Net Neutrality

[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?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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

[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.

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.

Then DB said that it's absurd that all data is equal (which is laughable) and he backed that up with the equally laughable assertion that, for example, self-driving cars could be controlled by TCP/IP data remotely, and that data would inherently be more valuable than a Netflix stream. Which is fucking ridiculous. We don't control critical systems across the Internet. If you do that, and somebody dies, you are in for a rough haul, champ.

Then, when that collapsed on him, he came back with some story about hackers wrecking cars connected to the Internet for other things (like On Demand), and somehow he thought that was a point in his favor!? Uh.. no.. that's yet another strike against the idea that we should have critical systems dependent upon the fucking Internet.

*IF* there exists transmitted data that is inherently more valuable (i.e. loss or latency could affect human lives), then that data ought NEVER be transmitted across the Goddamn Internet. Full stop.

[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.

[brewster]

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.

Perhaps you would be right if there were actually free markets, but there's not. We talking about "high barrier of entry" for ISP's and startups trying to buy enough bandwidth to compete against established companies who have coopted both the suppliers and governments. If the repeal of net neutrality included outlawing barriers to entry like the laws forbidding municipal systems, at least there would be less hypocrisy in the mix.

As for the miracle of free markets eradicating racism, LOL! Historic redlining of real estate and mortgages is simply one example of systemic market racism at the expense of profit. There should have been outlier banks willing to lend to minorities and suck up that entire market, but there wasn't.

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, people taking a stance *against* net neutrality are literally taking a stance AGAINST free markets. FFS

Don't let these shekel chasers snow you like that. They are not the ones arguing for free markets here.

[brewster]

Dude, people taking a stance *against* net neutrality are literally taking a stance AGAINST free markets. FFS

I know that, most arguments for the free market are bullshit. The "free market" is one of the founding lies of the USA. What they want is for telecom to be the equivalent of the scummy electronics dealers in Times Square with no marked prices who price their goods when they size you up for how much they can extract.

[Fife]

Dude, people taking a stance *against* net neutrality are literally taking a stance AGAINST free markets. FFS

I know that, most arguments for the free market are bullshit. The "free market" is one of the founding lies of the USA. What they want is for telecom to be the equivalent of the scummy electronics dealers in Times Square with no marked prices who price their goods when they size you up for how much they can extract.

How, specifically, is the free market one of "the founding lies of the the USA?"

What are some the other "founding lies" of the USA?

I have a big list of those, myself, all post Spring 1787.

I agree that there were plenty of lies in the "founding."

What are your "founding lies?" Let's compare lists.

[TheReal_ND]

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.

Perhaps you would be right if there were actually free markets, but there's not. We talking about "high barrier of entry" for ISP's and startups trying to buy enough bandwidth to compete against established companies who have coopted both the suppliers and governments. If the repeal of net neutrality included outlawing barriers to entry like the laws forbidding municipal systems, at least there would be less hypocrisy in the mix.

As for the miracle of free markets eradicating racism, LOL! Historic redlining of real estate and mortgages is simply one example of systemic market racism at the expense of profit. There should have been outlier banks willing to lend to minorities and suck up that entire market, but there wasn't.

Fannie Mae Freddie Mac

What is it?

[brewster]

How, specifically, is the free market one of "the founding lies of the the USA?"

Because there was crony capitalism right from the start. One could argue it was necessary to grow infrastructure, but that's what it was. Another founding lie (at least as far as govt policy) was obviously "all men are created equal".

As for "Post 1787", there's no point in discussing pre, there was no functional nation.

Fannie Mae Freddie Mac What is it?

Crony capitalism, privatizing gains and socializing losses. Classic "big lie" capitalism.