Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality? (theverge.com) 225
Earlier this week, Comcast filed its comments in favor of the FCC's plan to eliminate the 2015 net neutrality rules. While much of the document was devoted to arguments we've heard before -- Comcast believes the current rules are anti-competitive and hurt investment, but generally supports the principles of net neutrality -- one statement stood out. The Verge adds: Buried in the 161-page document was this quirky assertion (emphasis ours): "At the same time, the Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public... And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. In other words, Comcast is arguing for paid prioritization and internet fast lanes to enable self-driving cars to communicate better with other vehicles and their surrounding environment, thus making them a safer and more efficient mode of transportation. The only problem is that autonomous and connected cars don't use wireless broadband to communicate. When cars talk with each other, they do it by exchanging data wirelessly over an unlicensed spectrum called the Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) band, using technology similar to Wi-Fi. The FCC has set aside spectrum in the 5.9GHz band specifically for this purpose, and it is only meant to be used for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) applications. That includes vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) -- so cars talking to other cars, to traffic signals, to the phone in your pocket... you name it. Soon enough, all cars sold in the US will be required to include V2V technology for safety purposes, if the Department of Transportationâ(TM)s new rule goes into effect.
See! The fast lane is a GOOD thing! (Score:4, Funny)
PLease explain difference between QOS and fastlane (Score:3)
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets. But I've never understood how that is supposed to work. And to what extent is this different from the whole anti-neutral fast lane.
My past thinking is that the difference is precisely this: Neutrality means content neutrality. If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel without violating net neutrality, provided every movie conten
Re:PLease explain difference between QOS and fastl (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust. Ie: in actual practice every one would set inappropriate priorities, and the system would be much the same as it is now ( all traffic "equal" ).
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it. Network Admins prioritize traffic on their networks, after all, in order to deliver better service. It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals. Where it goes off the rails is that every single per
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it.
Perhaps there is, but I honestly have yet to hear such an argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust.
That's not a problem if your QoS settings are evaluated against only your traffic. In other words, if you mark all of your packets high-priority, none of them really will be because they're all in the same priority queue. If implemented properly, the only one you can screw is yourself.
You buy bandwidth from your ISP, your bandwidth, in aggregate, is equal to everyone else's. You open a connection to Slashdot and begin sending and receiving packets with "normal priority" QoS headers; you then open a connec
Re: (Score:2)
QoS has only limited usefulness if it's stripped at the ISP's edge, and that's the problem.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love to have QoS control over our traffic from it's origin to termination ( my phone server to digium's SIP gateway, for instance ). However, the problem is as I mentioned; while I might follow the rules, I'd be in the minority. The ISPs are the only ones in the right position to affect and implement appropriate QoS.
Which of course they wouldn't. No one believes that. Which is w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing my point.
Allowing end points to set their own QoS is just as bad as letting the ISPs do it. We need an intermediate authority which sets the QoS for end users but who doesn't stand any chance for profit from prioritizing one data stream provider over another.
Re:PLease explain difference between QOS and fastl (Score:5, Insightful)
If your traffic is only measured against your other traffic, your QoS headers have no effect on anyone else's traffic. Follow?
It's a simple implementation, actually; your ISP already splits its aggregate bandwidth into rate-limited streams (or buckets, if you prefer) based on the speed you pay for. They can just as easily apply QoS rules defined for each stream on an individual basis.
Hell, my consumer-grade router can do that. I can assign vnets a fixed amount of bandwidth and each vnet can have its own QoS rules; one vnet having rules that set every packet to high priority doesn't affect the other vnets (of course, it also doesn't benefit that vnet, either).
In other words, your QoS rules decide which of your packets get dropped or delayed if one or more of your packets need to be dropped or delayed; they don't, in this hypothetical (and easy to implement) scenario, determine whether your packets or someone else's get dropped or delayed. That latter determination would need to be made by the ISP's own traffic management system and a fair way to determine that is to determine what percentage of the aggregate bandwidth belongs to each user (e.g. we've sold 100Tb/sec and you pat for 100Mb/sec, you "own" 0.0001% of available bandwidth) and ensure that each user gets that percentage of whatever aggregate bandwidth is actually available during times of congestion.
Then, you can set all of your QoS rules to high priority all day long and your rules don't affect me in the slightest.
To put it another way, call me when you've implemented this and know what you're actually talking about. I have and I do or I wouldn't be repeating it.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that. My point being; there is little difference between shaping to the edge of your network or to the next hop; the edge of the ISP's network ( bufferbloat aside ). We could realize real gains by accurate and appropriate QoS flowing from end point on a client's network all the way to the server on the remote network, without dropping ( too many ) packets, and certainly nothing noticeable. At the very least, it would allow ISPs to more fully utilize their infrastructure which, in my dreamlan
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, maybe my idea will be workable and maybe, by en even smaller margin, it might get implemented.
