Net neutrality update

[Undertoad]

The reality is we don't know what they are actually doing.
We only know if they are found out, there is no consequences.

No consequences! What a perfect bogeyman.

Networks do not work like anything else we have generally encountered. All the models in our head are wrong.

The truth is, if we didn't find anything out, it means the network operated correctly.

A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.

One of the huge ironies of net neutrality that it is never practiced in large internal networks. If it makes sense for traffic to have a fast lane, we make sure it has a fast lane. Otherwise shit breaks!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.

AT&T once had this same problem. They did not install enough 'lanes'. So Mother's Day, especially, was once always a challenge. AT&T even kept using, for example, obsolete technology microwaves.

Once AT&T had competition, then suddenly plenty more lanes were added (ie Sprint's pin drop). Suddenly Mother's Day was never a problem. Then no more fast and slow lanes were required. And suddenly we discovered the price of a phone call from Philadelphia to NYC was same as the actual cost of a call from Philadelphia to Sydney Australia. (AT&T also wanted that reality hidden from us.)

A network is judged by whether it invests in its infrastructure. Fast and slow lanes are how 'bean counter' games are played. Then they need not invest in more lanes - to increase profits - and to add surcharges.

UT is reciting myths that exist today due to reduced competition (harm to net neutrality) almost 20 years ago. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. But ten years later, that nothing because increased costs. America's internet then dropped from #1 in the world.

Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. Only companies that 'attack net neutrality to increase profits' are making claims so similar to the Saddam had WMD' myths and 'smoking cigarettes increase health' myths. Those myths also promoted only by those who would reap higher profits even at the expense of their customers / supporters.

Similar lies were also promoted to stifle the internet. Then net neutrality was created - free markets. Suddenly communication that was limited to 36k and 56k modems was replaced by technology that had been stifled for 15 years - 2000k modems. But it must be wrong. Net neutrality does not make good things happen. The duopolies say so. It must be true.

Back then, to not provide more lanes, then AT&T even silenced their chief scientist in the Bell Labs. He was also defining the only problem - lack of investment and lack of innovation.

Another example: Same people who stifled the internet also claimed COs were under threat from too many modems. We also had that discussion here. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. That 'easily swallowed myth' was created to justify price increases and surcharges. Deja Vue telephony.

Problems in a network only exist when a 'bean counter' mentality stifles investment in the infrastructure. Exactly what the duopolies need to increase profits - so as to even buy the backbone companies and further subvert net neutrality. Adding more lanes means less money to buy into sport teams and skyscrapers.

Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. He said eliminating competition would decrease internet prices. Almost 20 years later and prices have now more than doubled. He forgets that only bean counter types and their brainwashed minions judge things only a year later.

Yes, telcos once demanded price increases due to so many modems. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. Net neutrality also exposed and deleted that obvious lie. UT did not learn from that mistake. The problem was solved by net neutrality and resulting free market competition.

[sexobon]

UT
(An unauthorized biography)

UT is reciting myths that exist today. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. UT did not learn from that mistake.

The End

[Undertoad]

Amazon looking to launch 3,236 low-orbit satellites

You see,

There is no point in providers limiting the Internet they give to people.

5G. Low-earth orbit satellite. Or wired. Ten years from now, the only selling point each will have is that they are able to give MORE of it to you than the competition.

This is not going to be a fight over how slow or limited they can be in order to eke out cash. All winners will be very fast and completely unlimited. The only fight will be between very fast and extremely goddamn fast.



*except when limited by governments, which in the case of satellite will be interesting

[Peterdowe]

"*except when limited by governments, which in the case of satellite will be interesting"

Well, when the government discovers that they can take a slice of the money as well, they'd definitely limit it.

[Undertoad]

They can't. The communication is to a satellite, instead of the local phone company which they operate or regulate.

gonna be hella interesting

[glatt]

They are going to expect me to check email when I am in the boonies

[Peterdowe]

"They can't. The communication is to a satellite, instead of the local phone company which they operate or regulate.

gonna be hella interesting"

Well, let's wait and see how far they're willing to go to regulate things further.

[Peterdowe]

By the way, is the do we have the fastest internet connection in the whole world?

[Clodfobble]

"We" being America? Definitely not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just think, only a couple years ago we were number 14, and now were all the way up to number 20. Yay team! USA! USA!

[Undertoad]

We care about Mbps because we were told that was the number to care about, and I suppose in one sense it is the best available metric.

But if you have a 6 lane driveway connected to a 2 lane road, the 6 lanes aren't very interesting...

And if the road has 6 lanes but only goes to Schenectady that isn't very interesting...

If you only have one car, and the speed limit is 15, the number of lanes is entirely irrelevant.

Streaming HD video takes about 5Mbps, Ultra HD takes about 25Mbps, nothing else that is transferred takes that level of bandwidth for an extended period of time.

So, in 2019, if you have 25Mbps and are only using it yourself, there will be zero difference to you if you move to a 1000Mbps connection. The experience will be identical.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So, in 2019, if you have 25Mbps and are only using it yourself, there will be zero difference to you if you move to a 1000Mbps connection.

Because the ISPs backbone is also not being upgraded as it is elsewhere in the world.

Long before benefits of higher speed can be realized, first those higher speeds must be available.

Using your logic, we should all still be using 2 Mb DSL. Since that also did everything we needed fast enough. Since that even permitted 'movies on demand' in the 1980s. Proof that we never needed any faster internet then or today. Clearly high speed internet has been a scam.

Using your logic, we do not need 5G phones. 3G has always been more than sufficient. It is good that Huawei has wasted all that money to become the world leader in mobile phones. Nobody needs it.

Nobody needs more than 140 characters to make valid statements. Trump proves it. It must be true.

[Happy Monkey]

You may have to buy 1000 to get 25, though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You may have to buy 1000 to get 25, though.

I have 100 up and down from Verizon because I subscribed to 75 up and down, but they decided to move everyone with 75 up to 100 at the same price.
Sam Knows tells be it hasn't dropped below 98 in the last six months.

Evidently this throttling has not become a noticeable problem so far, all hail the wise toad. However, it bothers me that they have this in their arsenal, why would they spend millions fighting this restriction if they weren't going to use it? Just to have it as an option? Just because they fight any and all regulation?

I had to laugh at the commercials for online gambling in NJ. They have various supposedly real players telling you it's safe and honest yada yada yada. Then one woman comes up with,"It's regulated by the state".