Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
But they should not treat it differently when it comes to you paying for it. It should all be the same. Why should your ISP get to decide that your GBs cost different amounts depending on what you do with them? That's just strange. Would you pay different amounts (on a per litre basis) if you were to re-fule two different cars at the same gas station with the same petrol?
Funny story, that actually does happen in the US with Diesel, and the UK too iirc.
There are two types of diesel. Road diesel, which is for vehicles operating on public roads. And then there is off road diesel which is for off road vehicles or things like chainsaws and generators.
The two diesels are identicle, except one has road taxes and one doesn't. Offroad diesel is substantially cheaper because it doesn't have these taxes on it. The diesels are given different dyes so authorities can tell the difference between them if they catch someone with a road vehicle using of road diesel for tax dodging.
CptJake wrote: And I pointed out all traffic is not equal.
And you're still running with that straw man.
And I pointed out all traffic is not equal.
People are talking about apples and you're talking about oranges. people have explained the difference between the apples and the oranges and you're still on about the oranges. Incredible.
Read what ever you want into my comment.
Well honestly I'm gathering that you can't read, but somehow expect to be taken seriously in your opinions that are based on nothing anyone has said even after having it explained for you what is being talked about.
The bigger concern for me, is if Comcast's Hulu services would have preferential routing over Netflix/Youtube... which the previous NN would be nearly powerless to prevent.
My fear is for Comcast to discriminate Hulu traffic to higher priority (ie, less latency/better streaming service) than other streaming services.
The example you're looking for was Verizon about 5 years ago, which they got sanctioned by US FTC bigly. (PM if you want citation, as I don't have it handy)
In this case, there were all sorts of problems, but fundamentally what happened was that Netflix to non-Comcast streaming customers were using Comcast's network/bandwidth...using Comcast as a freebie CDN. In reality, it wasn't even Netflix's fault, as it was how that region's CDN was architected.
As the article stated, that's why Netflix built/bought CDNs to mitigate these scenarios. Exact same thing that Google does for Youtube as well...
(which is why I think Disney will rebrand Hulu, as Hulu already has there own CDNs, rather than try to rebuild all that on their own).
EDIT: I will not say that Comcast isn't wholly blameless as they've done some mind numbingly dumb things... but, the whole Netflix & Comcast tiff? There's more to the story here... and that's all I'm saying. Taking the view that Netflix should have "free" interconnections because Customers pay for their ISP access and Netflix membership is extremely naive. Lots happens when you stream from Netflix point A to your device at point Zulu.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/09 23:51:17
LordofHats wrote: TLDR: Your argument is false because it simplifies the entire concept down to a point that you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.
Long version, it's false because it's a straw man argument. No one has argued that a 10 gb video file is equal in scale to a 13 kb .doc.
Wrong.
I replied to:
Wolfblade wrote: We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
And I pointed out all traffic is not equal.
Period.
Read what ever you want into my comment. In the context I typed it, it is 100% correct.
You're still wrong however. You're acting like different volumes of data = fundamentally different data. The only difference between email use, streaming use, and web browsing is the volume of data used really, and if there was you'd have articulated what it was instead of repeating the same "not all data is equal" line over and over while talking about something no one else is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/09 23:42:24
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
LordofHats wrote: TLDR: Your argument is false because it simplifies the entire concept down to a point that you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.
Long version, it's false because it's a straw man argument. No one has argued that a 10 gb video file is equal in scale to a 13 kb .doc.
Wrong.
I replied to:
Wolfblade wrote: We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
And I pointed out all traffic is not equal.
Period.
Read what ever you want into my comment. In the context I typed it, it is 100% correct.
You're still wrong however. You're acting like different volumes of data = fundamentally different data. The only difference between email use, streaming use, and web browsing is the volume of data used really, and if there was you'd have articulated what it was instead of repeating the same "not all data is equal" line over and over while talking about something no one else is.
The difference is that latency matters when streaming... whereas for emails, it doesn't.
People wont gak bricks when they hear that emails and other non-time dependent service would be placed on lower priority (ie, maybe 10 seconds longer) in the desired to reduce streaming latency. (ie, reducing the buffering when watching your shows).
Compel wrote: I'm reading all this back and forth and am noting that I don't think anyone has actually used the terms "TCP" and "UDP" in their points...
