Yes, lets get back to the technical issues. First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them. If that the case, then a discussion of the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue.
Anyway, that being said - I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot. On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES a different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic? If the entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements than the transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones. And have no right to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate their demands. Especially at everyone else's expense. Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment? I claim that either the systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium. Don’t demand that the medium ADD special treatment for you. One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) monopoly position to materially affect the open market in ways which could easily damage the open market. (I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was just packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-) All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for, its IMHO. -----Original Message----- From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez Jr. Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through the lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I am sure many would believe that government should a significant role is managing and others not. Most of this thread has focused on that. I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first part of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was bad policy. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700 > "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <[email protected]> wrote: > >> First since I do not believe in > >> central planning > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> I do not know what >> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This >> what is awesome about the > > >> Free Market, > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> if there is market that was >> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide >> services. > > Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some > much more generic theories. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts > http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
