The Importance Of Net Neutrality For The Connected Car

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you think net neutrality is important to every day people, think about how important it is to the future of connected cars. :eek:

Connected cars raise a few questions, not least around the safety of vehicles that rely on a permanent high-quality internet connection. In particular, the connected car opens up the debate of net neutrality, which is the principle that internet service providers should treat all data on the internet equally.
Click to expand...
 
If future cars require connectivity to the internet to function I am seriously going to start riding a bicycle everywhere.
 
LOLWUT

From the article:

"For example, small companies’ websites are on a level with larger organisations websites."

You know what I blame for this? DNS. DNS is to blame for this. When you punch in joebobsoutbackshack.com or amazon.com into your browser, it resolves to an ip and attempts to connect in the background - without you witnessing the process. So it looks the same to the end user. Plain fact of the matter is that Amazon is hosted on hundreds of servers that are housed in multiple regional datacenters connected with OC-192 rings for failover and loadsharing, and joebobsoutbackshack is hosted on an old Pentium 4 desktop rig out of someone's basement on a t1 line.

"Without net neutrality, large companies could have the option to pay to make their data packets move faster than smaller companies across the same network."

Yes, Billy, an OC-192 is more expensive than a T1.

"Instead of investing in larger faster networks the ISP could maintain profits by limiting certain data packets and prioritising others for a fee."

Except that's not true. Demand is increasing. They could *not* maintain profits by not expanding. Someone else would expand, customers would leave, revenues would go down. With asset costs fixed and labor costs fixed (or rising - healthcare going up, mandatory minimum wage increases, etc), a drop in revenue means profit goes DOWN. These companies must expand to live.
 
flashoverride said:
LOLWUT

From the article:

"For example, small companies’ websites are on a level with larger organisations websites."

You know what I blame for this? DNS. DNS is to blame for this. When you punch in joebobsoutbackshack.com or amazon.com into your browser, it resolves to an ip and attempts to connect in the background - without you witnessing the process. So it looks the same to the end user. Plain fact of the matter is that Amazon is hosted on hundreds of servers that are housed in multiple regional datacenters connected with OC-192 rings for failover and loadsharing, and joebobsoutbackshack is hosted on an old Pentium 4 desktop rig out of someone's basement on a t1 line.

"Without net neutrality, large companies could have the option to pay to make their data packets move faster than smaller companies across the same network."

Yes, Billy, an OC-192 is more expensive than a T1.

"Instead of investing in larger faster networks the ISP could maintain profits by limiting certain data packets and prioritising others for a fee."

Except that's not true. Demand is increasing. They could *not* maintain profits by not expanding. Someone else would expand, customers would leave, revenues would go down. With asset costs fixed and labor costs fixed (or rising - healthcare going up, mandatory minimum wage increases, etc), a drop in revenue means profit goes DOWN. These companies must expand to live.
Click to expand...

That's not how net neutrality works for the end user.

For the end user, the ISP might give unlimited access to their own services such as Verizon giving unlimited data/bandwidth to their own Video service to compete with Netflix, but when the user tries to connect to Netflix, Verizon slows the connection down or limits data/bandwidth unless the customers pay a Premium fee.
 
Time2Kill said:
That's not how net neutrality works for the end user.

For the end user, the ISP might give unlimited access to their own services such as Verizon giving unlimited data/bandwidth to their own Video service to compete with Netflix, but when the user tries to connect to Netflix, Verizon slows the connection down or limits data/bandwidth unless the customers pay a Premium fee.
Click to expand...

Slowing down the connection? Let's be real here. It's not about slowing down the connection, it's about VZN et al not growing the connection as fast as you want. Quite frankly Netflix already resolved this whole hullabaloo by actually paying for the transport direct and cutting out their crappy middleman.

Networks are already being streamlined for data use, and specifically for streaming media. This takes time because it takes time to develop the standards, manufacture the equipment, build the infrastructure, train the workforce, etc. This all has to be done while keeping all the other networks running 24/7 with an absolute minimum of impact. This is being done by multiple companies and institutions around the world simultaneously, and there are a limited number of hardware manufacturers who can build and deliver this stuff. Orders have to be put in sometimes a year (or more) before the equipment finally shows up on the loading dock.