Just an observation. I've got no real dog in this race
Probably because even those of us who know what those abbreviations stand for are too iffy on them to actually explain them
It's irrelevant anyway, because NN does not posit that a 10 gb file is equal to a 13 kb file and neither did the person who apparently started this tangent. The "all data is equal" part of NN is a not an quantitative position but a qualitative one in reference to how the service functions; i.e. that an ISP should not show favoritism towards certain data over other data. Rather than regard that aspect of the principle for what it actually means we have posters who are taking it to a literal extreme, stretching the word "equal" so far out of how it is used in NN principles that they're no longer talking about NN but insist in using it as an argument against NN. Nowhere in NN is it argued that a network cannot prioritize data to met technical and practical needs. What NN does argue is that ISPs shouldn't throttle Netflix in favor of Hulu, or prioritize the delivery of Skype messages over... idk what competitors Skype has just insert one here I don't use that stuff XD
The argument against the ISPs and their desire to bring down NN has come to focus heavily on how the ISPs are not just access providers but content providers who are now in a position to advance their monopolies further by prioritizing their own services and shutting out their competitors/charging them excessive fees. These costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers. Furthering the worry is that there exists fear and concern that this opportunity will be seized to restructure how we connect, pay, and access the internet with the worse case scenarios looking really damn dystopian and it doesn't help that the major ISPs (the cable companies) have not been shy about exploring how they can execute those scenarios.
All this nonsense about what "all data is equal" means isn't just a sad display of obliviousness by certain parties, but completely beside the point.
Compel wrote: I'm reading all this back and forth and am noting that I don't think anyone has actually used the terms "TCP" and "UDP" in their points...
Just an observation. I've got no real dog in this race
I don't know if there's more than a handful of people here who would know the difference and probably less so involved in making the actual legal decisions.
oldravenman3025 wrote: And I avoid falling into the trap of party blaming when it comes to something like this. None of the parties are "for the people". If the party of the Left Coast career politicians and New England Bluebloods voted "for the people", you can bet your ass they had something to gain from it.
Ah yes, the good old standard 'I won't defend my team for doing an obviously cynical, undemocratic thing, I'll just vaguely reference vague accusations against the other side that they would maybe do something similar if they were something something both sides.'
An opinion poll or survey is just that, and the government has a website for that very thing. And the BATFE also has a site for gun owners to express their views on a proposed regulation (that was a real shocker when that site went up). Ashi mentioned a referendum on the issue, which is usually a binding vote, by the voters, on a particular issue. That would require Amending the Constitution to do on the national level.
Putting up a poll or survey means a response rate in the low millions, if it's a really contentious issue. That means participation of 2 or 3% at tops. An actual mail survey is likely to have a response rate that gives it real electoral weight. Consider the recent Australian postal survey, it was a voluntary for voters, and the result wasn't binding on politicians. But the response rate was 79%, and that response demanded electoral action. Gay marriage was passed within a month of the survey's completion.
Net neutrality isn't as big a deal as gay marriage, and so the response rate likely wouldn't be as high, and government may not be willing to pay the cost (its a few dollars per voter to send, collect and count so the US would be looking around a billion to do this), but the question wasn't whether such a process should be used to gauge public opinion on net neutrality. The issue I was responding to was the question of whether they could, and your answer was that it would require a constitutional amendment. That argument was false. It could be done as a postal survey, which would gain something more than 10 times the response rate of a submission site, and so have real and definitive bearing on legislation.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The supporters of the parry at fault are always very quick to suggest that the debate should avoid party blaming, raising the classic 'they're both bad' false equivalency. It's entertaining how reliably it repeats itself.
"They're both bad" isn't "false equivalency". It rooted in history, track records, and facts. And a notion (from supporters of a any given party, when their party isn't in the hotseat) that's usually bandied about when it's time to stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
Both parties are crap. Because they are made up politicians, who despite being part of the world's second oldest profession, operate more along the lines of the world's first oldest profession.
Just because the "elephants" are acting like idiots/greedy bastards with this issue, doesn't automatically make the other party a shining beacon of virtue and honesty.
Double down on the false equivalency with straw man. Not my first guess but still a classic.
