The original topic of discussion is the ability to create a paid fastlane for some companies FOR DATA CARRIED OVER THE INTERNET to AVs. Now that you finally admit that the data does, indeed, traverse the internet and not just the "last mile" wireless connection from some cell carrier to the car, maybe you realize that a fast lane for that data is ON THE INTERNET, which net neutrality laws would prohibit.
First, no, net neutrality laws do not prohibit a fast lane. They prohibit paid prioritization, which means granting a fast lane from an ISP's customers to a specific company in exchange for money from that company.
Second, I neither said nor implied that data only traverses the last mile.
So again, congratulations. You just proved a tautology that does nothing to counter anything that I or anyone else on this thread has said.
existing cellular networking is well beyond the point where making latency better is not worth the expense.
And now you're back at considering only the wireless cell carrier connection and not the entire path for the data. I had such high hopes that when you admitted that the data comes over the internet that you might look at the big picture, but sadly, no.
I am looking at the big picture. You're just wildly flailing and making crap up. Here's a quick tutorial in networking in only ten words: A network can never be faster than its slowest link. For the foreseeable future, the slowest link will be the cellular network. Now do you get why nobody even bothers talking about a "fast path" through the entire Internet? Yes, it's theoretically possible for traffic to get slightly delayed at any of the various hops along the way, but that invariably pales in comparison with the huge latency in the last few hops between the customer and the backbone, because that's where ISPs are cutting corners in capacity.
a car must be capable of driving safely without relying on the Internet. That's an indisputable fact.
You say I'm the one making that statement, and then you repeat it again yourself. You deny that there might be any data that can make the car operate more safely that it could get from the internet, and that's just poppycock.
What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Saying that a car must be able to drive safely without relying on the Internet does not mean that an Internet connection cannot make a car safer. It is always possible to make something safer. Always. The fact that it is possible to make something safer DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT SAFE.
Your "indisputable facts" are also indisputable opinion.
My indisputable facts are governed by the laws of physics. Unless, of course, you'd like to throw all science out the window, in which case, sure, you might be right, and I might have magically gained the ability to fly because of the sunburn I got last week.
If find "it's obvious" to be a particularly unconvincing argument, especially when it comes to the future.
The only way the things I talked about could possibly not happen would be if nobody ever tried to start any new video-on-demand companies or tried to innovate while doing so. Otherwise, the very existence of paid prioritization fundamentally puts those innovators at a disadvantage because of their size. My argument was not that "it's obvious". My argument was very detailed and thorough. If, after reading it, the correctness of my argument is not obvious to you, the problem is not with my argument, but with your knowledge and understanding of the subject.
from content providers that are not their customers
I think the point is that the data providers on the internet, using Comcast business ISP service to provide the data you cannot imagine existing ARE COMCAST CUSTOMERS. It's the AV getting the data that are not the customers, and they aren't paying extra.
What the f**k are you talking about? There are exactly two realistic possibilities in your hypothetical, googol-to-one-against scenario in which cars somehow magically require insane amounts of bandwidth:
- The car company buys Internet service for the car and is charged extra money because the car requires a fast connection to the Internet. In this case, the car company is the customer of that Internet service provider, and a so-called fast lane for those cars is NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN.
- The car's owner buys Internet service for the car, and is charged extra money because the car requires a fast connection to the Internet. In this case, the car company is the customer of that Internet service provider, and a so-called fast lane for those cars is NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN.
What you'll notice here is that in either case, the so-called fast lane you're saying might be necessary IS NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN. Therefore—and I'm only going to say this once, and in small words so you can get it through your thick skull—THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SITUATION IN WHICH PAID PRIORITIZATION PROVIDES ANY BENEFITS FOR AUTONOMOUS CARS, PERIOD.
I'm through arguing with you. Your arguments are what I would expect from someone who is purely trolling. I have provided fact after fact to support my position. You, in response, have provided juvenile, barely-comprehensible gibberish that at best deliberately misrepresents what I have said in ways that are so outrageously over-the-top inaccurate that you'd think you were @TheRealDonaldTrump, and at worst seems to completely misunderstand the most basic facts about how the Internet and self-driving cars work.
You're clearly not trying to learn, because if you were, you would have recognized when I stated facts and tried to find ways to attack other parts of my opinion that were less factually grounded. You would have come up with new arguments based on what I have said instead of repeatedly recreating the same completely obvious and absurd straw man arguments that bear little resemblance to what I have said. And you're clearly not trying to win the argument, because if you were, you would have tried to come up with some plausible way to refute one of those points that, as I pointed out, are irrefutable facts, rather than taking the weasel way out and saying what amounts to, "Well that's just your opinion."
No, it isn't. None of the facts that I have used to support my opinion are opinions. You can't just avoid admitting that you're wrong by falsely claiming that contrary facts are merely opinions. That's not the way the real world works. It's time for you to grow up.
[sound of microphone dropping on the floor]