Net neutrality summary (Score:2)
In short, network engineers can be trusted with QoS flags because they care about optimizing the network, where suits cannot because they care about optimizing profits.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not my understanding of net neutrality at all. I always thought it was more a packet / host level prioritization thing. Blocking is, arguably, different, and does not fall under net neutrality. Nor does end point firewall and filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I read your comment as implying that blocking traffic on end user networks violates net neutrality. This is false.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are just speculating about a possible future scenario based on your cynical view that all government regulation must be bad. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a damn ISP routing traffic for all and sundry, so net neutrality laws don't apply to me. Saying "Maybe in the future something bad will happen as a consequence" is not a good argument against trying to regulate bad behavior that actually exists now. Nobody has EVER been saying that you can't block or shape traffic on your own network, and no amount of fear mongering on your part will change that.
You just basically start from the premise that anything that we, the people choose to do through our gov
Re: PLease explain difference between QOS and fast (Score:2)
Re:PLease explain difference between QOS and fastl (Score:5, Informative)
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
Net neutrality is about prioritizing traffic based on who is sending or receiving it.
Re: (Score:2)
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
If TFA is going to try to pick at Comcast's logic here, they might want to try to be logical about it. Comcast did not say the "instantaneuos data transmission" required was for V2V. Said author put those words in Comcast's mouth. There are plenty of other scenarios in which a vehicle may req
Re: (Score:3)
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
That's the point of net neutrality -- it's an attempt to keep ISPs from abusing QoS controls. Net neutrality does not prevent legitimate uses of QoS controls.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the point of net neutrality
I keep hearing that, but never seeing an actual policy document that says how. Other than vague plans completely cripple the use of QoS.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets.
AFAIK, no one obeys QOS. Anywhere. I'd be surprised if anything is actually looking at QOS field, much acting upon it.
Re: PLease explain difference between QOS and fast (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel
The only kind of streaming movie that needs low-latency is two-way live video conferencing. Everything else can pre-buffer on a high-latency connection just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP would just clean the flag on packets sent by mere mortals. And usually they use ATM anyway, so you can't possibly interfere with such traffic.
Re: PLease explain difference between QOS and fast (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, do you even know what ATM is? It implements OSI levels up to 3 -- we don't really care about levels 1 and 2 as that's a hidden implementation detail, but what matters is that level 3 is routed. An ATM circuit goes at least from one edge of the ISP to another. IP packets are split and encapsulated inside, this means the user's bogus QoS fields are completely ignored and handled like any other payload. ATM has its own QoS that the customer can't put their grubby mitts on: among others, it prevents bu
Remember Verizon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time we had this discussion Verizon claimed we needed to have "fast lanes" to help handicapped people on the internet. None of this has anything to do with reality, just trying to muddy the waters.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good example and I'd like to use it. Do you have a citation for that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
"But the absence of net neutrality rules isn't just good for Verizon—it's also good for the blind, deaf, and disabled, Verizon claims. That's what Verizon lobbyists said in talks with congressional staffers, according to a Mother Jones report last month."
thegreatbob posted the direct Mother Jones link below (or above).
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I want to stream Netflix to my phone so I can watch movies while my self-driving car takes me home from work?
=Smidge=
Because a Poor Excuse is Better Than None (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of a really good excuse.
US GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE NEW LAWS REQUIRING GUN-TO-GUN COMUNICATION
A SPECIAL COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT ALL GUNS SOLD IN THE USA AFTER AUGUST 2017 WILL HENCEFORTH REQUIRE A GUN-TO-GUN COMMUNICATION SYSTEM THAT WILL ONLY ALLOW THEM TO SHOOT TARGETS SIMILARLY ARMED.
This will have the full support of all red blooded Americans, and require a special "fast lane" for communication.
There. Job done!
(And as a bonus, this might stop your police shooting harmless - indeed, hel
Re: (Score:3)
Make perfect sense to have self driving cars communications isolated onto a low latency network.
It sure does, which is precisely why there are standards that exist for that type of communication. Those standards don't involve the Internet at all, thus they are isolated from that high-latency network.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesnt mean the rest of Comcast is all evil empire n shit.
Well... they are. But that does not make them wrong in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesnt mean the rest of Comcast is all evil empire n shit.
