dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-08-15 08:46:43: One of Verizon's big arguments against net neutrality rules is that if you have a truly neutral network, the bits managing grandma's pacemaker or services for the deaf will somehow get lost in the shuffle. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

pumpkinhead7
join:2002-06-14
Clarksburg, WV

pumpkinhead7

Member

Stupid

This guy is obviously ignorant, why is this even news? The guy is completely outside the realm of sanity.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

1 recommendation

rebus9

Member

Re: Stupid

Negroponte is just another Rupert Murdoch, an old relic who doesn't understand the internet.

For those not entirely familiar with Murdoch, he largely dismissed the internet as make-or-break for his media empire and believed paywalls were great. His rationale was anyone wanting to read his publications online would gladly pay a monthly subscription fee, displaying blissful ignorance of internet culture.
78204168 (banned)
join:2013-02-28

4 recommendations

78204168 (banned) to pumpkinhead7

Member

to pumpkinhead7
pacemaker bits?!? dear jeebus what a tool!!!

if you believe his argument, then perhaps I can sell you on needing some muffler bearings or blinker fluid for your car....
toejam15
join:2013-06-14
San Jose, CA

2 recommendations

toejam15

Member

Re: Stupid

Funny you should say...I'm out of blinker fluid myself.
xthepeoplesx
join:2013-10-21

2 recommendations

xthepeoplesx

Member

Re: Stupid

I am going to recommend STP's fluid, it works very well for me. Be careful though to only use the blinkers in dire needs because it is expensive and you will need to have your blinker lines flushed atleast once a year or every 10,000 miles.
Expand your moderator at work
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

elefante72 to pumpkinhead7

Member

to pumpkinhead7
Not ignorant. When you live in PRC (Peoples republic of Cambridge) its all gumdrops and lollipops. Reality is from a frame of reference.

10 years ago P2P was taking up 40% and it was going to doom the internet. Yawn. It got faster and transit costs have plummeted. In 10 years maybe M2M (machine to machine--those pacemaker bits) will dominate. So what. It will get faster and cheaper.

The real crux is say why Comcast has a 300GB cap which ORIGINALLY (at 250GB) hit maybe 1%, but now is in the middle of the bell curve. That is not net neutrality, its simply monopolistic pricing power.
Expand your moderator at work

MacGyver

join:2001-10-14
Vancouver, BC

MacGyver to pumpkinhead7

to pumpkinhead7
How much longer before all the old-way-of-thinking dinosaurs are dead?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Stupid

When humans are born without a gluteus maximus.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement to MacGyver

Anon

to MacGyver
said by MacGyver:

How much longer before all the old-way-of-thinking dinosaurs are dead?

This site is visited and has a lot of posters that are old way of thinking dinosaurs. So not anytime soon.
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

grabacon9 to pumpkinhead7

Member

to pumpkinhead7
Ya. He is stupid.

AC Router
@50.7.78.x

AC Router to pumpkinhead7

Anon

to pumpkinhead7
He is educated, experienced, and intelligent. Sounds like a good combination to be able to comment on net neutrality

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Stupid

said by AC Router :

He is educated, experienced, and intelligent. Sounds like a good combination to be able to comment on net neutrality

If this were true, then why is he making very ignorant statements??
Sounds like he is not educated, not experienced, and not intelligent.

bluefox8
@72.78.187.x

1 recommendation

bluefox8 to pumpkinhead7

Anon

to pumpkinhead7
Doctor (MD) here, I just wanted to refute the argument that pacemaker needs to be connected to internet 24/7 and needs prioritization over other traffic. Think of the underlying assumptions in the argument:
a) Pacemaker needs uninterrupted access to the doctor/device maker's servers in order to function. If server is down or hacked, grandma's pacemaker won't function. Conversely, grandma's pacemaker is no longer air-gapped and thus can be hacked from [insert enemy here].
b) Some magical data needs to be transferred uninterrupted 24/7 or something 'bad' will happen to grandma.
c) Grandma on pacemaker cannot leave the house or go further than the boundary of a 4-5 bar wifi signal. She cannot even go visit her doctor, because she cannot guarantee the uninterrupted prioritization of her pacemaker traffic en route (cellular coverage map, tower distance, congestion, elevators, etc).

