Net Neutrality

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The fact that it is infrastructure that everyone uses is the argument for treating it as a public utility.

1. What is your definition of "infrastructure?"

2. What is your definition of "public utility?"

2. Explain how "infrastructure" = "public utility," if it does.

You can go ahead and just use the old google to type in the words infrastructure, public, and utility, and the first definitions that pop up will suffice for all of them.

Then the infrastructure = public utility question sort of answers itself.
But, I don't really have a dog in the fight. Mayhaps innernet will work more better if it isn't treated as a public utility. Maybe it won't. I am genuinely curious and ambivalent, although, I expect that, like everything, there will be a trade off. Internet will work better for some consumers in some ways with Telco keeping the gate, why shouldn't it? But, it is unlikely it will look much like the internet we are using now, and I doubt that superior innovation will be one of the ways it 'works better.'

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Yeah, working class poor brawlers have always been the bedrock of literary culture.

Not a fan?

[clubgop]

Yeah, working class poor brawlers have always been the bedrock of literary culture.

Jews have had high literacy for thousands of years. Who do you think was doing that reading, Ivy league professors? Even farmers and goatherds could read.

You cling to that narrative.

It's true. The amount of reading one has to do is some graduate level shit. You learn a language you almost certainly will never use in conversation and argue about Talmudic clauses that have been poured over for a millenia.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

This is why Christianity is superior.

It is super metal, because you worship a Lytch and everyone carries around bejeweled scepters and fucking finger bones of saints.

Plus, no reading required, you freaking nerds.

[tue4t]

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.

yea but your argument against self driving cars was that they wouldn't use TCP/IP. It wasn't against the underlying idea of some data being more valuable than others.

What about remotely operated robot surgery?

What about financial trading bots where it's down to sub miliseconds that matter.

Do you mean to say that these people need to create their own seperate network over miles and miles of land because an act of legislation prevents them from using already existing infrastructure in an otherwise viable manner?

Dishonest.

I pointed out the fact that the Internet is designed around the principle that one packet is NOT more valuable than any other. It's actually the whole fucking point of the Internet. Nothing is critical. Not the packet data and not any node in the network. We can route packet data in any number of paths to their destination, and we don't guarantee delivery, so you have to re-request packets if they didn't make it.

This is how the Internet works, guys.

I guess my router manufacturer just put QoS features on it for giggles then.

Also, if you don't guarantee packet delivery, you lose business. People literally buy access to the internet so that their packets reliably get from A to B. No-one buys internet to enjoy the wonders of time outs. You're just being ridiculous now. Why don't you go spout your poor attempts at self rationalisation to businesses that require solid connections. Dig up, not down.

[SuburbanFarmer]

yea but your argument against self driving cars was that they wouldn't use TCP/IP. It wasn't against the underlying idea of some data being more valuable than others.

What about remotely operated robot surgery?

What about financial trading bots where it's down to sub miliseconds that matter.

Do you mean to say that these people need to create their own seperate network over miles and miles of land because an act of legislation prevents them from using already existing infrastructure in an otherwise viable manner?

Dishonest.

I pointed out the fact that the Internet is designed around the principle that one packet is NOT more valuable than any other. It's actually the whole fucking point of the Internet. Nothing is critical. Not the packet data and not any node in the network. We can route packet data in any number of paths to their destination, and we don't guarantee delivery, so you have to re-request packets if they didn't make it.

This is how the Internet works, guys.

I guess my router manufacturer just put QoS features on it for giggles then.

Also, if you don't guarantee packet delivery, you lose business. People literally buy access to the internet so that their packets reliably get from A to B. No-one buys internet to enjoy the wonders of time outs. You're just being ridiculous now. Why don't you go spout your poor attempts at self rationalisation to businesses that require solid connections. Dig up, not down.

It's actually engineered to work around packet loss all the time. There's error-correction software used to re-request missing data, and fill in gaps. There is no 'delivery guarantee' in internet protocols.

Re: QoS, as I mentioned, it's not going to make a large difference. Many, many other packets are distributed while the streaming/high-priority packets are coming in. This is why your connection doesn't shut down when 1 person starts watching cat videos. It's running a clock, and making sure to pass one of them every so often, so the stream doesn't stutter. In between those clock-beats, other data streams are continuing to flow.
And, most of the time it doesn't matter anyway, because of buffering. Your device won't start playing a video until it has at least a few seconds of video ahead of where you're at.

[DBTrek]

Do I need to post the Wired article StA didn’t grasp the first time again? Regardless of the opinions of deranged serial posters, self driving cars and other critical real world systems *do* use the Internet.

I understand that totally fucks up the panic monkey routine over ending NN, which is also why he’s trying so hard to pretend that self driving cars and surgery robots would *never* use the Internet. The very internet we can watch them use today.

What are we up to now, 7, 8, sources that have shot down every stupid claim he’s made? Not that I expect him to run out of stupid claims at this point, as they make for the bulk of his output.

[The Conservative]

Do I need to post the Wited article StA didn’t grasp the first time again? Regardless of the opinions of deranged serial posters, self driving cars and other critical real world systems *do* use the Internet.

I understand that totally fucks up the panic monkey routine over ending NN, which is also why he’s trying so hard to pretend that self driving cars and surgery robots would *never* use the Internet. The very internet we can watch them use today.

What are we up to now, 7, 8, sources that have shot down every stupid claim he’s made? Not that I expect him to run out of stupid claims at this point, as they make for the bulk of his output.

When will you learn, a wall has a better understanding of the wires running through it than StA and others Chicken Littling all over the place.

[Fife]

The fact that it is infrastructure that everyone uses is the argument for treating it as a public utility.

1. What is your definition of "infrastructure?"

2. What is your definition of "public utility?"

2. Explain how "infrastructure" = "public utility," if it does.

You can go ahead and just use the old google to type in the words infrastructure, public, and utility, and the first definitions that pop up will suffice for all of them.

Then the infrastructure = public utility question sort of answers itself.
But, I don't really have a dog in the fight. Mayhaps innernet will work more better if it isn't treated as a public utility. Maybe it won't. I am genuinely curious and ambivalent, although, I expect that, like everything, there will be a trade off. Internet will work better for some consumers in some ways with Telco keeping the gate, why shouldn't it? But, it is unlikely it will look much like the internet we are using now, and I doubt that superior innovation will be one of the ways it 'works better.'

Yeah, that's about what I thought. Nihilism is a hell of a drug.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Fife]

How about some NN morning memes to get the juices of hate flowing?


On the nihilistic hype:




On the economics: