This is Owen_Inspirado's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Owen_Inspirado's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Owen_Inspirado is now following Chris Decker
Feb 22, 2011
Pavel, the intentions of the internet and the guarantees provided by its fundamental architecture do not allow for the "heart monitor" use case you mentioned. You'd need to set up something much more reliable than internet protocol (IP) with latency and reliability guarantees for something life threatening and realtime. Connecting it to the public on the internet would make it dead simple for a hacker to literally DOS someone to death, especially with its traffic being prioritized straight to its servers. IP only provides best effort delivery. If a company wants to provide a service with different characteristics, then they can certainly build that - having ISPs add layers to check where traffic is coming from so they can prioritize it for edge cases like this will just slow it down for everyone. The solution to quality of service issues is to lay more pipe - removing net neutrality is at best a temporary bandaid solution for a minority. Net neutrality results in a faster internet. You also pointed out a solution to the companies that have cash and need more bandwidth. Google, Microsoft, or Startup-X need bandwidth to their servers - how does giving ISPs the ability to limit how end users use their bandwidth solve that issue? Companies can already pay ISPs to get more bandwidth for their servers! If a user wants more bandwidth they can already pay for it! They can decide for themselves how to use it without paying an ISP for the privilege. Net neutrality equates to the freedom for users to decide how to use their bandwidth, instead of ISPs deciding for them. If you need more bandwidth, you can still purchase more - that's a separate issue. There are also privacy concerns which I'm surprised people don't talk about. Do you really want ISPs to know how you use your bandwidth? They'll have to look at it so they can prioritize it. Take away: Killing net neutrality means killing user freedom and privacy. Pardon the hyperbole - seems the missinformation in the opposing arguments are pushing me further and further to the extreme.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2011 on The Importance of Net Neutrality at Coding Horror
Net neutrality and its legislation are obviously two separate things. Right now we have net neutrality for the most part so we don't need the legislation. What some people suggest is that even if ISPs do start doing exactly those "scary" things, there should be no legislation because net neutrality itself is bad. I don't expect you to go through all the comments and find my original one, but what I was arguing is that a well thought out plan for legislation should be debated and ready if ISPs do need to be regulated, and it should be put in place if needed. Then again, I don't think it'd be horrible if we preempted the ISPs and just legislated it now - if they're already doing it, it won't be a big deal and it'll have less of an economic impact since the risk to companies dependent on net neutrality (i.e. everyone other than the ISPs) will be known. From a business owner's perspective, the last thing I want is more volatility.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2011 on The Importance of Net Neutrality at Coding Horror
Nate, I think you're confusing what net neutrality means. Without net neutrality, switching off your torrent would NOT speed up your Netflix, because Comcast has decided the Netflix bits competes with their own offerings and limits how much you can download for that service in particular. They could decide to charge you extra to allow you to download faster from Netflix, or they could just limit it so you're more likely to use their services. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, it's not about how much bandwidth you use (you're already limited now), it's about what you're using your bandwidth for. The ISP decides how you use your bandwidth.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2011 on The Importance of Net Neutrality at Coding Horror
Not to trample on an ideology that I agree with on almost every issue, but clearly one answer (government == bad) is insufficient for all economic questions. It just does NOT hold up to reality, even if you define the "good" answer as the one resulting in the greatest economic growth! The FASTEST growing major economy in the world (by an order of magnitude to the USA) is China, hardly a bastion of libertarianism. Economies with more banking regulations, like Canada, have huge leads in job and GDP growth over lax countries like the USA. As someone who gets frustrated with government meddling on a near daily basis, I understand the point some commenters are making. However, the issue isn't quite as cut and dried as they seem to imagine it to be and net neutrality may need to become regulation at some point in the future if industry does not "play nice". So why bother even discussing it now when it's not even a problem? When was the last time the government did anything fast without messing it up even worse? Clearly we need to have this discussion and figure out the risks before it becomes an issue!
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2011 on The Importance of Net Neutrality at Coding Horror
Owen_Inspirado is now following The Typepad Team
Feb 14, 2011