The changes in programming standards and codecs - which are much more easily deployed - can occur far more rapidly because once they are configured they can simply be digitally replicated worldwide. It takes a lot more time and money to build a network than to reprogram a website. Orders of magnitude more. I have yet to see a 180 day public comment period required by law before a website changes it front page.
 
flashoverride said:
Slowing down the connection? Let's be real here. It's not about slowing down the connection, it's about VZN et al not growing the...
Click to expand...

I could have sworn that someone posted an article that they were indeed throttling Netflix. Or was that Comcast?
 
flashoverride said:
Slowing down the connection? Let's be real here. It's not about slowing down the connection, it's about VZN et al not growing the connection as fast as you want. Quite frankly Netflix already resolved this whole hullabaloo by actually paying for the transport direct and cutting out their crappy middleman.

Networks are already being streamlined for data use, and specifically for streaming media. This takes time because it takes time to develop the standards, manufacture the equipment, build the infrastructure, train the workforce, etc. This all has to be done while keeping all the other networks running 24/7 with an absolute minimum of impact. This is being done by multiple companies and institutions around the world simultaneously, and there are a limited number of hardware manufacturers who can build and deliver this stuff. Orders have to be put in sometimes a year (or more) before the equipment finally shows up on the loading dock.

The changes in programming standards and codecs - which are much more easily deployed - can occur far more rapidly because once they are configured they can simply be digitally replicated worldwide. It takes a lot more time and money to build a network than to reprogram a website. Orders of magnitude more. I have yet to see a 180 day public comment period required by law before a website changes it front page.
Click to expand...

What a steaming pile. If you don't think providers will purposefully destroy their competition by throttling competing services once the FCC gives them the green light you are an idiot. That's like saying Apple wouldn't steal a thousand ideas, change the name, patent them, and then sue the original creators. How daft can you be?
 
Draxanoth said:
What a steaming pile. If you don't think providers will purposefully destroy their competition by throttling competing services once the FCC gives them the green light you are an idiot. That's like saying Apple wouldn't steal a thousand ideas, change the name, patent them, and then sue the original creators. How daft can you be?
Click to expand...

Haha, QFT. That is exactly how Apple operates. Too funny.
 
Spidey329 said:
I could have sworn that someone posted an article that they were indeed throttling Netflix. Or was that Comcast?
Click to expand...
The problem was always congestion between Netflix transit providers (Cogent, L3) and the powerful ISPs that have both a large client base and a Tier 1 backbone caliber network at the point of settlement-free peering points. There was never any specific throttling of Netflix traffic.
 
flashoverride said:
Slowing down the connection? Let's be real here. It's not about slowing down the connection, it's about VZN et al not growing the connection as fast as you want. Quite frankly Netflix already resolved this whole hullabaloo by actually paying for the transport direct and cutting out their crappy middleman.

Networks are already being streamlined for data use, and specifically for streaming media. This takes time because it takes time to develop the standards, manufacture the equipment, build the infrastructure, train the workforce, etc. This all has to be done while keeping all the other networks running 24/7 with an absolute minimum of impact. This is being done by multiple companies and institutions around the world simultaneously, and there are a limited number of hardware manufacturers who can build and deliver this stuff. Orders have to be put in sometimes a year (or more) before the equipment finally shows up on the loading dock.

The changes in programming standards and codecs - which are much more easily deployed - can occur far more rapidly because once they are configured they can simply be digitally replicated worldwide. It takes a lot more time and money to build a network than to reprogram a website. Orders of magnitude more. I have yet to see a 180 day public comment period required by law before a website changes it front page.
Click to expand...

You're still missing the point on what net neutrality is.
 
Aside from creating a big lever to allow the government to use the Internet as a political football at election time (the national (D)elusionals are already doing that now), and to allow lawyers to start suing anything that moves on the Internet (raising the price precipitously for all of us), nobody has the faintest idea what "net neutrality" is--they think they do, though, and that's scary. Look at the present gosh-awful regulated train-wreck mess the POTS phone system is now--some people think turning the Internet into that kind of mess is a great thing--that's what *they* call "network neutrality"---Let's Turn it Into POTS!

