Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

19
  • 3
    Why is it that you don't think your situation will get any worse or better? What exactly does having a "dumb DSL modem" have to do with Net Neutrality? It sounds like your setup is pretty effective; if only everyone's was so good. Also, this sentiment that the federal government shouldn't pass laws respecting the public sector explains why you are neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, you are a Libertarian. And frankly, the broadness of the statement strikes me as utterly absurd. The government shouldn't have any laws regarding business or education? What laws should the government have? Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 8:04
  • You lost me at surgery. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 8:14
  • @AndrasDeak sorry, specifically, I meant surgery performed over the Internet. That might be a strawman argument though, I've got no idea if things like that exist if their QoS is currently enhanced by lack of neutrality. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:36
  • Having a dumb old DSL Modem means I find it highly unlikely that anything the government does is likely to affect anything. Maybe I am lucky - I thought living in the sticks made things worse. I was down in Charleston visiting my wife's aunt a few weeks ago and her Internet connection was atrocious. I'd like to consider myself a distributist, as libertarianism is antithetical to the Golden Rule. I'm all for government breaking up the big corporations, just not telling them how to do their business once they're broken up. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:41
  • 4
    You're working through a VPN and don't think this is exactly the kind of not categorized traffic (since its not readable) which will be the first dropped on backbones and uplinks if your ISP get fees from NetFlix or Google to give a high priority to their traffic ? sounds naive Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:42
  • 2
    @tensibai dropped? I don't think anyone is talking about dropping traffic, just rate limiting and at the rate I consume the data, I don't think it's gonna matter much - that's the point. I think some data should be prioritized, I think those who can buy it should be able to buy additional bandwidth, but it shouldn't negatively affect any one else's experience - it's up the the telco's to make sure they've got the right sized pipe and not oversell. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:49
  • 3
    @PeterTurner what do you think happen when a high priority traffic occupy 80% of the bandwidth ? Low priority packets are dropped in favor of high priority, needing a restransmit from the client. The whole point of ACK packets in TCP... At a certain point, if VPN bandwidth is limited on an uplink and enough clients used it, it raise to 100% use of the limit, you have to randomly drop packets you can't send in a timely fashion Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:52
  • (That's just how QoS works and analyzing your own connexion today will show you this already happen because there's QoS for certain services (voice, tv) with no distinction between providers, if you open the door to make a distinction, there will be problems for those not rich enough to compete. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:55
  • @tens well I can tell you my business (remote data center monitoring) would be toast if we (and our customers) had to pay every ISP in the country extra dough to maintain the pipe we've currently got. It's non-sense that B2B traffic would be denigrated by lack of net neutrality, they can't toast every SSH session in the planet, the ISPs would probably just wind up shooting themselves in the foot - they're not that smart. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:13
  • @PeterTurner why that ? If what google pay for youtube, facebook pay for being served quickly and what netflix pay for same reasons overcome any other professional use, I see no reason for it to not happen. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:16
  • 7
    So your argument is that now, with regulations in place to prevent ISPs from treating your content differently, you have adequate service, how in the world does that mean that it is going to be okay to support allowing them to discriminate against you and favor serving others over you? That you have adequate service now, despite having what you feel is a shady provider, means that the current regulations are working. That's not an argument to get rid of them, it's an argument to keep them. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:52
  • @servy, I don't believe any of the regulations have gone into effect yet. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 14:12
  • 2
    meta.stackexchange.com/questions/297816/… Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 14:16
  • @servy So... any regulations that have gone into effect during the last 11 years have had zero effect on my experience, that is not evidence that they're working and not evidence that their repeal will have any negative effect. The only bump I got was from 1.5 megs to 10 and that was because I elected to give my ISP a few more bucks per month (and get free long distance!). Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:29
  • 6
    @PeterTurner The regulations were put in place because the ISPs were being abusive in certain situations, and the regulations were put in place to prevent them from continuing that behavior and allowing it to spread. That you weren't personally affected by the cases that brought the issue to the forefront doesn't mean that there isn't evidence of their effectiveness, or the problems that are inevitable when they're not there. Since your personal experience doesn't have evidence either way, but the experiences of others does have considerable evidence, your assertion doesn't hold weight. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:45