet of all places, where barriers to entry are smallest and innovation highest. Said competition can also simply change their identity, which the ISP's will turn a blind eye to, and instead go back to deep pockets incorporated to sell them another throttling contract. Soon enough, deep pockets incorporated either files chapter 7 or grows some brains and stops messing with ISP connection speeds.

Benefits/costs don't line up. You might as well just buy your competition out offline it ends up being cheaper. Swimming against market is very very costly. Especially if your product/service is interchangeable, which it will be if you have competition.

The other alternative is not to throttle your competition but for deep pockets incorporated to say to the ISP "we want to work with you to provide a subsidised express line for your customers to access our content". Win Win. Customers get cheaper access to this particular business, and everyone else on the main line gets slightly more available bandwidth.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think your inevitable slide into irrelevance has been pretty much cemented in this thread.
Again.

Motherfucker, you just argued that we need prioritized packet data routing on the Internet because self-driving cars might need them, and packet data containing control instructions would be more important than somebody's Netflix stream. I replied that it's not advisable to send such command and control data across the Internet, for any kind of critical system. Then as a rebuttal to that (which should have been common sense, but whatever) was to post an article about the ADDITIONAL problem of people hacking vehicles connected to the Internet even for non-critical services. When confronted with the fact that you simply posted yet another reason why your original argument is invalid, you posted this.

Jesus, man. You are senile.

Step up your game, dude. This is sad. Insults are okay, but without an argument, you are just a pathetic Internet cunt.

[Speaker to Animals]

The way the Internet was designed, and the reason why it's successful commercially, is that there really is no difference between packet data. It doesn't matter what's in the TCP/IP payload. It's just data.

If you need to use a network for critical systems, then you DO NOT use the fucking Internet. There exists no valid reason to fuck with this principle other than to fuck with the free market.