Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (35700)	9/15/2010 11:57:12 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Hi WLD - "Look, if we accept that there should be dedicated bandwidth reserved for any given particular special use, then we accept that any special use may have a legitimate claim for their own swath of "interference free" spectrum. They also may not, but we can't reject on a fundamental principle that they don't." --- Your comments tag a subject we've been discussing in various forms for years. Upstream I've commented frequently that whatever decision is made on net neutrality, somebody will be vociferously unhappy. More recently, on principles-based policy, it was stated "Principles-based action can be a mistake; judgement and discrimination are essential." Message 26818236; On RF networks, it has always seemed to me that net neutrality is a sometime thing: possible in a best-case scenario, not advisable in heavy usage. Again, this is the point where several dynamics intersect: what end-users have been "sold" (what their expectations are); the extent to which network operators have built out and enabled those expectations, and even in the best possible scenario, Shannon's limits. WRT QOS and latency on any network, quite simply it cannot be assured without prioritization -- except in the presence of humungous unused capacity. In North America, don't hold your breath for that. --- Let's remove this issue from broad abstractions. Imagine you have a choice between two congruent mobile networks. One adheres tightly to net neutrality, while the other manages traffic in the interest of constant throughput, even if degraded. You, the end user, frequently have urgent communication needs that can only be met by a mobile network. Which one will you choose? I'll pick the managed network every time, hands-down. Heavy usage may degrade performance, but the managed network will be usable long after the network-neutral operator has crashed. --- Where does it say that network neutrality is a shoe that must fit every eventuality? Are we not capable of making wise distinctions? Is it beyond comprehension that some spectrum should remain dedicated to traditional uses, at least until technology offers a better alternative? That's the essence of my response: beware the broad brush of principle-based action. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However as Frank pointed out upstream (on a different matter), it's a distinct possibility that politicos and regulators will apply their legalistic and comprehension-deficient understanding to this issue, and emerge with a maladapted response -- just as they've done with many matters, including deregulation and financial reform. Jim

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (35700)	9/23/2010 8:26:56 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

From the NYT --- Common sense at the FCC ... "... There are also plans to allocate a chunk of spectrum for wireless microphones in every market. nytimes.com Jim

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (35700)	12/1/2010 7:56:12 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Wireless gets a free pass on net neutrality First: Transparency. Consumers have a right to know basic information about how networks are managed, and stripping away some of the secrecy surrounding this management means that problems can be addressed before they escalate to something the FCC must deal with. Second: No blocking. Internet users can send and receive lawful Internet traffic of their choice using any device of their choice. Third: Discrimination must be "reasonable." While the rule against blocking traffic is clear-cut, the new (and sure to be controversial) antidiscrimination rule will only bar “unreasonable” discrimination. How this plays out in practice remains to be seen, of course; will ISPs have broad authority to prioritize voice, but slow down peer-to-peer networking? Even the much-criticized private principles agreed to by Google and Verizon adopted such an approach, but it had so many gaping loopholes that it was clear, even from the way it was written, that it would be toothless. Fourth: Network management. ISPs need incentives to run their networks, and we want those networks to be the “freest and fastest in the world.” Therefore, “reasonable network management" will be allowed in order to deal with harmful traffic, congestion, and other network problems. Again, we'll need to wait for the rules to see what might count as reasonable and what might not, and who decides. arstechnica.com --- [Weasel words like 'reasonable' are trouble. "You can't enforce what you can't measure."* Barring extremes, anyone who wants to run the rules probably has a "reasonable" chance of success.]* Jim