Pacemaker functions by monitoring heart rate. If the heart rate falls below a threshold number, it fires - which translates into an extra heartbeat each time it fires. It does NOT, and more importantly SHOULD NOT be connected to internet (for reasons of security). Forget about prioritization of internet traffic on a device that should be air gapped.

What Verizon is trying to do is scare people with lies. This is why I wrote the above.

AC Router
@66.249.83.x

AC Router

Anon

Re: Stupid

said by bluefox8 :

Doctor (MD) here, I just wanted to refute the argument that pacemaker needs to be connected to internet 24/7 and needs prioritization over other traffic. Think of the underlying assumptions in the argument:
a) Pacemaker needs uninterrupted access to the doctor/device maker's servers in order to function. If server is down or hacked, grandma's pacemaker won't function. Conversely, grandma's pacemaker is no longer air-gapped and thus can be hacked from [insert enemy here].
b) Some magical data needs to be transferred uninterrupted 24/7 or something 'bad' will happen to grandma.
c) Grandma on pacemaker cannot leave the house or go further than the boundary of a 4-5 bar wifi signal. She cannot even go visit her doctor, because she cannot guarantee the uninterrupted prioritization of her pacemaker traffic en route (cellular coverage map, tower distance, congestion, elevators, etc).

Pacemaker functions by monitoring heart rate. If the heart rate falls below a threshold number, it fires - which translates into an extra heartbeat each time it fires. It does NOT, and more importantly SHOULD NOT be connected to internet (for reasons of security). Forget about prioritization of internet traffic on a device that should be air gapped.

What Verizon is trying to do is scare people with lies. This is why I wrote the above.

It would have been nice if you actually read what he said, instead of basing your criticism on what he was accused of saying: Your points A) B) and C) are now all invalid.

»bigthink.com/videos/bits ··· groponte
quote:
And then if you have a pacemaker that transmits – this is an imaginary pacemaker now that communicates and monitors your health by sending data up to the Cloud. Then a few bits of your heart data are, you know, a small fraction of a book. So you have bits that represent your heart, bits that represent books and bits that represent video. And so to argue that they’re all equal is crazy.

bluefox8
@72.78.187.x

bluefox8

Anon

Re: Stupid

No, I read the article. In it, there is no explanation of why a pacemaker bit is more important than other bits, other than "it just is". So, a rebuttal to that assumption is above. To reiterate, there is no 'pacemaker bit' that is more important than streaming data. It can wait a few milliseconds or seconds or even minutes or even hours.

Think of what motivation did Negroponte have to use an imaginary 'high priority pacemaker bit' analogy that does not exist in the real world (and likely will never exist). Why did he not just use voip analogy, which is probably more valid? He probably did not use the voip analogy because you can't scare people by getting them worried about their voip delay as much as you can scare them by making up a non-existent imaginary cardiac pacemaker delay.

That is the big point, which you forgot about in the details.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to AC Router

Premium Member

to AC Router
Points will also be rendered moot once Verizon deploys an approved pacemaker where it's data transmission won't affect your data caps.
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

SunnyD

Member

Why shouldn't all bits be treated equally?

What makes your pacemaker any different to my streaming video?

Why are you trying to discriminate?

Perhaps I'm streaming a conference with your doctor about new technology that will supplant the need for your said pacemaker, and everybody else's for that matter, but let's go ahead and discriminate - artificially make streaming degraded to the point where it's not feasible or prohibitive.

