Net Neutrality

[brewster]

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.

[TheReal_ND]

Muslims.

Not stupid Europoors. They was dumb and shiet

[Penner]

[Okeefenokee]

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.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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?

I’m the case of stock trading, yes. They already have. And it’s measured in nanoseconds.

See: Flash Boys

[Smitty-48]

Your position is equally ideological, simply diametrically opposed, and other than you ignoring the fact that the government has a monopoly on force, exactly the same in reverse, so what is your beef?

[Speaker to Animals]

Real talk: If you are trying to do something like design remote robotic surgery systems or something along those lines, then depending upon the Internet to transmit and receive packet data is not a good idea. The Internet is designed with robustness in mind, not reliability. TCP/IP does not guarantee no packet loss, or even that you get the packet data in the correct order. Your shit can get lost at any node on its path to the destination.

If you want reliable, you are going to lose robustness. The entire point of the Internet is that it's robust. It was literally designed to survive nuclear attacks. It was not designed to perform heart surgery.

Now.. I am sure the state of the art these days is providing extremely high reliability and extremely low latency, to the point where it's probably feasible to remotely control a robot performing heart surgery somewhere in the world, but it's a really bad fucking idea. I don't know how to spell this out for you people any clearer than this. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

Shit like that really does need it's own network. That network could potentially piggyback on the existing Internet backbone, but it has to operate completely differently than TCP/IP.

What these ISPs wish to do is upend the fundamental principles of the Internet Protocol. The IP is based upon robustness, which is totally undermined by prioritizing packet data. That's not to say I cannot envision a need for such a network. Some of you hit on domains where you actually might need something like that. There are military and intelligence network protocols that operate in that fashion -- for good reason.

Making extra shekels by shaking people down is not a good reason to break the Internet.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Real talk: If you are trying to do something like design remote robotic surgery systems or something along those lines, then depending upon the Internet to transmit and receive packet data is not a good idea. The Internet is designed with robustness in mind, not reliability. TCP/IP does not guarantee no packet loss, or even that you get the packet data in the correct order. Your shit can get lost at any node on its path to the destination.

If you want reliable, you are going to lose robustness. The entire point of the Internet is that it's robust. It was literally designed to survive nuclear attacks. It was not designed to perform heart surgery.

Now.. I am sure the state of the art these days is providing extremely high reliability and extremely low latency, to the point where it's probably feasible to remotely control a robot performing heart surgery somewhere in the world, but it's a really bad fucking idea. I don't know how to spell this out for you people any clearer than this. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

Shit like that really does need it's own network. That network could potentially piggyback on the existing Internet backbone, but it has to operate completely differently than TCP/IP.

What these ISPs wish to do is upend the fundamental principles of the Internet Protocol. The IP is based upon robustness, which is totally undermined by prioritizing packet data. That's not to say I cannot envision a need for such a network. Some of you hit on domains where you actually might need something like that. There are military and intelligence network protocols that operate in that fashion -- for good reason.

Making extra shekels by shaking people down is not a good reason to break the Internet.

See: VPN

[Speaker to Animals]

Also, the more reliable the protocol, the more expensive it becomes in terms of speed. This is why UDP is so popular with some kinds of applications, since it doesn't give a shit about data loss.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Also, the more reliable the protocol, the more expensive it becomes in terms of speed. This is why UDP is so popular with some kinds of applications, since it doesn't give a shit about data loss.

You’re getting out of your depth, homie.