Throwing around the "Fallacies of Rational Argument" (and misusing them in the process), isn't an argument. Nor does it make the usual cop out you're using correct. Instead, it's a way to avoid the reality of modern politics, and hide from the fact that no politician or political faction cares about the "little guy".
But whatever gets you through the night, brah. It's a free country, after all.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Just because the "elephants" are acting like idiots/greedy bastards with this issue, doesn't automatically make the other party a shining beacon of virtue and honesty.
False argument. You're assuming all levels of crappiness are equal, that if one party is crap and the other party is really, really crap then that's the same thing and there's no point distinguishing the two. Obvious nonsense.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The supporters of the parry at fault are always very quick to suggest that the debate should avoid party blaming, raising the classic 'they're both bad' false equivalency. It's entertaining how reliably it repeats itself.
"They're both bad" isn't "false equivalency". It rooted in history, track records, and facts. And a notion (from supporters of a any given party, when their party isn't in the hotseat) that's usually bandied about when it's time to stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
Both parties are crap. Because they are made up politicians, who despite being part of the world's second oldest profession, operate more along the lines of the world's first oldest profession.
Just because the "elephants" are acting like idiots/greedy bastards with this issue, doesn't automatically make the other party a shining beacon of virtue and honesty.
Double down on the false equivalency with straw man. Not my first guess but still a classic.
Throwing around the "Fallacies of Rational Argument" (and misusing them in the process), isn't an argument. Nor does it make the usual cop out you're using correct. Instead, it's a way to avoid the reality of modern politics, and hide from the fact that no politician or political faction cares about the "little guy".
But whatever gets you through the night, brah. It's a free country, after all.
I agree it isn't an argument. Nor did I intend it to be. For me to respond with a rational argument, I have to have a rational argument to respond to. Failing that, I'll just post what's wrong because generally I don't feel it's worth the effort to do more than that for someone who obviously doesn't care for logical debate. So no, it's not about avoiding modern politics, but nice try. You even wrapped up the original false equivalency in there too, I can't decide to call that ironic or hypocritical.
But whatever gets you through the night, brah. It's a free country, after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 01:50:29
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
But they should not treat it differently when it comes to you paying for it. It should all be the same. Why should your ISP get to decide that your GBs cost different amounts depending on what you do with them? That's just strange. Would you pay different amounts (on a per litre basis) if you were to re-fule two different cars at the same gas station with the same petrol?
Funny story, that actually does happen in the US with Diesel, and the UK too iirc.
There are two types of diesel. Road diesel, which is for vehicles operating on public roads. And then there is off road diesel which is for off road vehicles or things like chainsaws and generators.
The two diesels are identicle, except one has road taxes and one doesn't. Offroad diesel is substantially cheaper because it doesn't have these taxes on it. The diesels are given different dyes so authorities can tell the difference between them if they catch someone with a road vehicle using of road diesel for tax dodging.
In which case it's not the same petrol, is it?
It depends on whether you see the function of the fuel as something for running a car or something for raising additional revenue.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
But they should not treat it differently when it comes to you paying for it. It should all be the same. Why should your ISP get to decide that your GBs cost different amounts depending on what you do with them? That's just strange. Would you pay different amounts (on a per litre basis) if you were to re-fule two different cars at the same gas station with the same petrol?
Funny story, that actually does happen in the US with Diesel, and the UK too iirc.
There are two types of diesel. Road diesel, which is for vehicles operating on public roads. And then there is off road diesel which is for off road vehicles or things like chainsaws and generators.
The two diesels are identicle, except one has road taxes and one doesn't. Offroad diesel is substantially cheaper because it doesn't have these taxes on it. The diesels are given different dyes so authorities can tell the difference between them if they catch someone with a road vehicle using of road diesel for tax dodging.
In which case it's not the same petrol, is it?
It depends on whether you see the function of the fuel as something for running a car or something for raising additional revenue.
Easy E wrote: I mean, as Americans/World Citizens we can't even agree on the simple notion that Monopoly is bad... M'kay.
It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not commonly played correctly. For example, most people aren't aware that per the standard rules as written, if someone lands on a property and then chooses not to buy it, it then goes to immediate auction (instead of just remaining there until landed on again).
This one rule alone dramatically shortens the game and makes it more fun.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Easy E wrote: I mean, as Americans/World Citizens we can't even agree on the simple notion that Monopoly is bad... M'kay.