Tongue in cheek comparison to racism, but this issue really is black and white. All bits really are created equally. It's just a matter of how we arbitrarily treat them that counts.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

1 edit

Packeteers

Premium Member

all bits ARE equal

what this old fart does not take into account is the increased capacity of the internet over what it was originally designed to handle, as well as the fact that end users already pay extra for more speed on wired lines, and more data caps on wireless, so there is plenty of incentive for isp's to keep expanding capacity to handle streaming video without having to establish fast & slow lanes for content.

the internet has clearly spawned innovation far beyond what it's designers intended, which is what makes the internet so wonderful - so the last thing any visionary designer should want to see it their creation being limited in any way as that would stifle the very innovation that keeps surprising them. it's not even a decade that video capable bandwidth has been available affordably to consumers, so we are still near the beginning of this full motion interactive revolution.

a mission critical bit like pacemaker feedback would - by design - have redundancies to make sure it's data got through, and comparing streaming video to a book is silly, as the video content is consumed in real time, while a book download may take weeks to consume, so both examples are not in any way a higher priority over streaming video. this guy reminds me when my grandfather would yell at me to stop watching TV and read a book instead. he never seemed to care what I watched or read, just that I changed to his older medium.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

This guy isn't a visionary. He's a BIG THINKER who doesn't have a shred of reality left in his dream world where everything would be perfect if he was given total control.

What does he think about a radio show that clogs phone lines with free ticket offers to caller x? What if at the same time grandma tries to call a relative because she fell but gets all circuits are busy? Since 911 is supposed to be separate, she could use that and then Medicare would pay $1,000 for an ambulance roll...
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

grabacon9

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

A BIG LOSER!
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy to Packeteers

Member

to Packeteers
How does one build in "redundancy to make sure it's [sic] data got through?" Packet retransmissions that are treated equally as any other packet retransmissions have no higher probability of reaching their destination than the previous ones. Obviously, the probability of at least one packet reaching its destination increases, but then you've thrown out any hope of timeliness. I guess you believe that no time-sensitive usage of the internet should exist?

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers

Premium Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

I guess you've never experienced network congestion (where some transmissions may time out) any mission critical system would have to be designed to accommodate it.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

Not "any mission critical system" can exist with congestion. Thus, your ideal internet cannot support "any mission critical system."

workablob
join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX

workablob to anderboy

Member

to anderboy
said by anderboy:

How does one build in "redundancy to make sure it's [sic] data got through?" Packet retransmissions that are treated equally as any other packet retransmissions have no higher probability of reaching their destination than the previous ones. Obviously, the probability of at least one packet reaching its destination increases, but then you've thrown out any hope of timeliness. I guess you believe that no time-sensitive usage of the internet should exist?

Voice and Video are time sensitive and don't benefit from connection oriented protocols.

A pacemaker does not seem to me to be a real-time application.

As long as there is error control the packets will arrive and be useful.

Blob
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

So if you get your pacemaker data one minute after the heart stops that's OK? As long as it gets there...
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

3 recommendations

elefante72

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

Well if the pacemaker pushes out the bits, it has a processor on it. So theoretically there can be many ways to deal with it. Maybe someone designs a defibrillator that takes action in the body. I mean M2M communications doesnt presuppose local intelligence and actions.

This is well overblown. I have had VOIP for almost 10 years. In the last 7 I can't recall even a smidgen of problems and I was streaming Netflix since it came out.

"Real time" communications aren't real-time. Streaming, VOIP, Skype uses buffers, etc and almost all use UDP which by default is not guaranteed transmission. But yet it works and life goes on.

Look at the Nest. Great it's internet enabled, but it can still function w/ local intelligence or ye olde regular thermostat.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

So we all agree that the pacemaker is example does not promote his argument. Fine, fuck the pacemaker example. Just use any time-sensitive example in the presence of congestion. Your anecdotes about the lack of congestion do not prove anything.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 recommendation

r81984

Premium Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

Dont be stupid here. If someone had time sensitive life saving equipment that needed to communicate for some strange reason then there would be redundancies.
1. land line phone base station 2. having its own radio transmitter base station on a less used frequency 3. cell phone base station 4. wifi for over the internet

If you only relied on the internet then you would be stupid.
That is why even home alarms systems work with land lines, cell phone transmitters, and over the internet.
Even home alarm systems have redundancies.

