Watching the robotic surgery show And its a perfect example of why the net neutering meme of a...

[G+_Eddie Foy]

Watching the robotic surgery show.  And its a perfect example of why  the net neutering meme of all packets are equal is beyond false.

 

If you feel all packets are equal, then you have no problem having the Dr.'s packets preempted to get Kardashian's tweet out.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.

 

It has everything to do with running unencrypted interfaces to sensitive equipment over the internet.

[G+_Eddie Foy]

No, net neutrality has to do with it.

[G+_Michael Heinz]

Packet latency is definitely an issue with net neutrality.

 

While I certainly understand the economic issues that drive the push for net neutrality, in my day job I build super computer clusters where the high-priority data is expected to have sub-microsecond latency. My entire career is built around not treating packets equally.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

I had no idea that Net Neutrality, as defined by the official guidelines of the FCC, prevented engineers from properly designing their interfaces, encrypting their traffic, or using secure point-to-point dedicated lines.

 

After actually READING the FCCs release, I was under the impression that they focused on transparency of interconnect arrangements... even specifically ALLOWING for network management to keep packet latency down.

 

Obviously I was misguided by that reading... thank you for your well-informed posts.

[G+_G. Rick Marshall]

Jeremy Petzold I'm with Eddie Foy. Net Neutrality has everything to do with it. Is there a separate but equal doctrine in our future? Then again, if there are several Internets, I won't have to frequent the regulated one attempting to impose point to point connectivity regulations from the 1930's on Broadcast broadband.

 

Unfortunately, the majority at the FCC thinks they have legislative powers, so unless Congress decides to intervene (assuming the courts don't), Internet2 will have the same regulation.

 

BTW, if I have to have my surgery performed by robots, I prefer using encrypted high-speed, sub-microsecond latency interfaces. 

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

G. Rick Marshall The story that WE covered in the show, the one that Eddie Foy is referencing, had NOTHING to do with latency... at all.

 

It was about people putting devices on the Internet that are not ready to be on the Internet. If your device has no proper authentication, it shouldn't be on the Internet. If your device doesn't encrypt its traffic, it shouldn't be on the Internet. If your device is a mission-critical device with which failure of connection can cost the life of a patient, then it shouldn't be on the Internet.

 

All of those things are true, with or without net neutrality... so tell me, how does Net Neutality figure in here?

 

Remember that the LAST time you screamed "NET NEUTRALITY!" in this room was when you tried to convince people that Net Neutrality was the reason why the FAA mistakenly told somebody he had to take his drone footage off the Internet --- So think carefully about this one...

[G+_Ben Reese]

So transparency about the operations is what NN is about, not fairness and equality about network traffic? That barely changes anything from what we had before...

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

Ben Reese It is INCREDIBLY different because it means the ISPs are legally bound to disclose "sweetheart" and vertical integration deals that they may have struck to the FCC.

[G+_Ben Reese]

Does disclosure change their occurrence? Does it help the customer knowing that Verizon is getting a better deal than Century Link?

[G+_Ben Reese]

Regardless, this already sound a ton better than the original Title 2 promise of preventing prioritization of traffic. It sounds like this allows Comcast to give Netflix priority over TWiT as long as they disclose that they're doing so.