It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not commonly played correctly. For example, most people aren't aware that per the standard rules as written, if someone lands on a property and then chooses not to buy it, it then goes to immediate auction (instead of just remaining there until landed on again).
This one rule alone dramatically shortens the game and makes it more fun.
I knew this comment was coming
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Easy E wrote: I mean, as Americans/World Citizens we can't even agree on the simple notion that Monopoly is bad... M'kay.
It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not commonly played correctly. For example, most people aren't aware that per the standard rules as written, if someone lands on a property and then chooses not to buy it, it then goes to immediate auction (instead of just remaining there until landed on again).
This one rule alone dramatically shortens the game and makes it more fun.
Badum Tish
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Easy E wrote: I mean, as Americans/World Citizens we can't even agree on the simple notion that Monopoly is bad... M'kay.
It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not commonly played correctly. For example, most people aren't aware that per the standard rules as written, if someone lands on a property and then chooses not to buy it, it then goes to immediate auction (instead of just remaining there until landed on again).
This one rule alone dramatically shortens the game and makes it more fun.
Still bad. I mean if you read the intent of the creator, it is to teach you that Monopolies in the real world are bad. However, since people continue to play it for fun, the creators intentions were not met. Hence it is a bad game, with bad design for the creator's intended purpose.
M'kay. We should continue this discussion in the Game Design section of the board.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 18:43:40
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
That's pretty funny, but there's a joke in there somewhere about neckbeards sitting in their computer chairs watching internet videos and not needing anymore calories or something XD
I thought I should reopen this thread one year later. To ask a question of US members.
There was a lot of noise twelve months ago about how if Net Neutrality was repealed internet service providers would be able to throttle site they did not like, or force people to pay more not to be shunted into a slowlane.
It is now time to ask if any of these predictions have come true, are due to be implemented at any particular date, or are being kept back for some third party reason.
Or was it all scaremongering?
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Pretty much scaremongering. The download/upload speeds has still increased.
The bigger fears to me is twofold:
1) The amount of personal information the FANG companies harvest and sells them to 3rd parties. It may be an unwarranted fear, as it is still living memory that pre-internet, we used to get the "White Pages" which is a book listing out the name, address and phone numbers of your neighbors in the area. But still...
2) The vertical integration of content providers and platforms (ie, Comcast and Disney).
Those are the issues really... not, whether or not an ISP provider treats the data packet of an email vs. a streaming service exactly the same way.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/12/31 02:07:26
Nothing has really changed, but Big Tech remains my #1 personal boogeyman. Forget about net neutrality, I'm worried about what Whembly mentioned. One day, Google and companies like it will run the world, and by the time they do it will be too late to stop them because they'll have total control over the flow of information and commerce as well as an omniscient level of knowledge about everyone.
AFAIK Not much has happened because it's being fought at the state level still, but basically entire the entire industry sues when a state puts a bill forth and then rams millions of dollars into fighting or delaying the bill.
Not entirely sure if they've changed their model yet, but it's only a matter of timing.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
BS! We got the worse by far despite nearly e million more people voting for the less odious one.
As to a solution, maybe we need a union. A consumers union that organizes enough peolle to refuse to accept the way cable and ISP companies abuse the! American public and force them to chaNGE by striking against them until their profits tank enough to hurt them.
Of course is someone ofganized a consumers union the corporate overlords would have a pet judge rule it illegal, jail the organizers or just send a hitman to murder them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/31 02:57:22
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
Verizon decided to throttle data usage by the fire department during wild fires (not the recent ones but some previous) negatively affecting their ability to fight the fire and causing them to pay additional fees in order to un-throttle.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Verizon decided to throttle data usage by the fire department during wild fires (not the recent ones but some previous) negatively affecting their ability to fight the fire and causing them to pay additional fees in order to un-throttle.
Some peolle should have gone to prison for that, BT because they had the holy word of power, Corporation, to protect them no one did.
That's the thing I hate most about america...
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
Pretty much scaremongering. The download/upload speeds has still increased.
This is untrue. My download/upload speeds have not changed. However, now I have a soft data cap! WOOOOO! Which means if I hit a certain data cap, my company can automatically bill me for a higher tier package based only on my usage. However, I do not get to enjoy the other benefits of that package when they do that. Just the data usage! They didn't seem to understand my frustration.