The most logical thing is to have 100% equality of all traffic over the internet and if private companies cant do this then we need to make all ISP publicly owned.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

Don't be stupid here. If we had an internet that could use fucking sensible QoS, then there wouldn't need to be any wireless redundancies.

The most logical thing is to have 100% priority forwarding based on per-packet payments.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 recommendation

r81984 to anderboy

Premium Member

to anderboy
said by anderboy:

So if you get your pacemaker data one minute after the heart stops that's OK? As long as it gets there...

No communication system will be 100% reliable unless you make your own system with that in mind.

If someone really had a life saving device that needed to phone home for emergencies then it would have redundancies.
This would be 1. Cell phone transmitter 2. wifi transmitter 3. land line phone base station 4. Possibly its own radio transmitter base station

You would be stupid if you made life saving equipment that only worked over the internet with no redundancies.
Also, even giving priority to life saving equipment does not solve anything as it gives you a false sense of security as the internet is not near 100% even if you had your own dedicated vpn with priority.

In the end it only makes sense to treat all data equal.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

All you are saying is that the internet is not suitable for critical applications. I already said that.

The entire point is to make a network WITH QoS which can support reliable communications. I don't give a shit if it's the internet or not. But if anyone were to make a separate set of IP-based interconnected subnetworks like the internet, some idealist asshole would attempt to apply net-neutrality legislation to it. So it might as well be the internet.

In the end it only makes sense to treat all data according to willingness to pay for it, until the government repossesses all the pipes.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to anderboy

Premium Member

to anderboy
Name us one application that is so sensitive that even a smidge of congestion will doom it?

I bet you cant because almost any application on the network has to be designed for latency. Just think of all those people on Satellite Internet, Congestion or no they will always have around 1000ms of latency because they are limited by speed of light.

hell CNN can do video phone over satellites from a war zone.

Also you are forgetting why people push for a neutral net, The people on this site are not against intelligent network management but they are smart enough to know that if we do not force net neutrality the ISPs will see it as another revenue stream. In the minds of the crooks known as ISP shareholders they would love to see you start at $50/mo for internet and then have to keep adding on to do things like be able to use Youtube or Netflix or gaming. Want to use Skype a lot? another $5, Netflix will be another $10... That is the road you could end up on without net neutrality.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: all bits ARE equal

What the hell is "intelligent network management"? Does that involve discriminating traffic? Then it ain't neutral.

If you can prove that your internet-based best-effort shit service can have bounded congestion ("a smidge"), then that's great. But you can't do that. Thus, it can't support critical applications.

And why should network operators not be able to maximize profits on their network? If the US wants to repossess all of the infrastructure to make it a public good, then do it already. They can also stop giving money to networks in exchange for feel-good promises.

workablob
join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX

workablob to Packeteers

Member

to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:

a mission critical bit like pacemaker feedback would - by design - have redundancies to make sure it's data got through,

Yeah, the way he talks the pacemakers are forced to use UDP instead of TCP.

LOL

Blob

•••••••••••••••

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers

Premium Member



limegrass69
No Whammies
join:2008-05-28

7 recommendations

limegrass69

Member

Research Bought and Paid For?

Hey, look! Verizon is a sponsor of the MIT Media Lab!!

»www.media.mit.edu/sponso ··· sor-list

What a surprise.
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M

Member

Re: Research Bought and Paid For?

hmmm this sounds like the same argument that the others made to get the caps put threw.. (ITS ONLY FAIR) yeah prob only fair to no one but the carriers/isp's
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Well...

I guess we should stop driving our cars to work before it's classified as illegal activity because it creates traffic jams. Our actions could cause someone to die because an ambulance or fire truck was delayed.

What a pinhead this guy is.

••••••••••

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

newview

Premium Member

What a moronic thing to say

quote:
Maybe streaming should be illegal.
Maybe going to the public library should be illegal.
It uses a LOT of valuable petrol.
Hell, maybe we should just burn all books entirely.
/sheesh

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

4 recommendations

TechyDad

Premium Member

Neutral

So how do you reconcile that and still say neutral in some sense where some aren’t charged and some are charged and so on.

