I am suggesting that assaults on neutrality (further commercial power grabs) are the logical progression of the events discussed here. I'm also suggesting that the most likely motivation for your reply is that you are an unhappy troll.
I am suggesting that assaults on neutrality (further commercial power grabs) are the logical progression of the events discussed here. I'm also suggesting that the most likely motivation for your reply is that you are an unhappy troll.
No, the most likely motivation for my reply is usage that strongly indicates the user didn't know what they were saying.
Few people in the USA actually know what the expression means.
"Net neutrality" is the principal that participants of a network need to treat all data traveling on the network identically, without regard to who it's from, who it's to, or what the content is.
That's fairly accurate. "Net neutrality" means that a private corporation can spend its money building infrastructure that then becomes de facto public property. The $20T plus cost of building the internet was paid for by private, not government, money. Now that others have spent their money, government feels entitled to lay claim to controlling it. It's the effective reverse of Obama's "You didn't build that."
Unfortunately, it isn't completely clear how this should be addressed. If ABC Corporation builds out a wired and wireless network for its use at a cost of $300B, why does it have to make the network equally available to its competitors? On the other hand, should ABC Corporation end up owning much of the nation's internet infrastructure, should it be allowed to deny use to others, or charge others different prices for the same services?
Reality is that, as almost always occurs, private money has built something and now government wants to appropriate it for its own use. Government can never be sufficiently nimble to do what private industry does, but it can always be sufficiently authoritarian to seize what it wants.
If access to food and healthcare are basic rights, isn't access to information a basic right as well? When philosophy hits reality, things rarely go well. I'm honestly not smart enough to know what to do here. I am smart enough to know that perhaps, as with roadways, the information superhighway must be made equally available to everyone, but not everyone is entitled to a Rolls Royce to drive on it.
That's profoundly ignorant about computer networking - and wrong.
Anyone can build out their own network and keep it for their own use or rent it out as they may see fit, charge whatever they want, change packet rates however they want - pay per performance, give priority to some users and not others, etc. Knock your lights out.
What you can't do is provide for the actual flow of the actual internet to go through and have those special treatment rules apply on the same network links; that's the price you pay for having it be a part of the actual internet. Any given network link can be private or on the public internet, but not both at the same time, and that's the issue.
If you want special treatment, fine, do it, not any problem at all, and you can connect in to the actual internet at multiple points if you want - not a problem at all. Each link can be one, public, the other, private, just not do both at the same time.
So your complaints are simply false and are based on a failed understanding of what the internet actually is and what you can and cannot do with it or other "private" networks. ... It's a lot like air travel; you can either own or rent a private jet to take you from New York to Los Angeles, or you can go with a "common carrier" like United Airlines, and there are advantages to either, but it's up to you to choose.
Your post is as technically accurate as it is irrelevant. The internet can be viewed as a technical marvel only understood by coders, or as the most powerful engine currently available to spread either authoritarian or libertarian propaganda and ideas. Your immediate kneejerk reaction is to demonstrate others' inferiority for whatever reward that brings you. The internet, in the framework of this discussion, is a monstrously powerful tool, which can be used by authoritarians to crush dissent, or libertarians to raise dissent.
This isn't left/right, R/D, or technology/utility. We are about to initiate an administration with severely abusive authoritarian desires, intent on driving all dissent underground. It can then claim unity, because none dare dissent. It can claim security, by subjugating other countries to its will. It can claim purity, with blood on its hands. And none dare dissent.
Your misreading of what the internet is disappoints. It is a tool built and paid for by private industry that will be confiscated by government for its own purposes. And egoists who jockey for superior position by putting down others will never notice.
I am suggesting that assaults on neutrality (further commercial power grabs) are the logical progression of the events discussed here. I'm also suggesting that the most likely motivation for your reply is that you are an unhappy troll.
No, the most likely motivation for my reply is usage that strongly indicates the user didn't know what they were saying.
Few people in the USA actually know what the expression means.
"Net neutrality" is the principal that participants of a network need to treat all data traveling on the network identically, without regard to who it's from, who it's to, or what the content is.
That's fairly accurate. "Net neutrality" means that a private corporation can spend its money building infrastructure that then becomes de facto public property. The $20T plus cost of building the internet was paid for by private, not government, money. Now that others have spent their money, government feels entitled to lay claim to controlling it. It's the effective reverse of Obama's "You didn't build that."
Unfortunately, it isn't completely clear how this should be addressed. If ABC Corporation builds out a wired and wireless network for its use at a cost of $300B, why does it have to make the network equally available to its competitors? On the other hand, should ABC Corporation end up owning much of the nation's internet infrastructure, should it be allowed to deny use to others, or charge others different prices for the same services?
Reality is that, as almost always occurs, private money has built something and now government wants to appropriate it for its own use. Government can never be sufficiently nimble to do what private industry does, but it can always be sufficiently authoritarian to seize what it wants.
If access to food and healthcare are basic rights, isn't access to information a basic right as well? When philosophy hits reality, things rarely go well. I'm honestly not smart enough to know what to do here. I am smart enough to know that perhaps, as with roadways, the information superhighway must be made equally available to everyone, but not everyone is entitled to a Rolls Royce to drive on it.
That's profoundly ignorant about computer networking - and wrong.
Anyone can build out their own network and keep it for their own use or rent it out as they may see fit, charge whatever they want, change packet rates however they want - pay per performance, give priority to some users and not others, etc. Knock your lights out.
What you can't do is provide for the actual flow of the actual internet to go through and have those special treatment rules apply on the same network links; that's the price you pay for having it be a part of the actual internet. Any given network link can be private or on the public internet, but not both at the same time, and that's the issue.
If you want special treatment, fine, do it, not any problem at all, and you can connect in to the actual internet at multiple points if you want - not a problem at all. Each link can be one, public, the other, private, just not do both at the same time.
So your complaints are simply false and are based on a failed understanding of what the internet actually is and what you can and cannot do with it or other "private" networks. ... It's a lot like air travel; you can either own or rent a private jet to take you from New York to Los Angeles, or you can go with a "common carrier" like United Airlines, and there are advantages to either, but it's up to you to choose.
Your post is as technically accurate as it is irrelevant. The internet can be viewed as a technical marvel only understood by coders, or as the most powerful engine currently available to spread either authoritarian or libertarian propaganda and ideas. Your immediate kneejerk reaction is to demonstrate others' inferiority for whatever reward that brings you. The internet, in the framework of this discussion, is a monstrously powerful tool, which can be used by authoritarians to crush dissent, or libertarians to raise dissent.
This isn't left/right, R/D, or technology/utility. We are about to initiate an administration with severely abusive authoritarian desires, intent on driving all dissent underground. It can then claim unity, because none dare dissent. It can claim security, by subjugating other countries to its will. It can claim purity, with blood on its hands. And none dare dissent.
Your misreading of what the internet is disappoints. It is a tool built and paid for by private industry that will be confiscated by government for its own purposes. And egoists who jockey for superior position by putting down others will never notice.
Zero bandwidth prioritization.