Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@erufael said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And how has it been any different from when Wheeler and that group enacted these rules?
In essentially every way.
Which you absolutely won't explain but you'll say it's been obvious all along and you already said it anyways.
Far as I can tell, procedure was followed. You can't have it both ways.
No. Pai et al made an absolute mockery of procedure at every step, which is why their repeal is now being or about to be challenged in court by approximately everyone.
It really hurts when people don't agree with you, doesn't it?
-
@erufael said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler Specifics, please. The FCC is under no formal obligation (as far as I am aware) to comply with the will of
the people@masonwheeler . This is a rule change exactly like the change that caused this whole mess in the first place in 2015. So if this gets thrown out (it wont), then the 2015 change is also invalid.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
No. Pai et al made an absolute mockery of procedure at every step, which is why their repeal is now being or about to be challenged in court by approximately everyone.
You realize you can sue anyone for anything? That every important administrative decision gets challenged in court by someone? That there being a court case has nothing to do with validity of either side's action?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla I believe the Federal Communications Commission should be policing the communications industry, including fraud by members of the communications industry. What's strange about that?
No, fraud is handled by the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC regulates who can use which communication signals and formats.
-
@Gąska said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
No. Pai et al made an absolute mockery of procedure at every step, which is why their repeal is now being or about to be challenged in court by approximately everyone.
You realize you can sue anyone for anything? That every important administrative decision gets challenged in court by someone? That there being a court case has nothing to do with validity of either side's action?
People will sometimes even preemptively sue to get a declaratory judgment from the court to side with them on something in order to forestall anyone else trying to sue them.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla I believe the Federal Communications Commission should be policing the communications industry, including fraud by members of the communications industry. What's strange about that?
No, fraud is handled by the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC regulates who can use which communication signals and formats.
I don't think you get it, man. Communications is right there in the name and everything!
...yeah, I don't get it either, but that's really important to him.
-
@gąska said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I wonder what they'll be restoring. @area_usa, what has changed in your internet usage in the last half year?
I think there were more idiots on it then there used to be.
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@gąska said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I wonder what they'll be restoring. @area_usa, what has changed in your internet usage in the last half year?
Starting a few days ago, I had horrible lag and packet loss when playing GW2 on a European account. (The servers are on EC2 for both NA and EU.)
This mysteriously stopped late last night.
Yeah, but MilwaukeePC.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla OK, if you're going to be that ic about it, let's be equally clear, even though I should not have to clarify this: I believe the FCC should be policing the communications industry, specifically in their work of providing communications services.
Filed under: More arguing in bad faith
No, this is stupid. The FCC does not regulate the communications industry. The FCC regulates communications. The FTC regulates industries.
-
@gąska said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I wonder what they'll be restoring. @area_usa, what has changed in your internet usage in the last half year?
I'm no longer a Comcast customer and am now a Verizon customer. This is because I moved to a house with Verizon hardware installed already.
-
-
@xaade But wasn't the point not that Title II would prevent that on its own, but instead that Title II placed the ISPs under the purview of the FCC instead of the FTC, and they could then apply other, additional regulations under that new oversight authority?
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade But wasn't the point not that Title II would prevent that on its own, but instead that Title II placed the ISPs under the purview of the FCC instead of the FTC, and they could then apply other, additional regulations under that new oversight authority?
Which makes it all a show.
It's not a law, it's a classification.
So special cases can be allowed, anything can be allowed.
Once again, it's just a control thing, and Title II doesn't represent the Net Neutrality that people want.
-
-
@dcon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The third one is line-of-sight from an access point to a receiving dish antenna.
One of our remote people is on that (Wyoming). His only problem is when it's windy. The dishes wiggle. Sometimes bad enough he essentially has no internet.
As far as technical difficulties go, this seems like one with a fairly simple solution.
-
@lb_ said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
That is truly frightening, but somewhere, an ISP CEO has just seen that, and jizzed in his pants.
-
@doctorjones Ah, the wonders of those who don't understand what they're looking at.
-
@pie_flavor the context thread is
-
AT&T UNLIMITED &MORE PLAN: … For content we can identify as video, wireless streaming speed will be slowed to a max of 1.5Mbps, Standard Definition quality (about 480p). Video speed is capped at this amount, regardless of network device is on (for example 4G LTE).
Hooray for VPNs…
-
@Gribnit keep reading:
Ability to stream; video resolution; and other data usage, including speed, aren't guaranteed, may vary, and may be affected by a variety of other factors.
-
I like these headlines.
-
@Gribnit best headline since "I can't sleep because I'm holding a cupboard".
-
Verizon Is Close to Apple, Google Deals for 5G TV
(Bloomberg gives a ToS violation instead of a onebox)
-
Don't want to alarm anyone, but the largely evidence-free nature of this discussion is in jeopardy:
-
@Gribnit I shall consider the source on that one...
-
@lolwhat yeah ACM SIGCOMM will just rubber stamp any old thing...
-
@Gribnit said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
but the largely evidence-free nature of this discussion is in jeopardy:
Yes, posting El Reg articles will do that.
-
Presented without comment:
-
@e4tmyl33t
Of course, there's some serious headlinegore going on with that, since...The FCC's decision to lift price caps affected Business Data Services (BDS), which are dedicated, point-to-point broadband links delivered over copper-based TDM networks by incumbent phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink.