Doesn't mean they're not, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I understand, Comcast's residential cable tv network support bafoons upset you at some point. Doesnt mean the rest of Comcast is all evil empire n shit.
I'm not sure how you understand this. I've never been a Comcast customer. I didn't say they were an empire (evil or otherwise).
As an aside, if you calm down a bit you will live longer. You might also remember how to spell the words buffoon and doesn't.
It's blatantly obvious what this is... (Score:3)
Clearly they are writing for an audience that doesn't understand any of the issue behind Net Neutrality - and they are throwing anything at the problem that might sound like a "job killer" that might 'stick'.
If they say that autonomous cars need a non-neutral net - then that will be believed by the lawmakers - who are told continually about the US lead in this technology and how it's very popular with the general public...and lawmakers up and down the country are rushing out laws to allow them to be driven in various states. They wouldn't want to throw a valuable/popular idea like that out the window because of Net Neutrality - so this makes a great throw-away line for Comcast - even though it's a blatant falsehood. That falsehood will never become obvious to lawmakers until it's far too late.
Comcast are now "officially evil" - but since I think they were already on my "officially evil" list, I guess not much changed.
Comcast is the king of BS and deception (Score:3)
Years ago when ESPN goal line was new and directv did not have it made a big deal about it but kind of lied a about one big thing the ad's where in HD but the channel was not and is still not in HD on comcast.
Comcast has marking that says unlike satellite we don't have contracts (but they do for some deals)
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that, especially with the current administration, "public comments" really have little affect. The real "voice" is the lobby money behind the scenes. This is just a "reason" for the FCC to overturn, so they won't seem to be too corrupt to "the public".
Traffic shaping (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Not all services that need prioritization are going to have their own protocol. ...or run it in a completely opaque encrypted tunnel. In which case, there is no service information by which to prioritize, and if there is a legitimate public interest in prioritizing it, t
2) Any discrimination against service types can be abused to affect the subset of people using that service type. That will stifle innovation by making everyone trying something new try to make their traffic look like everything else.
3)
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars ... (Score:3)
Because they CAN. Besides, it's a car analogy, and everyone understands car analogies. Only nerds use those weird computery things, unlike phones.
Simple Really (Score:2)
All of our lawmakers are ignorant shit for brain's who dont know the difference tween their ass and a hole in the ground, make any argument you like as long as you are convincing, and have a fuckton of money, its good enough!
Why is this an issue? (Score:2)
Bad Quotation (Score:4, Informative)
Why? It's obvious (Score:2)
Because Comcast is a scummy company filled with lying liars who will say or do anything that they think will make them more money.
The reddest of herrings (Score:2)
Smokescreen (Score:2)
I've seen this kind of horseshit come up lots of times; in Brocade too long ago. In large corporations,
top management is either drinking the Kool-Aid, Or maybe intentionally coming up with ridiculous bogus assertions that
anyone familiar with technology and a few brain cells could clearly recognize as bogus.
Network neutrality and self-driving cars have nothing to do with each other.
Also, network neutrality is not about "No paid prioritization"; it's about no paid prioritization of different product
Israffic prioritization is against net neutrality? (Score:2)
Is traffic prioritization (i.e.: giving some uses of the network greater priority than others) against net neutrality?
Technically yes.
So would you want your car's telemetry screwed by the guy in the next car's bittorrenting?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd want my car's autopilot to be completely autonomous.
Re: (Score:2)
My car's nav system is already autonomous, aside from infrequent map updates. All it needs is a clear view of some GPS satellites. Dodging pedestrians and detecting the edge of the road should not require a real time connection.
Because next week ... (Score:2)
Why indeed? (Score:2)
Because using self driving cars is more humane than the way they would prefer to kill net neutrality.
Short answer (Score:2)
Because they are full of shit, as always.
Amusing, but .... (Score:2)
This isn't that unexpected when they're paying the legal team to creates as many pages of documents as possible arguing their side (pro paid prioritization of traffic).
I mean, this is all about theoretical implementations. MAYBE there would be a reason for cars to do some communications over wireless Internet services alongside of the allocated frequencies dedicated for the task? 99.9% sure not, but it COULD happen.
I think you can create fictional scenarios all day long where someone COULD find it useful to
Short answer (Score:2)
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because they think it'll work.
Does there need to be another reason?
Instantaneous? (Score:2)
Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission,
Okay, if their cars can violate the laws of physics, I think they might deserve special treatment.
