Re:FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger ro...
by wtallis on Friday February 24, 2017 @05:56PM
(#13728714)
> To your last point, what if T-Mobile showed that by following its preferred QoS scheme it actually transferred more information over its last mile link?
That is very obviously not even close to being the right metric. All you need to do is find the one customer with their laptop tethered and running Backblaze or bittorrent, and give him all the bandwidth. Don't bother slicing up the airtime to serve other customers, because that'll just reduce the total data rate.
> Should T-Mobile sacrifice $1M in profit each month simply so that any customers who happen to be using an obscure protocol can get slightly better service?
Yes, unless they're prepared to stop advertising it as an Internet connection. If they're all allowed to be an "Internet service provider" that is really just a HTTP(s) service provider, then we're shutting out any invention that isn't well-suited to what T-Mobile can double-charge for—any P2P application, incompatible but superior successors like QUIC, and more specialized protocols like SCTP. Technologies that are obscure today could be lucrative and more resource-efficient next year, if allowed to blossom.
Re:FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger ro...
by grandalf on Friday February 24, 2017 @06:11PM
(#13728816)
Don't you think there's enough demand for halfway decent VPN service that a fair bit of market incentive exists for T-Mobile not to hinder opaque packets too much?
That is very obviously not even close to being the right metric. All you need to do is find the one customer with their laptop tethered and running Backblaze or bittorrent, and give him all the bandwidth. Don't bother slicing up the airtime to serve other customers, because that'll just reduce the total data rate.
> Should T-Mobile sacrifice $1M in profit each month simply so that any customers who happen to be using an obscure protocol can get slightly better service?
Yes, unless they're prepared to stop advertising it as an Internet connection. If they're all allowed to be an "Internet service provider" that is really just a HTTP(s) service provider, then we're shutting out any invention that isn't well-suited to what T-Mobile can double-charge for—any P2P application, incompatible but superior successors like QUIC, and more specialized protocols like SCTP. Technologies that are obscure today could be lucrative and more resource-efficient next year, if allowed to blossom.