Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


bondsbw bondsbw
  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , dahat wrote


    That depends on who you ask... which you actually argue against below without realizing it.

    Um, what?  The only thing I said after that statement is the following:

    What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.

    Did you stop reading at the word "throttle"?  Did you completely miss the words I highlighted?  Because those are important to understanding the distinction.

    Net neutrality is ABSOLUTELY NOT about throttling any specific end user.  It is about targeted service throttling.

    Let me give you an example of the fallacy in your argument:

    Supporters of net neutrality generally ignore the costs involved in running a large scale network and discount the possibility that heavy users will see significant bills due to them having to bare the costs of their usage.

    Let's just be clear what is incorrect about this.  You are making an argument about net neutrality without even considering the content or originator of the data packets.  But those are vital to the point of net neutrality.  So you are arguing against a straw man.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , dahat wrote

    They are actually for any distance driving. I've driven through Idaho plenty along I-90 and have never once fueling up there and with a vehicle registered out of state.

    That's not levying taxes at origin and destination, that's deciding who you want to support through taxes (which is a flaw of the tax structure of our transportation system).  Completely different concepts.

    During peak times electricity costs more... (land line) long distance calls, cell phone minutes... odd how so many things react to peak demand and yet this one area we expect to be nearly free and unlimited.

    That has nothing to do with net neutrality, at all.  Even with net neutrality, the ISP is free to set up the charging structure they want against their end users.

    Remember when dial-up charged per hour?  And of course, cell data charges per MB or per GB and home broadband service charges a flat rate with data caps.  All of these are completely fine under net neutrality.

    What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    @spivonious:  How would you propose to change your municipality to make competition happen?

    If every mom and pop ISP wants to lay new cable wiring, how does that work?  A lot of digging with very little added value in the long run.

    In the real world, what happens is that it doesn't.  You might be lucky enough to have two cable lines from different providers running to your residence, but the majority have just one.  Cable companies might rent those lines to others, but without government regulation then they don't have to.  And even if they do, they can charge rates so high that no other ISPs want in, or that they suck practically all the profit out to the point that there is still no actual competition.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Just like highways.

    , dahat wrote

    I prefer freeways for my distance driving... but even then there are costs involved: larger passenger vehicles cost more to license for road use than smaller ones, semi-trucks and commercial vehicles pay even more... and are inspected multiple times along the way. 

    This analogy is flawed, as are the remainder of the posts based on it.

    The one who pays for the roads is the driver of the vehicle (via gasoline tax), but in the analogy the vehicle is equivalent to the data packet.  Obviously, the data packet is not itself paying for the Internet.

    Inversely, if a car were like the internet, then taxes would be levied at the origin and destination of the drive.

    Not everything can be a car analogy, and this is especially true here since the issue at hand is who pays for what.

    , dahat wrote

    Never mind the speed limits which keep a driver from saving time when the roads are clean and visibility is good.

    Speed limits on the road are provided for safety.  There is nothing inherently dangerous about streaming at 100 Gbps versus 1 Mbps, so I don't see how this even compares at all.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    @TheJoe:  See, I don't think it will.  I agree with you that Obamacare suffers a lot of that, but that's an example of bad regulation that hurts more than it helps.  It is government trying to restrict the free market, rather than open it up (such as requiring competition across state lines and removing the employer lock-in).

    But infrastructure is one of the areas where government regulation is often good and helpful.  Utilities are generally low cost, ubiquitous, and fairly resilient.  This isn't by accident, but by design.

    That said, there is an argument against making the internet a utility, namely that we may not see many improvements once that occurs.  While there isn't much competition today, there is some.  It isn't enough to bring down prices, but it is enough to see improvements over time.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , TheJoe wrote

    @spivonious:Internet Tax

    For a small nominal fee...

    Due to regulation, the pricing for internet service should be reduced.

    The USF tax is used to support extra infrastructure.  The more reliable the internet is, the more services (including emergency services) can be transitioned onto it.  I would love for internet service to be as reliable as power or phone.

    And even if the tax is not resulting in extra infrastructure then the USF tax rate can be lowered across the board for all telecommunication services, making prices drop.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , spivonious wrote

    Haven't read the thread, but Net Neutrality is definitely NOT the FCC regulating the internet as they do with telephone and TV.

    Net Neutrality should be a legal recourse for consumers if their ISPs decide to start treating different content differently. If Comcast decides that I should only use Comcast Video instead of Netflix, Comcast should get slapped with criminal charges.

    Consumers have legal recourse if both parties sign a contract agreeing to those terms.  Otherwise, it has to be regulated by a law, and Congress has given control over such regulations to the FCC (who, theoretically, are more knowledgeable about matters related to communication).

    That said, Congress could always write a law to force net neutrality, but this Congress probably will not.

  • Told ya (dotnet)

    , Bass wrote

    Docker containers running Linux applications will require a Linux host, or Microsoft to substantially implement the Linux and POSIX APIs in Windows.

    Implementations of POSIX in Windows already exist.

  • Nano batteries are just a few years away (for phones & laptops, anyway)




  • Told ya (dotnet)

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    If MS confuses seasoned .NET developers, what does it tell about their PR in this case?

    Nobody is confused.  You act like everyone is confused.  You act confused yourself, except you obviously aren't or else you wouldn't be complaining.