Basically, the 'net neutrality issue boils down to who gets to control the Internet, the ISPs or the government via a Pandora's box of law suits--that's all it amounts to. It's chief proponents are those poor, intellectually challenged folks who think it means some kind of free lunch for them--as in 50Mbs/down & up for the price of Comcast's 6Mbs/down & 512k up (oh, wait--I've got that now and there's *no* 'net neutrality!) It doesn't mean any such thing--more like 1Mbs/down is what it really means--for everybody--no exceptions, so's we all have "equal access." (Obamacare should furnish a really big clue for some people as to what will happen--but like I say some of these folks are mentally challenged up the Yin-Yang.)

The last side of the coin are the big techs like Apple & Microsoft who think that net neutrality is going to mean that *they'll* get to control the Internet by hiring enough lawyers to sue over every imagined infraction until they get their way, etc.

Yessiree, sounds like a plan. A moron plan, for sure. But hey, these days, just vote (D)elusional and become a moron for life. RIght?...;)

[People stopped thinking things through a couple of decades back.]
 
WaltC said:
Aside from creating a big lever to allow the government to use the Internet as a political football at election time (the national (D)elusionals are already doing that now), and to allow lawyers to start suing anything that moves on the Internet (raising the price precipitously for all of us), nobody has the faintest idea what "net neutrality" is--they think they do, though, and that's scary. Look at the present gosh-awful regulated train-wreck mess the POTS phone system is now--some people think turning the Internet into that kind of mess is a great thing--that's what *they* call "network neutrality"---Let's Turn it Into POTS!

Basically, the 'net neutrality issue boils down to who gets to control the Internet, the ISPs or the government via a Pandora's box of law suits--that's all it amounts to. It's chief proponents are those poor, intellectually challenged folks who think it means some kind of free lunch for them--as in 50Mbs/down & up for the price of Comcast's 6Mbs/down & 512k up (oh, wait--I've got that now and there's *no* 'net neutrality!) It doesn't mean any such thing--more like 1Mbs/down is what it really means--for everybody--no exceptions, so's we all have "equal access." (Obamacare should furnish a really big clue for some people as to what will happen--but like I say some of these folks are mentally challenged up the Yin-Yang.)

The last side of the coin are the big techs like Apple & Microsoft who think that net neutrality is going to mean that *they'll* get to control the Internet by hiring enough lawyers to sue over every imagined infraction until they get their way, etc.

Yessiree, sounds like a plan. A moron plan, for sure. But hey, these days, just vote (D)elusional and become a moron for life. RIght?...;)

[People stopped thinking things through a couple of decades back.]
Click to expand...


whu-aat? Obamacare=Net neutrality?
You do realize POTS worked great... for the companies.
Yes, no screening of data, and Yes it would be even better if the market is opened up for competition
 
Uvaman said:
whu-aat? Obamacare=Net neutrality?
You do realize POTS worked great... for the companies.
Yes, no screening of data, and Yes it would be even better if the market is opened up for competition
Click to expand...

POTS worked great for a lot more than the companies.

Also, I hear a lot about "opening up the market for competition". Could you please explain that a little more? How is that to be achieved? Are we going to cut red tape and lower fees so more infrastructure can get built? Because I don't know a lot of startups that can afford not only the massive capital investment in starting a new network but also the amount of time it takes to get approvals and what it takes to overcome rampant NIMBYism.

Like when HOAs don't allow cell towers and then customers are mad when their reception isn't as good. You can't have both, folks.
 
flashoverride said:
POTS worked great for a lot more than the companies.

Also, I hear a lot about "opening up the market for competition". Could you please explain that a little more? How is that to be achieved? Are we going to cut red tape and lower fees so more infrastructure can get built? Because I don't know a lot of startups that can afford not only the massive capital investment in starting a new network but also the amount of time it takes to get approvals and what it takes to overcome rampant NIMBYism.

Like when HOAs don't allow cell towers and then customers are mad when their reception isn't as good. You can't have both, folks.
Click to expand...

No I don't know what opening up the market requires.. I know it can be done, I have lived it!.
I am not a communications- market expert, I am sure there is people with degrees for that.
I know there is more technologies than fiber and cable also.
 
Uvaman said:
No I don't know what opening up the market requires.. I know it can be done, I have lived it!.
I am not a communications- market expert, I am sure there is people with degrees for that.
I know there is more technologies than fiber and cable also.
Click to expand...

Where are you from?

Yes there are, but very few that have the capacity. All wireless networks are essentially access points on a wired network - all of your back-haul is wired. (yes, yes I know about MW and FSO, and boo on both of those. Wait until you have to maintain them.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top