This is sneaking in the "we'll charge for fast lane access" argument right here. He's assuming "fast lane access" will be done and then asking "How can you have the bits be neutral when some of them paid for fast lane access?" He might as well ask "How can everyone be equally represented by politicians when we bribe the politicians to put our needs first? It's just not fair!"

What I can assure you on the topic is those of us who were there at the beginning of the Internet never imagined that Netflix would represent 40 percent of it on Sunday afternoons. It was just off the charts. We just didn’t think that.

No, they didn't. They also didn't envision social media or rich web applications. I'm sure they didn't think that you could work on a spreadsheet on Google Docs while you watch cat videos on YouTube. They definitely didn't think you'd be able to click on a link and have Google Voice call a number for you. They sure didn't think we'd be accessing documents on the web via tiny, handheld, portable computers with touch screen displays and mobile Internet access (i.e. smart phones). Heck, the original designers of the Internet didn't think of the World Wide Web at first, either.

Just because the original designers of the Internet didn't think of something when they first created the Internet doesn't mean it should be illegal. It means that the Internet is growing and changing which is a good thing.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: Neutral

said by TechyDad:

It means that the Internet is growing and changing which is a good thing.

It means the loose peer-to-peer architecture of the Internet is working as advertised.

New services can be delivered without the knowledge or permission of the network. The network is there to transport the bits, service innovation happens at the edge.

/tom
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Maybe the Web should be illegal

Maybe the graphics-rich World Wide Web should be illegal. After all, it consumes lots of bandwidth, and Gopher was much more efficient in terms of bandwidth.

If he's saying that some data is more time-sensitive, I get that. For instance, if you're performing remote surgery, you need a rock solid connection that isn't bogged down by a bunch of folks streaming "House of Cards". However, what that means is that this critical data shouldn't be moving along the public Internet. And, really, there can be any number of internets out there. If you want grandma's pacemaker data to flow freely, then build a separate network for stuff like that. If the current pipes aren't fat enough, then you either increase the size of the pipes, or, if that isn't possible, build a new set of pipes, but to make some ridiculous statement about what should and shouldn't be allowed is not the solution. And, just to throw this little tidbit out there, has it ever occurred to Mr. Negropante that video streaming isn't some banal thing that brings no value? Wouldn't there be some value to the fact that it allows people to view content that their local cable company isn't providing? I can get a wider selection of international news on my Roku than I could ever hope to get on cable, and that doesn't even count all the podcasts expressing opinions that never even make it onto news channels.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

Pacemaker?

Who's the moron engineer who would design a pacemaker to rely on a "best effort" delivery system in the first place. Seriously. I used to respect Negroponte, but now... not so sure anymore....

•••
YDC
join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

YDC

Member

Neutrality means no control of data that would restrict it in any way

When an airplane contacts the control tower, does it use the Internet? It could, but doesn't because that is not a reliable medium for critical communications in the view of the FAA and the FCC (and me). If you want your pacemaker online it will have to deal with other things that exist there too (expected interference), and have another way to talk if it needs to. When you buy an electronic device in general it says something like it may cause and receive interference. Nothing is guaranteed. This is the cost of using a device on standard and shared frequencies, plain and simple. If you control the Internet (more than it already is) then there is no longer neutrality and the standard and shared goes away.

Note that a medical device may send medical patient data info over the Internet that is NON-CRITICAL, NON-IDENTIFIABLE and ENCRYPTED USING HIGH STANDARDS but must provide a PATH FOR A CRITICAL ALERT. If it does not have a DIRECT PATH to the facility (like a phone dialer) it CANNOT be considered a life saving medical device. STUPID comments everywhere. No one told them to build a critical reporting feature into a non-guaranteed transmission medium. FACT!.. they don't allow it! If that is this guy's argument he needs to go back to Mars!

Wait!

