AVSIG: Net Neutrality wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> Hardware/Software

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Net Neutrality [Re: Reams Goodloe]
      #445300 - 11/26/17 10:49 PM

Quote:

The change basically reclassifies the ISPS to remove regulatory oversight as being a communications carrier. You no longer have a "dumb pipe" serving as your ISP, but a "we can give you what we want to give you" "information provider" service. Which may or may not work for you...




And such changes could cause grief for ISPs. IIRC, they've been shielded from some lawsuits because of their status as a "dumb pipe". With the reclassification, they could become liable for the sins of their customers. Things like illegal downloading of copyrighted content, etc.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:51 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445301 - 11/26/17 10:54 PM

Quote:

You're focusing on the twigs and missing the forest. Eliminating neutrality could seriously upend most people's concept of web access. It's about a lot more than bandwidth and protocols, and I really can't think of a thing about it that would be better for consumers.



My problem is that it's discussed in such generality that all I can see is an indistinct green color.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:52 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Net Neutrality [Re: Bob Dubner]
      #445304 - 11/26/17 11:07 PM

Yup. Whenever I hear some variation of, “You don’t need [some proposed rule] - we would never do that!”, I immediately start getting interested in how they’re going to pull it off. If they weren’t going to do it, they wouldn’t be spending megabucks fighting the rule.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:52 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Reams Goodloe
Top Gun


Reged: 05/07/04
Posts: 2582
Loc: Kent, Washington
Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445305 - 11/27/17 01:36 AM

>>With the reclassification, they could become liable for the sins of their customers<<<

Nah, not likely.
the DMCA safe harbor provisions would continue to apply.
17 USC 512.....

They would only get caught if they originate the content - same as current law.. And would have no liability as long as their work is just transmission or transitory storage... ....and they don't modify the content...

- Reams-

..

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:52 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445309 - 11/27/17 08:39 AM

I thought that Strong had some hardware solutions. StrongVPN built into the router for better performance.

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:52 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Terry Carraway]
      #445310 - 11/27/17 11:46 AM

Looks like they just re-flash consumer routers or configure them for their OpenVPN service in advance so the customer doesn't have to. I did send them a note asking about their "typical" throughput just to see what they say - it obviously "depends" on a lot of stuff outside their control, but if they're seeing rates substantially above the 40-50mb I was seeing, they might be worth a try. What's hard to tell when looking at a limited number of cases with the router is whether the main limitation is at my end or theirs. (I suspect mine, but I'm willing to be surprised.)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445325 - 11/27/17 11:58 PM

And indeed, Strong tech support says 50mb or so is an “acceptable” throughput rate for VPN on a router...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445332 - 11/28/17 01:12 PM

Here's something to think about: Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

If nothing else, notice the different style of writing: it gets more into the details of how things work.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/13/01
Posts: 5059
Loc: Minnesota
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445341 - 11/28/17 11:10 PM

Quote:

Here's something to think about: Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

If nothing else, notice the different style of writing: it gets more into the details of how things work.




I'm not sure how his article received a title like that shown.

Google can afford to do what is doing -- in effect, placing itself near its customers. That is how Google and Netflix, etc., can get good, high speed access to their customers.

What the article ignores is that in the current state, the market (ie, Google's wallet) allows it to do what it is doing. No ISP is acting as a gatekeeper preventing anyone else from using the Internet. If the ISPs (either last-mile or transit) are allowed to influence the flow of traffic, the Googles of the world will be able to continue to do what they want, it is the small players who can't do what Google is doing who will suffer.

I've spent the bulk of my career either in the ISP or ISP-adjacent business. I don't want to see the ISPs able to arbitrarily restrict the flow of traffic across the Internet.

John


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #445345 - 11/28/17 11:32 PM

Quote:

If the ISPs (either last-mile or transit) are allowed to influence the flow of traffic, the Googles of the world will be able to continue to do what they want, it is the small players who can't do what Google is doing who will suffer.




Worse, we end up like the local stations negotiating with the cable companies:

Stations: "Without us, you have no content. Pay us"
Cable: "Without us, you have no customers. Pay us."


Quote:

I don't want to see the ISPs able to arbitrarily restrict the flow of traffic across the Internet.



However, I think we do want the traffic managed for the good of all. For example, smooth streaming. I'm all for good management. I'm against favoring one company over another.

But one person's management is another's restriction. And I'm sure given time that someone will claim that prioritizing one protocol over another is a restriction against a company because that company runs a different protocol. (I'm just looking at how race/gender discrimination arguments have been framed by some in the past.)

I guess the best way to describe it is that I wast a ISP with good network management (protocol discrimination), but is content/owner neutral. What troubles me about the "net neutrality" side is that I'm unsure if what they're proposing is going to accomplish what I want or if it's going to lead to a unmanaged network (which I don't think any consumer wants).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 104 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7705

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum