Tuesday, October 23, 2018 • Midnight Edition • "Voted best hair in high school."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

FCC approves Net Neutrality rules

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Rob Thompson

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby Rob Thompson » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:18 pm

Well, here we go: http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-setting-stage-for-legal-battle-1424974319
User avatar

GHERU

Rain Partier

Postby GHERU » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:25 pm

after spending the better part of an hour researching this and reading internet comments all I have to say to you for making this thread is "fuck you."
User avatar

outsider

Outhouse Drafter

Postby outsider » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:26 pm

This topic is a lot like the board game Monopoly: fun at first but it rarely ends well.

Rob Thompson

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby Rob Thompson » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:26 pm

GHERU wrote:after spending the better part of an hour researching this and reading internet comments all I have to say to you for making this thread is "fuck you."

:lol:
Yeah, it is sure to generate some heat.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:31 pm

outsider wrote:This topic is a lot like the board game Monopoly: fun at first but it rarely ends well.


Doesn't that make it classic Outhouse though? :wink:
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:39 pm

Need I really reply?

They tried this last year and got shot down in court. I'd expect the same now.
User avatar

john lewis hawk

Founder of The Outhouse

Postby john lewis hawk » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:19 pm

GIVE ME MY PORN!!!
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:17 am

Why I cannot accept net neutrality in my home, and why you shouldn’t accept net neutrality from your ISP.

I’ll start with the obvious. You don’t own your internet connection. Your ISP does. It is their property and thus they have the right to determine its use. FULL STOP. This article however won’t deal with the obvious infringement on property rights.

=====================================================================

I have a great internet connection. I pay a healthy sum of money each month to have a high speed internet connection. I’m a bit of a power user when it comes to the internet.

However despite this fast connection, my internet would still not work right at times. I use my internet connection for MANY services and they would frequently cause problems with each other.

Some of the things I use my internet connection for include:

1. VOIP/SIP Internet phone.
2. Video conferencing.
3. Downloading bit torrents.
4. Browsing the web.
5. Sending and receiving emails with large attachments.
6. Maintaining 2 websites.
7. Uploading video files.
8. Xbox video games.
9. Watch Netflix/Youtube

Again, my internet connection is a premium service with a lot of bandwidth. So what was the problem? Net neutrality. Namely my internal network was neutral. It treated all information as equal. Turns out that is a TERRIBLE way to run a shared data service.

When you use the internet to do a number of services, it requires different profiles of “speed”. The two main ways “speed” is measured on the internet is “bandwidth” and “latency”.

“Bandwidth” is how many pieces of information you can receive per unit time. Think of it as the size of your newspaper you receive each day. You get more information delivered in a 60 page daily paper than from a 6 page daily paper.

“Latency” is how long it takes information to get to you. In the old days, if you lived out of country, you might receive a newspaper every day, but it might take a full day to reach you. Essentially you receive yesterday’s newspaper each day.

The faster the network, depending in the service used, the high the bandwidth and the lower the latency.

With the internet these two types of speed are obviously much faster, but still measure the same quantities. Some services have fairly low bandwidth requirements, but require very low latency. When you play an Xbox game, your bandwidth is fairly low. You send and receive very little information playing most games. However, you must receive the little information you do very quickly for the game to be playable.

When watching a Netflix video, you probably don’t care if the video waits 5-10 seconds to start (latency), so long as once it does, it plays smoothly without hiccups (bandwidth).

The various services listed rob your internet connection in different measures. For example, if I was downloading many torrents, I would be unable to carry on a phone conversation. The many many concurrent connections torrent downloading uses would rob the latency needed to carry on a conversations and it would sound like a old ship to shore radio conversation with long delays between when someone would speak and the other party hearing them. If enough useful connection were found the torrent box would thieve so much bandwidth web browsing became painfully slow. Likewise video conferencing requires a good bit of bandwidth and low latency.

What was the solution? Well…there were two possible scenarios.

1. Spend even MORE each month to get an even larger pipe into my home.
2. Make my network LESS neutral.

Net neutrality is about treating all packets of information equally. Whether the packet comes from a large corporate website, a small family website, a telephone call, a Netflix movie, or any of the various under the hood services you use each day that let the internet run smoothly (DNS requests, DHCP handshaking, Distributed Denial of Service blocking, etc.).

To make the network run smoothly it is important to partition your data in such a way that the various services behave. In my case, this involved setting up Quality of Service settings in which packets were prioritized based on their content. I completed this setup 3 years ago and despite ever increasing demands on my internet connection, the system still works smoothly. All simply because I recognized, all data is NOT equal.

Your ISP recognizes this as well. Imagine how many services exist at the level of your internet service provider. They currently incorporate MANY Quality of Service measures to ensure their services work well together and they implement countermeasures to stop malicious flooding of the data channels. They AREN’T currently net neutral.

And you shouldn’t allow them to be.