They can send the alerts over iTunes! LAUUGGGHHHH!
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

Re: Neutrality means no control of data that would restrict it in any way

At what point can the companies in question build a separate IP network with all the same infrastructure tools and not have it forced to be "net-neutral" by idealistic blowhards? I'm all for that.

Beeme Upp
@73.54.141.x

Beeme Upp

Anon

Brilliant but wrong

Negroponte has a brilliant and distinguished career, so he's not stupid by any description. But on this, I disagree.

It's not even the "equality of bits" question, although that's an interesting one.

It's the prospect of "illegality" of a phenomenon that is well established and highly lucrative. No one in their right mind will make streaming illegal on the basis of net neutrality. That's not the correct approach. The approach should be, as others have said, making all data equal (the public utility, dumb pipe approach) and not discriminating on the type of data.
codydog
join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI

codydog

Member

status quo

is so desperate to hold on to what was (and extract rent from), they can't allow anything to move forward.

How sad and don't forget this guy determines what other people hear, see and think.

Just another sign how far behind we are in terms of progressive thinking.

winsyrstrife
River City Bounce
Premium Member
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY

winsyrstrife

Premium Member

If, streaming should be illegal

What then, should we be doing with the current level of Internet technology, as a preferred alternative?

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

If you ban legal streaming....

...Piracy will skyrocket, and so will VPN's

I am a cordcutter. And currently enjoying a 99% legal, web streamed TV experience. I say 99%, because every so often there is something I want to see that isn't available on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon or other legal sources (such as TV station websites, recording from OTA tv, etc). If I download 1 item a month, its a lot, and sometimes not even that.

But I will damned if I will ever subscribe to regular television again. I will use a VPN (I already have a VPN account for over 60 countries), and use a Virtual Machine with that VPN active to download stuff the illegal way, if somehow they manage to ban streaming.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: If you ban legal streaming....

that is why people like the guy in the article are only known for being smart but not intelligent. Sure he might know a lot about technology but is not intelligent enough to know the implications is wild ideas would have.

Netflix streaming is one of the things that has kept me from buying a few of those 6TB HDD and raising the Jolly Rodger.
Brim77
join:2012-03-16
Lansing, MI

Brim77

Member

I hate big business in America.

Once you're big enough you can try to outlaw your competition.

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

anonomeX

Anon

Senility strikes

old tech people too!

Milkyverse
@50.65.32.x

Milkyverse

Anon

Pacemakers on the Internet?

Why on earth is grandma's pacemaker on the Internet?

AC Router
@66.249.83.x

AC Router

Anon

Re: Pacemakers on the Internet?

said by Milkyverse :

Why on earth is grandma's pacemaker on the Internet?

How about for the following:
To report periodically to a doctor or device monitoring service summary medical data, and/or the status and reliability of the pacemaker operations? It would NOT be for controlling and altering the operation of the pacemaker. That would need to be done in person for both safety and security of device operation and the health of the patient.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall

Anon

Nonsense

With this line of thinking, telemarketing should be illegal because it ties up phone lines that could be required to make an emergency call.

What a tool.

Rogue Wolf
An Easy Draw of a Sad Few
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

1 edit

Rogue Wolf

Member

What it'd end up being more like...

...is that Grandma's pacemaker company didn't pay the ISP for the "top-tier" service, and so was shoved into the "lower tier" to suffer latency and drops with all the other "unimportant" traffic.

Now if we were discussing assigning some sort of "priority" packet assigned to high-importance services by a neutral committee, maybe we'd be talking. But let's not fool ourselves here; companies like Verizon don't care about your grandmother's pacemaker, or your alarm system, or who's streaming what- they care only about dividing up their service and siphoning as much money as they can from other companies trying to reach their subscribers.

fiosultimate
join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

fiosultimate

Member

crooks

Crooks have no morals, remember that

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

Re: crooks

said by fiosultimate:

Crooks have no morals, remember that

LOL. Talking about morals in the dysfunctionally screwed up word we live in? Too funny and also sad and pathetic.
page: 1 · 2 · next