I'm confused. (Score:2)
Autonomous cars and cloud servers (Score:2)
Autonomous cars comunicate amogst themselves via unlicensed spectrum, yes, but they comunicate with the backend cloud where many important services are provided via the usual internet.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. TCP/IP(v4&v6) have all the provisions for Diferentiated trafic and QoS. Many a career has been built developing such mechanisims.
the problem is not wether some trafic has to be prioritized. If autonomous vehicle trafic needs more priority than VoD, which in turn needs more Priorit
Sounds like a stupid idea (Score:4)
I'm not going to buy a car that requires a low latency internet connection to function correctly.
That's just fucking stupid.
A simple solution (Score:2)
Any politician who agrees with this should have a pacemaker implanted that depends on instantaneous communication with a remote server through a Comcast connection.
People lie. Companies are people (Score:2)
Even when they need a 200'ish page ball of mud to veil it from genpop, and an under the table paycheck to whoever is in charge.
Even internet trolls are better than telecom operators these days, ethically and moral-wise. What has the world come to. At least in the last century, all a company needed to make a buck was some dodgy catchy marketing, and a stupid enough target consumer group. Now they will attack core rights indiscriminately for that investor relations briefing. Innovation and capitalism cannot b
Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do not NOW you blithering morons, but are you really willing to preclude they never will????
This. Vehicle to ANYTHING means that the other end may be on a wired internet connection. Comcast doesn't provide just "wireless broadband" (and they're new to that, even), they have wired business services.
Re: (Score:2)
"The internet is down agai ..." CRASHBANGBOOM
A self-driving car should be self-driving. One that needs an internet connection to elsewhere by definition isn't a self-driving car.
But Comcast knows how stupid politicians are - they rarely read the laws they pass.
Re: (Score:2)
"The internet is down agai ..." CRASHBANGBOOM
That statement is too stupid for words. Assuming that a data connection that can provide safety information in real time is required to keep a vehicle from crashing is just moronic. Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel, because reducing risks can save lives. It doesn't mean that every car will crash when that data isn't available.
And, I'll point out, this is just one example of what might be valuable to have in the future. It isn't the only reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that a data connection that can provide safety information in real time is required to keep a vehicle from crashing is just moronic.
And then you act like a moron by assuming that such a data channel will always be available.
Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel
And then you contradict the need for such a data channel
It doesn't mean that every car will crash when that data isn't available.
Autonomous cars don't need data channels of any sort. They're autonomous. Comcast is just doing the same FUD as always. Anything else, such as reporting an accident, can use the regular cell network, same as is done today.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you act like a moron by assuming that such a data channel will always be available.
I made no such assumption.
And then you contradict the need for such a data channel
What you quoted contradicted nothing.
Autonomous cars don't need data channels of any sort.
Right. There will never be any information that will allow risk reduction or mitigation based on external data that an autonomous vehicle could make use of. Says you.
They're autonomous.
That word does not mean what you think it means. Hint: autonomous does not mean "operates in a data vacuum."
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel
You're making the case for an unneeded high priority data channel right there,
Also, autonomous means self-directed. Able to act on its own. I never said it meant "operate in a data vacuum." Autonomous vehicles collect tons of data through their own sensors, allowing them to be autonomous. Anything less is not autonomous.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the case for an unneeded high priority data channel right there,
Au contraire what? This neither assumes that such a "channel" will always exist nor does it contradict the claim that such a channel can be useful. In fact, it does just the opposite. Risk management is a very good reason to have a data channel available. "A good reason to have" is not the same as "must always be available". If that channel can be made more useful by making it a higher priority than a 5Mb image of the grandkids in an email, then that's a Good Thing to do. And, unlike your chicken little ass
Re: (Score:2)
In the event an autonomous vehicle detects a service interruption with something outside its V2V range which it is relying on, a proper design would have a fallback course of action. That doesn't mean vehicles won't be using realtime communication outside of their V2V range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does an autonomous vehicle need any sort of real-time connection?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe for safety and traffic and other kinds of data it can use to mitigate or avoid risks. It's not hard to think of stuff it could use to make its operation safer.
It doesn't, any more than one with a driver does.
I made a five and a half hour car trip a couple of weeks ago. It would have been four hours long except I didn't have the real-time data that told me that the road I was taking was completely blocked by a crash a half hour earlier. I had to find an alternate route that took much longer. Had I gotten the real-time data about the
Re: (Score:2)
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Secondly, there's a fair chance there will be a basic on-board program that works right/safely, but not optimally, and a more CPU intensive one using cloud resources that takes over when there is a connection.
Re: (Score:2)
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Then you're being incredibly naive. It's going to happen because $$$. Long distance trucking is going to be the first to use it because there's no more mandatory downtime during a long distance run or after x number of hours so the driver can rest, so you get more miles covered every day, which means more revenue. No wages for drivers. No mandatory deductions for worker's comp, health care, etc. No more worrying about lawsuits for gender bias. No more calling in sick.
