dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
55
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.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

said by rradina:

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.

Hah!! How about all the new cars coming out with built-in hotspots for consumption on-the-go? Sorry Grandma, your pacemaker will have to wait in line.

What a relic. Just because you're old doesn't mean you don't have a clue, but guys like Negroponte and Rupert Murdoch are totally clueless of the new digital reality.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy to rradina

Member

to rradina
I don't understand how your analogy helps your case.
Do you support removing the emergency services' preemptive right-of-way laws?
I can only drive one car at a time, whereas I can field as many packets as my last-mile will allow. Even barring this difference, if everyone in the city consistently drove all their cars at the same time, you can bet there would be laws enacted to change something. And we already have examples of this in toll roads and HOV lanes.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina

Member

This pinhead claims using the Internet to stream video might be immoral because it could stop some vital health monitoring service. That's like saying we should stay off the roads in case an ambulance needs them. Regardless of our laws that grant right-of-way to emergency vehicles, a traffic jam makes it impossible for emergency vehicles to have the same response time when navigating a traffic jam as opposed to when the roads are clear. As a society, we tolerate this impact and we don't try to differentiate traffic and remove anything that might be "recreational" from the road.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

I think that making streaming illegal is extreme. Yes, it is not immoral to use the road. But your analogy breaks here, because it is perfectly possible for network hardware to completely preempt normal queued traffic for something else. Network neutrality fanatics want to preclude any such use.
And you're also wrong about differentiating traffic as a society. I already mentioned the HOV lanes and toll roads, but there are also rules like "no trucks in left lane" or something like this: »articles.latimes.com/199 ··· ush-hour
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

I never said preempting normal traffic is unreasonable. That's what happens when folks pull over on a road because they see an ambulance behind them.

Regarding HOV lanes, it doesn't classify traffic based on someone's warped sense of value. As long as you have more than one occupant, HOV lanes are available for any purpose -- leisure, business, life saving -- whatever.

Regarding trucks in the left lane, that also doesn't classify traffic based on value. It's more about safety. We have those laws where I live. It has significantly reduced the speed of trucks as they now follow slower traffic in the right lanes.
anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

anderboy

Member

For preemption, I was specifically talking about congestion (traffic jam), not simply pulling over because you see an ambulance. An ambulance cannot physically jump over cars, whereas a packet can do so for congestion.
Yes, HOV lanes classify based on occupancy. That is a value.
I don't believe in classifying traffic based on "purpose" or warped sense of value either. I believe in classifying traffic according to its absolute value: the money one pays to transmit a packet. By definition, that is how much it is valued.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

An ambulance that's allowed to pass because a car pulls over is metaphorically the same as a packet waiting in a buffer longer than another packet that is allowed to pass without waiting.

Regarding HOV lanes assigning value; that value is expressed in throughput, not merit based on profit. If based on profit, large trucks would be HOV exclusives since they pay more in fuel taxes (diesel has more fuel taxes than gasoline) and much higher license fees. Many states require trucks to obtain a license in their state (read: every state in which they operate) -- unlike a car that is free to drive in any state with their single home-state license.

However HOV lanes do not discriminate based on traffic purpose or profit. An SUV with three occupants commuting to work and a Prius with five unemployed hoodlums on a joy ride with nefarious plans each have equal access. Equal access even though the SUV pays more in taxes since it uses more gas (each unit of gasoline contains fixed infrastructure taxes.)

Regarding large trucks, they should be taxed slightly more because their greater weight creates more wear and tear on the road. However, they are probably taxed far more than their relative wear and tear vs. a car simply because they are used for commercial purposes and politicians know those are hidden taxes that are simply passed through to consumers as higher delivery fees. (That's like a new stadium that's built with a hotel/motel, airport car rental and airline ticket tax. Locals pass the legislation because they are told the primary funding will come from travelers instead of locals.)

Of course we have to accept that while the public road infrastructure has many parallels with a neutral Internet, "wear and tear" of roads has no correlation on the Internet. I believe the economics are also far different. Inflation continually drives up the price of maintaining our roads and bridges whereas technology continually makes it cheaper to transfer more data.

If we're all honest with ourselves, this is just another money grab by big communications companies. They are very profitable and they are keeping up with demand without any need for special "fast lanes" to ensure "medical devices" can gain access when necessary. The only crisis is the crisis manufactured by those who stand to profit.

I'd also like to add they have every right to the spoils created by out-maneuvering competitors. The chief problem is who are their competitors and how do they compete? That's what net neutrality should be about. Rules to ensure the Internet is a place where competition thrives. Not a walled garden where only those with the key to the executive washroom get to play.
Expand your moderator at work

SECraft
@144.160.5.x

SECraft to rebus9

Anon

to rebus9

Re: Well...

I'm guessing you've never been to Europe? Ever driven in London? There is a "Congestion Tax" for driving in the areas of London that have the worst traffic, during the heaviest use times of the day. I see many of you clamoring for European style wireless networks and broadband constantly, sounds like a tiered system is pretty much right up your alley.