(abbr tag mine) The FCC regulation and the case in question has nothing to do with ISPs, as the standard Ars reader would understand it, since standard Internet service has never been price regulated by any government agency. Rather, the ruling deals with T1 service and other "dedicated circuit" data connections over the phone network, which is bordering on obsolete anyway as FTTP gets more adoption. Which was the FCC's point - and they (rightfully) pointed out the games that people were playing with costing a build out to argue that only buildings where fiber already existed should count as having competition to the T1 service.
So, what the headline really should have been is: "Court rules that FCC can treat new technologies as competitors to government granted monopolies using legacy technology and reduce regulation in effectted markets"
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
does 4G even exist yet or are they still not implementing the standard and adding "LTE" at the end to weasel their way out of it
-
@ben_lubar it's that second one
-
@ben_lubar works for me
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
does 4G even exist yet or are they still not implementing the standard and adding "LTE" at the end to weasel their way out of it
4G's been out for a while. At first Sprint had their WiMax and everybody else did LTE. Eventually Sprint went to LTE as well.
-
@mikehurley you didn't understand. Some people are just mad at entire telecom industry because the original 4G specification promised miraculous theoretical performance but real world implementation only got 70% of that.
-
@Gąska well, there was no real world implementation. they didn't implement the 4G specification. People are mad that they pretended to without actually delivering.
-
@pie_flavor my point exactly. I'm just happy I've got 20-40 times faster mobile internet, because even though they promised 50 times, it's still a tremendous improvement.
-
@Gąska
What most people don't get is that wireless standards (both in cellular and Wi-Fi) specify the "over the air" or "transcoding" rate of the signal, which is the maximum amount of data that could theoretically be encoded in the signal at extremely short range with no interference in a laboratory environment. For example, your 802.11ac (excuse me, WiFi 5) laptop connected to a WiFi 5 access point most likely has a max rate of 866Mbps (most laptops and APs these days are 2x2 MIMO, which has aforementioned maximum rate, if using 5GHz frequency space and an 80MHz wide channel, and a -60dBm or better signal).However, even under these ideal circumstances, the amount of actual data transmitted by your wireless card will never reach the over the air rate. WiFi 4 (802.11n) and 5 (802.11ac) are about 60% efficient with their encoding, so their "actual" theoretical maximum is on the order of 510-520Mbps of data throughput. And, once you leave the Faraday cage of the test lab, you get to start dealing with interference & contention (other things using the channel your laptop/AP are communicating on), signal obstructions, weaker signals due to a distance of more than 3 feet to the AP, and so forth.
Further, once you put two clients on the same AP, the weakest client winds up impacting the AP's throughput by an order of magnitude more than the strongest client, proportional to how much the encoding has to downstep to deal with real world conditions. For example, if the weak client has to downgrade to 2x2 16-QAM (390Mbps OTA rate), which is usually around a -65 to -70 signal, the equivalent of being a room or two away from the AP, then 50Mbps of actual data transmission from them consumes the same amount of AP capacity as 111Mbps of actual data transmission from an "ideal" client - meaning that their 50Mbps of transfer only leaves 400Mbps of capacity for ideal clients, even though the "max capacity" of the AP is 510Mbps.
And it gets a lot LOT worse in cell land, where signals of -100 are expected to work (though, at least in cell land, frequencies are "guaranteed" to be dedicated by FCC license, so you have very little interference unless some nutter in your area is running a sovereign citizen private pirate radio station or something stupid).
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
unless some nutter in your area is running a sovereign citizen private pirate radio station
Assuming a regular AM or FM radio - can it really interfere with cellular signal even though it's different order of magnitude of frequency? Or are there people who emit strong waves in ~900MHz bands?
-
@Gąska
You can get resonance interference at a multiple of the baseline source (so 900MHz emissions can interfere with 1800MHz, 2700MHz, etc.), though the amount of interference decreases as the multiple increases. In general, cell towers don't have interference from other radio sources, although fixed location wireless does, since there are other technologies that utilize the same space, and it's unlicensed in general so another operator can come in and start setting up APs without regard to other users in the area.
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
does 4G even exist yet or are they still not implementing the standard and adding "LTE" at the end to weasel their way out of it
Assume weasels. Occasionally you end up getting pleasantly surprised, but that's really quite rare.
-
-
-
So... how's the dying going?
-
@Gąska
Avoiding all the dying caused by the NN repeal has really taken away from my time for more important things, like getting righteous on fools that insist Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.
-
-
So, weather.com has been upgrading their "plz2letussendyouviruses" nag, now it's a two parter, starting with a real tear jerker:
And then going straight for the fast lanes:
Someone should send in the FCC, demand Weather Forecast Neutrality!
-
@izzion what does "faster experience" mean? Like, they don't do popovers maybe, so you don't have to waste time dismissing them? Or the videos don't start with ads?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion what does "faster experience" mean? Like, they don't do popovers maybe, so you don't have to waste time dismissing them? Or the videos don't start with ads?
If they see ad blocker, they change a value in your cookies that forces the page to spend time loading giant images of nothingness before the rest of the page loads?
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So, weather.com has been upgrading their "plz2letussendyouviruses" nag, now it's a two parter
Sounds like it is time to find a different provider of online weather-forecasting services.
-
@dkf I'm a fan of http://darksky.net/. It seems to give better forecasts than other sites, for whatever reason. At least with regards to rainfall, because that's all I ever care about.