A 2018 Kenworth T580 is over $150,000 [mhc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Except that what Comcast is arguing is that they need to be able to create prioritized 'fast lanes' for electronic communications so that the communication between the car and the 'other end' has low latency. Not the communication between the 'other end' and whatever network it's connected to. The connection between cars and between cars and roadside traffic systems is not, and will not be, in a spectrum block controlled by any commercial wireless provider. Comcast could create 'fast lane' wireless that
Re: (Score:2)
so that the communication between the car and the 'other end' has low latency. Not the communication between the 'other end' and whatever network it's connected to.
If you don't understand the internet then just please say so. If a vehicle is making an internet connection to something AT THE OTHER END (and there is always "the other end") and the other end is not getting the packets from the vehicle in a timely manner, then it cannot RESPOND in a timely manner. A "paid fastlane" isn't just for the "vehicle end" of the data, it applies to the full path from vehicle to ANYWHERE.
Comcast could create 'fast lane' wireless that covers 100% of the country with quadruple redundancy, and it would have zero effect on inter-vehicle communications.
Two problems with that statement. First, if Comcast creates such a massive infrastructure and
Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
You're suggesting that we should allow for the possibility that vehicle safety will come to depend on a paid service from a cable company. And calling other people morons.
Interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
"To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast won’t acknowledge is that they won’t need the internet to do it. "
Fucking stupid people.
Read my post idiot (Score:2)
To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast wonâ(TM)t acknowledge is that they wonâ(TM)t need the internet to do it.
And as my summary noted there are really good reasons why they WILL use the internet, so good in fact you have to be an idiot to proclaim they will not...
And I see you are proclaiming they will not. If the shoe fits THAT well...
Re: (Score:2)
"To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast won’t acknowledge is that they won’t need the internet to do it. "
Sure, they don't need it, but it sure as hell is a lot cheaper to use than implementing their own infrastructure.
Why Not???? (Score:2)
As for Waze, you don't need Waze data 1/3 of a second faster on an ISP 'fast lane'.
Let's say the car ahead of me registers a pothole. For whatever reason the inter-car communication link has failed or simply cannot work between our models of cars.
It records the pothole and sends that information to FutureWaze.
I now have much less than 1/3 sec to get that information back. Whatever it is (object, pothole, water, etc) I need to know in under 1/10 or a second or better so the car can start slowing down or man
Re: (Score:2)
It's like Bill Gates saying "1/3 of a second should be fast enough for anything".
There is a very famous saying by, as I recall, a president of IBM, saying that 640k should be enough memory to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a whole new generation of Slashdot users who don't know what the fuck they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a whole new generation of Slashdot users who don't know what the fuck they are doing.
Same as the whole old generation of politicians - except that the politicians see campaign contributions and future jobs as consultants and it just sucks all the integrity (and all the oxygen) out of the room. Want to fix this - body cams for all politicians. And no bs about removing the register of visitors to your office (I'm talking about YOU, Trump) so we can't track who's exercising their "ownership" of any politician.
Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how you spell "editors".
Re: (Score:2)
You wish the editors were the only problem here.
We are all essentially the same...Idiots! (Score:2)
As opposed to the older generation of Slashdot users who know what the fuck they are doing, but are too senile to remember it.
I'm part of the middle group who are just plain stoopid. Huzzah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fr0st P1st, baby!
You must be using Comcast :-) Pay your lobbyist better.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than insecure, it is completely unworkable. What if there is simply some interference... if a self driving car needs data from an external source in order to not crash then simple interference would kill people, no hacking required.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For an internet provider they are pretty unclear of how IP protocols work.
a) there is no such thing as instantaneous
b) there is no such thing as error free transmission.
c) any given packet can take a different route
d) packets can arrive out of order
e) packets can be dropped
If they want guaranteed bandwidth they are using the wrong network.
Good points. I would say, they certainly know how IP protocols work. They're betting on the unwashed public (including congress, with the possible exception of Ron Wyden) not knowing how IP protocols work.
Re: (Score:2)
For an internet provider they are pretty unclear of how IP protocols work.
a) there is no such thing as instantaneous.
Oh, don't be pedantic. Clearly they intend to say that the transmission event and receipt event should be separated by a spacelike interval.
Re: (Score:2)
Remote robotic surgery is the commonly cited example.
If you think remote human operation of robotic applications won't touch just about every industry, and won't require "fast lanes", I recommend resuming recreational reading activities because your imagination has up and died.