Friam

Net neutrality?

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

Gillian Densmore

Net neutrality?

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: [WedTech] Net neutrality?

Administrator

The real issue is not neutrality but QoS -- Quality of Service. I *want* my heart surgeon to have higher bandwidth and lower latency than my TiVo/NetFlix. QoS, both bandwidth and latency, needs to be properly doled out between the services that actually need it.

-- Owen

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

_______________________________________________
Wedtech mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: [WedTech] Net neutrality?

As the JR Densmore I'd rather you no more than 300 clicks from a heart surgeon- that is unless it'd be fatally dumb to be that from one. I'll see your QOS and up it: this is a 2x sword: on one side,cybermesa has moral, and legal grounds to block botnets (for example) if they opt to do so, on the other hand, comcast now has the legal grounds to block netflix and my MMO habit.

I agree with you: that as one aspect of my daily life QOS is a massive problem in that for me throughput is is a huge issue. The direction comcast has gone we don't have raw-speed measured symmetrically. As Own might put it: Civillians only care about downloading bloodyfast.

I, and I suspect he, would rather it be such that you are guaranteed gigs-asecond up and down.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

The real issue is not neutrality but QoS -- Quality of Service. I *want* my heart surgeon to have higher bandwidth and lower latency than my TiVo/NetFlix. QoS, both bandwidth and latency, needs to be properly doled out between the services that actually need it.

-- Owen

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

_______________________________________________
Wedtech mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com

_______________________________________________
Wedtech mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Net neutrality?

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

On 1/15/14, 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

Do we want to pay more for a commons, to foster access and innovation? Is it progressive to give a competitive advantage to big companies that can pay more? Of course, Amazon and Google can already afford to have dedicated fiber and their own private but global networks. This is not just a technical question of employing protocol extensions for TCP/IP. This is a People question of what serves the greater good. For example, safety and security situations (Owen's surgery-by-wire) could have FCC authorization for higher bandwidth and lower latency using QOS extensions. Meanwhile, the _law_ could insist that it is Comcast or Century Link's problem to pass on the costs to Netflix and Hulu users so as to ensure their backbone networks have adequate capacity. Comcast, for example, would no doubt like to compensate in their profits from losses to internet-based entertainment. But I would rather pay more for my internet connection, and not be held hostage on entertainment services -- HBO Go instead of Comcast's resale of it.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: [WedTech] Net neutrality?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

I don't know. Suppose AT&T, Verizon etc get into the travel business*. How easy do you suppose it would be to access Expedia*? The current issue appears to be about whether the FCC has jurisdiction over setting the rules for net neutrality. Let's hope they get/claim it back so that big media moguls don't get to control every message via business arrangements with the carriers. Perhaps net neutrality is actually a Free Speech issue that's way bigger than some yellow lines round some clinics entrances.

Robert
* or your business.

On 1/15/14 9:52 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

The real issue is not neutrality but QoS -- Quality of Service. I *want* my heart surgeon to have higher bandwidth and lower latency than my TiVo/NetFlix. QoS, both bandwidth and latency, needs to be properly doled out between the services that actually need it.

-- Owen

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

_______________________________________________
Wedtech mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: [WedTech] Net neutrality?

Is this relevant to your discussion. From WONKBLOG

BLEVINS: Calm down. The courts didn't just end the open Internet. "The reports of network neutrality's death have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the heart of the FCC's open Internet rules. But it also, more quietly, ruled that the FCC has authority to regulate broadband providers to protect Internet openness. In doing so, the court may have handed the FCC -- and the public -- a victory that goes well beyond network neutrality...The court vacated only these particular rules, not the FCC's ability to act in the future. Specifically, it concluded that the FCC could regulate Internet providers under a statute known as Section 706, which authorizes the FCC to take various steps to promote broadband deployment." John Blevins in The Washington Post.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [WedTech] Net neutrality?

On 1/15/14 9:52 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

The real issue is not neutrality but QoS -- Quality of Service. I *want* my heart surgeon to have higher bandwidth and lower latency than my TiVo/NetFlix. QoS, both bandwidth and latency, needs to be properly doled out between the services that actually need it.

-- Owen

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb

_______________________________________________
Wedtech mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com