Because when you take that option away from them, only a few other options exist to ensure the quality of your internet connection. Services can be removed. The price of your service can go up to support the increased resources needed, or your internet connection can slow down.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:12 am

Spektre, you're free to shape your network traffic however you like. However, I pay an ISP for bandwidth, and I have an expectation that I can use that bandwidth for whatever I like. If I want to use 100% of it for torrents, I should be able to. I paid for it. If I cannot do that because Comcast has decided that they are going to allocate 50% of all bandwidth to Netflix traffic because Netflix is paying them behind the scenes, then I am not being given what I contractually paid for. Whatever data customers request within their bandwidth limits, it should be sent over Comcast's pipes at the same speed and at the same priority. That is the principle of Net Neutrality. What you are describing is an incorrect analogy.The reason Comcast et all do not want net neutrality rules is because they sell more bandwidth than they actually have, and they want to cheat by prioritizing the services they expect people will use most often and throttle the services that they can get away with throttling. There have already been examples of them doing this.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:56 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Spektre, you're free to shape your network traffic however you like. However, I pay an ISP for bandwidth, and I have an expectation that I can use that bandwidth for whatever I like. If I want to use 100% of it for torrents, I should be able to. I paid for it. If I cannot do that because Comcast has decided that they are going to allocate 50% of all bandwidth to Netflix traffic because Netflix is paying them behind the scenes, then I am not being given what I contractually paid for. Whatever data customers request within their bandwidth limits, it should be sent over Comcast's pipes at the same speed and at the same priority. That is the principle of Net Neutrality. What you are describing is an incorrect analogy.The reason Comcast et all do not want net neutrality rules is because they sell more bandwidth than they actually have, and they want to cheat by prioritizing the services they expect people will use most often and throttle the services that they can get away with throttling. There have already been examples of them doing this.


Jude,

You pay for what the company is selling. If they are not selling "bandwidth for whatever I want" then no, you aren't "paying for it". As for "paying for bandwidth", if you are with Comcast or any other cable provider, you aren't "paying for bandwidth". Cable by the very nature of its delivery is a shared bandwidth system often referred to as "best effort". There ARE services where you can pay for a guaranteed bandwidth, but you probably would not like the pricing.

The analogy is apt, it is just not the one you want to hear. As with so many good intentioned interventions in the free market, there are unintended consequences. The consequences in this case are services that do not work, or higher prices to the consumer.

Comcast does not oversell its bandwidth and if you read your Terms and Conditions, they will clearly state the speed marketed is a best effort system. The bandwidth is shared. You of all people should enjoy this Jude. It's a nice communist setup. The system works as well as it does because fortunately not EVERY user is using the net at the same time and thus bandwidth can get shuttled around between users and the various services they use. If you want to "pay for bandwidth" go get a T1 line. It's bandwidth is not shared, nor shaped.

But no...keep asking for net neutrality because big bad corporations can maximize their profits using such a system by delivering a network that maximizes its users' experience. Hopefully it gets shut down in Ihe courts as it has before. If not, you may see the cable companies forced to do exactly as you want: Provide you a "bandwidth you are paying for to do with as you want". If so, welcome to internet speeds circa 1999.

Rob Thompson

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby Rob Thompson » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:13 am

Spektre wrote: If not, you may see the cable companies forced to do exactly as you want: Provide you a "bandwidth you are paying for" to do with as you want". If so, welcome to internet speeds circa 1999.

That will undoubtedly cost more. While I honestly see some merit to both sides of this discussion, what is practically likely to happen from this is the consumer will take it on the chin. It's "The Little Red Hen" all over again.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:49 am

Rob Thompson wrote:That will undoubtedly cost more. While I honestly see some merit to both sides of this discussion, what is practically likely to happen from this is the consumer will take it on the chin. It's "The Little Red Hen" all over again.


While my overriding concern is the impact these types of rulings have on property rights, as do you from your reference, I see both sides as well. My current residence has a plethora of broadband options available. My previous residence did not.

In fact my previous residence had only satellite for residential broadband capabilities until 2005 when Time Warner Cable built out the area. I worked closely with the company as I had a vested interest in the service. Prior to this, we had actually looked at me, personally, paying for the buildout in my area as the population density was not profitable for TWC. Alternatively, I nearly setup a broadband wireless service by erecting a large tower on my property with plans of bringing modest broadband to the local community.

You learn a lot about what these "evil corporations" actually have to go through to provide the spoiled populace with the various services they feel entitled to when you actually try to do them yourself. Part of my business plan involved...shaping traffic. Streaming Netflix was not a concern then, but Youtube was gaining in popularity and was in essence denied to the population of this small rural town with their dialup connections. However it was clear my network was not going to be able to support ALL the users using Youtube simultaneously. The torrent network/protocol was not so large then but peer to peer file sharing with other networks was prevalent and also would be something that had to be shaped in order to provide a quality of service to the entire network.

Finally, after a great deal of discussion with TWC, they built out this neighborhood...at a loss. Hard as it is to believe, corporations do exhibit good will at times. The buildout plan was a lot different from the one for rapidly growing or well established urban centers. These areas are often build well OVERCAPACITY to account for the expected growth. My previous community is not planned to grow for a long long time if ever. Thus, absent lousy service, TWC is going to be the only game in town for a good long while.

So, I understand the power TWC has to filter information and stop content from reaching its customer base.

I'm also keenly aware that absent TWC, NO information moving faster than 33.6kbps would be getting to my community and I was thankful to them for providing it.
User avatar

Amoebas

Son of Stein

Postby Amoebas » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:57 am

Cable/ISP companies have screwed us for far too long. I celebrate yesterday's decision.

Equal access, free speech and opening competion. Win, win and win.

Rob Thompson

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby Rob Thompson » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:59 am

Yesterday was a historic day on the Internet. A gold/white/blue/black dress created a debate, a pair of llamas ran amok, and the federal government decided to apply around 700 rules that were established in 1934 to regulate the Internet. One of these things is actually important.
User avatar

Starlord

Outhouse Editor

Postby Starlord » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:05 am

Rob Thompson wrote:Yesterday was a historic day on the Internet. A gold/white/blue/black dress created a debate, a pair of llamas ran amok, and the federal government decided to apply around 700 rules that were established in 1934 to regulate the Internet. One of these things is actually important.



I agree! It's gold and white.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Mojo Ichiruto, sdsichero and 12 guests