Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This seems different (Score 1) 123

by diamondmagic (#48480515) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Again, it's not Net Neutrality, because it's not causing packets to be dropped based on source or destination. You're arguing against a by-definition argument.

But let's look at your argument (apparently) against bandwidth caps and toll-free broadband as a separate issue.

So you're on a prepaid or otherwise pre-negotiated plan because your service provider wants to budget for their capacity. How else do you handle overages, other than an overage charge or ending service altogether?

Suppose that Facebook invents the Facebook Phone (ignoring the real attempt for a moment), it has its own protocol with the tower for shuttling data, but at the tower level, uses IP over the Internet. Isn't that effectively the same thing? But what do we do, make it illegal for companies to manufacture such products? That's absurd for a huge number of reasons including having to deploy a "proprietary product police" (God help us if the FCC or FTC take over this job), and covering a huge number of products already out on the market today (Netflix-enabled TVs, anyone?).

Comment: Re:This seems different (Score 1) 123

by diamondmagic (#48479951) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is a routing rule: "Don't degrade service (technically, drop packets) based on source/destination". Bandwidth caps don't do this.

You might not like monthly caps, but don't call it a Net Neutrality issue. That's a separate battle.

There's many different ways Internet traffic can be billed. There may be a peering agreement in place (where peers exchange roughly equal amounts of packets, and aren't otherwise concerned about their ultimate source or destination); there may be some arrangement where service is provided over the course of a time period, e.g. a 1Mbps dedicated pipe, or a shared 50Mbps pipe; or you might charge per-packet.

For the latter case, the "charge" may be in the form of tiny fractions of a USD per packet, but more likely, it just counts against your data plan for which you've prepaid. In this case, what's wrong if I want to offer to pay your costs associated with receiving my services? None at all: Anyone is allowed to do that.

Comment: Re:This seems different (Score 1) 123

by diamondmagic (#48475445) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Absolutely not; prices are set based on what the market can bear, completely independent of input materials. If a vendor makes a huge investment in widgets and no one wants to buy, it ends up being a sunk cost and they'll sell it below cost (because supply and demand).

Additionally, cost is defined as "the value of the next best alternative." Unless the network is at capacity, it costs me nothing when my neighbor uses e.g. T-Mobile's no-charge music streaming.

What's being proposed is called toll-free broadband and all parties have an opportunity go in.

Net neutrality, on the other hand, is a routing philosophy. It applies to routers. It says don't drop packets based on source or destination (dropping packets being how the Internet signals congestion and prioritizes in general). Toll-free broadband doesn't violate this rule.

Comment: Re:quick question (Score 4, Informative) 212

by diamondmagic (#48414071) Attached to: Launching 2015: a New Certificate Authority To Encrypt the Entire Web

It's called DANE, or DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities and described in RFC 6698. The DNS record is TLSA, it associates a TLS certificate to a domain name.

Unfortunately a major browser vendor has yet to implement it. How about supporting the feature requests to implement it? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Comment: Re:If they're going literal.... (Score 1) 251

by diamondmagic (#48323645) Attached to: Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court

Just because one thing you do is interstate, doesn't mean every part of your job is.

What if the states did this? "Someone sold your product within state lines, and therefore we get to tax and regulate your product even though it was manufactured it in another country entirely. Pay up."

Comment: Re:If they're going literal.... (Score 4, Insightful) 251

by diamondmagic (#48323365) Attached to: Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court

A constitutionalist (you know, the supreme law of the land, the thing they all swore to uphold) would also notice that no part of the Constitution granted authority to do such a thing: An application of Sarbanes-Oxley needs to involve interstate commerce in some fashion.

Fishing is distinctly intrastate commerce (if commerce at all!), and cannot be covered by federal law. Criminal law is supposed to be a state issue.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also requires "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I doubt 20 years prison listed in the statute is ever warranted.

Comment: Re:End asymmetrical billing (Score 1) 97

by diamondmagic (#48307923) Attached to: Real Net Neutrality Problem: 'Edge Provider' vs 'End User'

"Upload" and "download" here is from the viewpoint of that server.

Sending data from my computer here on my desk to my AWS instance, AWS bills me nothing. Why? Because it's so under-utilized that it's practically free. People just don't use servers for consuming stuff.

Upload (from server to my desktop) is what it utilized, and pushes prices upward.

Residential connections tend to be the opposite, though there's no hard rule that this must be true, as TFA points out. The pricing phenomenon is decided by how people are using their connections, not how the Internet is designed. The Internet doesn't care. And neither should the FCC.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...