interactive and batch processes get handled implicitly without starvation by CPU schedulers? ;)
Look, I'm just saying that the non-technical language being used to advocate for net neutrality poorly matches the technical language, and that will cause problems when properly writing or understanding the language of such law is viewed by non-technical people as providing an opportunity for the industry to self-regulate. I don't entirely disagree, but it's irrelevant if I do, because such human concerns are likely to be raised and it would be possible to write better regulation, IMO, if we avoided the word 'neutral'.
I think, for instance, that a lot of people outside the industry conflate paid prioritization with paying for dedicated bandwidth capacity via high commits. Furthermore, some of the most popular arguments have been provided by Netflix and don't entirely hold water when applied to all parties - if I have bytes and enough people want them, should my provider be required to come to my place and constantly upgrade the link until it cannot be saturated?
[ I know that over time, Netflix refined their argument, but that was more or less how they started the conversation ]
I just think there's a disconnect, I am particularly concerned at how many people are like, "I am for Net Neutrality because I want the government's hands off my Internet!".
[ tilts head ] I'm not sure that's the conversation I want to be having. ;)
Look, I'm just saying that the non-technical language being used to advocate for net neutrality poorly matches the technical language, and that will cause problems when properly writing or understanding the language of such law is viewed by non-technical people as providing an opportunity for the industry to self-regulate. I don't entirely disagree, but it's irrelevant if I do, because such human concerns are likely to be raised and it would be possible to write better regulation, IMO, if we avoided the word 'neutral'.
I think, for instance, that a lot of people outside the industry conflate paid prioritization with paying for dedicated bandwidth capacity via high commits. Furthermore, some of the most popular arguments have been provided by Netflix and don't entirely hold water when applied to all parties - if I have bytes and enough people want them, should my provider be required to come to my place and constantly upgrade the link until it cannot be saturated?
[ I know that over time, Netflix refined their argument, but that was more or less how they started the conversation ]
I just think there's a disconnect, I am particularly concerned at how many people are like, "I am for Net Neutrality because I want the government's hands off my Internet!".
[ tilts head ] I'm not sure that's the conversation I want to be having. ;)