| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: USA FCC and Net Neutralitee |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 23
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Is this the end of uninhibited distributed computing?
----------------------------------------https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switc...ping-act-of-deregulation/ Federal regulators are expected to vote Thursday morning to allow Internet providers to speed up service for some apps and websites — and block or slow down others — in a decision repealing landmark, Obama-era regulations for broadband companies such as AT&T and Verizon. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 14, 2017 3:55:23 PM] |
||
|
|
Jake1402
Senior Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 30, 2005 Post Count: 181 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
good for them...government has no business telling ISP's how fast they can go for the money they charge.
----------------------------------------
Join the Chicago-IL-USA team!
2 AMD FX 8320/AMD R9 270X/Win 10 2 AMD FX 8320/AMD RX 560/Linux Mint 20.3 (both computers DOA) Intel Pentium G240/Win 10 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Misleading statement. By default, network communication occurs at the fastest rate available. All the ISP can really do is slow things down.
By prioritizing traffic, you don't speed up that prioritized traffic, you designate it more important than other traffic, meaning the other traffic is slowed down to allow the "prioritized" traffic first. This is fine, if you have an individual or business that wants to prioritize their own traffic in this way within the connection they're paying for. It's NOT fine when a provider uses it to nickel and dime more money out of consumers or to force their own products and services over a competitor's. |
||
|
|
flynryan
Senior Cruncher United States Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 235 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
This is so disappointing. It amazes me how big business and the rich are able to make laws or retract them with ease. 80% of the public was against this happening and yet it happened like it was no big deal.
ISP's will take advantage of this if not right now then in the near future. They will hold us hostage from the data we want if they have the chance, unless we pay up. We need open internet; I consider internet to be a basic human right. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7545 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
There is an old saying "If it aint broke, don't fix it." The system was not broken, so why are they monkeying around trying to fix something already working?
----------------------------------------No "cheers" for the FCC
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Dayle Diamond
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jan 31, 2013 Post Count: 447 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
It's the beginning of the end of a LOT of traffic on the internet unless we fight back against the ISPs.
----------------------------------------Network speed isn't a big factor in how many tasks we can complete. More worrying would be if the big drug companies pay ISPs enough, he ISPs could block BOINC projects. However, because the World Community Grid is curated by IBM, I suspect the price would be very high. If you want to punish the telecoms, cancel your home phone line and own your own router instead of paying rental fees. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Dayle Diamond at Dec 14, 2017 9:25:46 PM] |
||
|
|
mmonnin
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Jul 20, 2016 Post Count: 148 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
good for them...government has no business telling ISP's how fast they can go for the money they charge. This is actually a good regulation. This comes from someone who swings more towards the conservative side. It should be like other telecomms, like landlines. The phone companies can't make my voice quality worse just because I am calling someone that gets their landline service from a competitor. W/o NN, Comcast (as a service provider) could say ONLY Comcast affiliated content can stream in HD quality. To get Time Warner affiliated content in HD quality, Comcast could charge an extra fee. Netflix already had to pay BILLIONS to get VZ and Comcast to stop throttling their content. Users had their streams come to a crawl or with poor quality but if they ran through a VPN (where the ISP couldn't see it was Netflix) then the streaming speeds went back up. That is the type of BS that not allowed with NN. Net Neutrality is a user protection for the good of the internet. They could slow down Distributed Computing project data if they so choose to. GPUGrid data goes out of the states and serves no benefit to any US internet service provider. They could preserve full bandwidth to their own services and slow down everything else w/o extra fees paid by every user.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by mmonnin at Dec 14, 2017 9:39:02 PM] |
||
|
|
GeraldRube
Master Cruncher United States Joined: Nov 20, 2004 Post Count: 2153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
FCC revisited: Net neutrality changes are misleading and not benign
----------------------------------------Opinion: Upon finding updated but disturbingly unofficial source documents, David Gewirtz recants his earlier statement that the FCC changes are benign. The FCC's intentions may be out there, but they were not published according to its own guidelines for rulemaking review. http://www.zdnet.com/article/fcc-revisited-ne...0226064717341496228846852 Its a long read but interesting  |
||
|
|
GeraldRube
Master Cruncher United States Joined: Nov 20, 2004 Post Count: 2153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
GeraldRube
Master Cruncher United States Joined: Nov 20, 2004 Post Count: 2153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Government Is the Cause of—Not the Solution to—Online Censorship
----------------------------------------As people worry about the net neutrality vote, public officials threaten our rights to free speech. While Americans are screaming at the Federal Communications Commission about their fears of private censorship if "net neutrality" goes away, the reality is that governments, in the United States and overseas, are consistently the driving force behind attempts to control what people are allowed to see and read online. Some supporters of net neutrality have gotten it into their heads that an absence of government-enforced net neutrality will lead private internet providers to institute cost-based access gatekeeping that will serve as a form of censorship. http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/government-is-the-cause-ofnot-the-soluti |
||
|
|
|