Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:QoS and net neutrality are the same issue... (Score 1) 47

What you have just described gives an artificial advantage (or disadvantage in the case of bittorrent) to managed protocols, discouraging innovation.

You have it backwards, if anything.

A neutral network should not discriminate based on packet contents whatsoever.

That's the issue being debated, not just a conclusion to be stated as final. The Internet was designed with such "discrimination" because the people who designed it understood that it is a useful function.

If you return to the reason for net neutrality in the first place, it is based on the desire to prevent ISPs from gaining an advantage as both the service and content provider by artificially slowing competitor's content. That doesn't argue for "no discrimination whatsoever", it argues for "no discrimination for the same kinds of content".

There are very good reasons to prioritize content that needs low latency and guaranteed delivery, like VoIP or streaming video. VoIP starts to fail if the packets show up late or out of order. Your bittorrent of an ISO or video file does not.

Beyond that, an ISP has no business discriminating based on address or packet contents.

Address I agree. Completely. That's net neutrality. But contents? Of course they do, and your proof by repeated assertion is still proof by assertion.

The moment that is allowed, ISPs game the system.

How so?

As seen, they invest in smart hardware capable of culling unwanted traffic rather than adding capacity,

Where have I said anything about culling traffic? Nowhere. That's hyperbole on your part. Prioritizing time sensitive content is not the same as culling everything or anything else. Culling traffic is wrong not because it fails net neutrality tests, it is wrong because it fails to fulfill contractual service provision agreements.

There is exactly one good solution: add more capacity when necessary.

Yes, in a perfect world with unlimited money and resources, that is the "exactly one good solution". When you find such a planet where this exists, please let us know.

This is the simplest, least expensive

That is not necessarily true. It may be simpler but will hardly be less expensive. If my ISP has to come to my house to install hardware with higher capacity then it will cost someone -- most likely me. If they have to install that hardware for the entire block because one person thinks his ISO download should never every be slowed by even a fraction of a second (not that he's even likely to notice) for any reason at all, then I'm getting charged for his wants and get nothing out of it. That's fair?

and perfectly fair.

No. Everyone who has to pay higher rates because some people think it is unfair that their file downloads or email traffic may be slowed temporarily while someone else's VoIP call gets priority is not being treated fairly.

While it would be the "exactly good solution" for everyone to get infinite bandwidth and never have to share anything with anyone else, that's much more expensive that the current system, and does not exist.

It also ensures that there will be an excess of capacity available for innovative new protocols and uses.

So you want not only enough to cover the current need, you want an excess so that someone might be able to invent something new sometime in the future. That's not an argument based on net neutrality, that a blue-sky wonderful utopian view.

Comment Re:Washington State uses this fancy new method (Score 1) 159

You can require photo IDs all you want. But if you do, you have to ensure that everyone eligible to vote can get one without hurdles. This means not charging for them, not reducing the number of places that can issue them in areas where you don't like the way people vote, and not demanding ridiculous supporting documentation that few people would readily have to issue one.

Comment Re:So Trump is creating jobs... (Score 1) 159

Russia doesn't give a fuck about H1B visas and immigration. If anything, they are considered harmful, because they provide an avenue for "brain drain".

On the other hand, they would very much like US to get into a trade war with China (which would force Chinese to cooperate with Russia more seriously), and to abandon its NATO allies in Europe.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 56

I use Lyft for two reasons: 1. They treat their drivers better, not necessarily with more money, but at least with more respect.

That's interesting.

What /How does Lyft treat their drivers 'better'? What do you mean by 'more respect'? I'm seriously curious.

I always ask the uber drivers I have here in town that I ride with, and ALL of them seem to like driving for Uber and none have told me a bad experience with the company. So, curious what you've heard is bad from Uber towards their employees.

Comment Re:see what the Union free work place get's you! (Score 1) 292

Russia is a very different story, their economy is based largely on exploitation of natural resources, mostly oil. As John McCain put it "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country". They have little on the way of private Capital investment, the linchpin of a Capitalist system

It was only under Brezhnev that USSR made exploitation of its natural resources the staple of its budget.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 56

I've not tried Lyft yet, I'm assuming they're on par with Uber price wise?

But to me, Uber is priced just right....don't get me wrong, I love a good deal, but if the fares were any lower, I'd start to feel obliged to tip the driver every time...whereas the beauty of Uber is, I'm not expected to tip.

I have tipped before, especially if I was riding hammered...but also if the person was really cool, or maybe knew some good ways around traffic (and in New Orleans those special skills of drive-fu during Mardi Gras are VERY valuable)....I would gladly tip extra.

Comment Re:What's the complaint? (Score 1) 47

Net neutrality applies to all throttling of all kinds for all reasons.

No, it does not. Net "neutrality" means you treat the sources of data the same way, not that you treat all data the same way. It is neutral if an ISP doesn't prioritize its own VoIP services over other providers, for example. The question to ask is if the traffic shaping is creating an advantage for the ISP. That's what "neutral" means in this context. If it's for traffic management for all of the same kinds of traffic, it's part of the system design from the very beginning.

It is none of my ISP's business what kind of packets I'm sending

That's a different issue than net neutrality. That's privacy.

and not their perogative to decide which bits of my traffic are more important than other bits

The issue is not "important" (a very subjective measure), but what traffic does not need low latency. VoIP only works reasonably well if all the packets get there fast enough; file downloads or email or many other things work just as well if the packets are a little bit "late" or even out of order. If you're trying to say that your FTP download of a distribution ISO (or torrent of the same) is as important as someone else's VoIP session, that's just selfish. Net neutrality has nothing to do with selfish, it has to do with not creating an artificial advantage for services sold by the ISP over services sold by others.

Comment Re:What's the complaint? (Score 2) 47

Do you even think it's reasonable to prioritize your torrent packets the same as your neighbors VOIP traffic?

Generally speaking: yes. Two customers with the same service plan shouldn't be treated differently based on the content (or port numbers) of their packets.

With that said, if the ISP wants to give each customer a limited amount of dedicated high-priority bandwidth based on the DiffServe IP header field, and let customers decide for themselves how to allocate it, that would be perfectly fine.

Comment Does anyone really use these numbers? (Score 1, Interesting) 51

Does anyone out there really use these mileage numbers in the decision making part of buying a car? Really?

I mean, sure, they are there...everyone gives them a cursory glance, but do the numbers really play any meaningful role in most peoples' decision on which brand or model car to buy?

i buy cars that make me happy and will be fun to drive. All I'm looking for is what is the best can I can afford to enjoy driving for the money I can spend....gas mileage, I don't really even look at...

Comment Re:True by definition (Score 1) 127

But do you think the faceless bastards at Facebook/Google/LG/AT&T/whoever infected my phone with this crap will LET me uninstall it? Hell, no! That would be too sensible and respectful of the owner's choices!

Funny...I've never had a Facebook application on any of my iPhones I've ever owned....??

I've never had a Facebook account either....

Slashdot Top Deals

You might have mail.

Working...