
Members of Congress rake FCC over the coals in official net neutrality comment - mikro
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/06/10-members-of-congress-rake-fcc-over-the-coals-in-official-net-neutrality-comment/
======
sam_goody
From a political point of view, it is in the interest of more and more
congressman to openly support this letter (which has lots of ticks: non-
binding, popular, subtly-anti-Trump..)

Which IMO is a good thing. Practically, (ie. non-cynical for its own sake) we
should ask as many senators for their opinion as possible, and make the FCC's
position even more unpopular within Washington. Leading to (hopefully) more
defection within FCC by members that worry about their future careers.

~~~
greeneggs
This is a remarkably optimistic comment. Ten Democratic congressmen writing a
letter does not make the FCC's position more unpopular within Washington.
Realistically, the letter could equally have the opposite effect, polarizing
the issue further.

------
mikeash
What a surprise, there's a "D" next to everyone's name. I agree with their
sentiment, but nobody with power is going to care in the least. Might as well
be "Old Man Yells At Cloud."

------
polotics
Thanks for this post. The notion of separating legislative, executive and
judiciary powers is under attack from a new model, not sure how best to define
that new thing though: "financial, moneyed, social media"?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Oligarchy.

~~~
sgift
More specifically: Plutocracy

------
martin1975
Has anyone put together a solid position on how QoS would operate in a world
of net neutrality? QoS for particular services that might need it pretty much
guarantees some packets will go ahead of others. My question or dilemma is,
can QoS work while preventing abuses like abridging freedom of speech?

~~~
falcolas
My opinion:

Do QOS on the _type_ of packets, not the source/destination. VOIP, gaming? To
the front of the line. Web? Firmly in the middle. Streaming next.
Downloads/BT? To the back.

Every packet is not treated equally, but prioritized according to the needs of
the consumer. The source or destination of the packets shouldn't matter.

EDIT: I've implemented this very policy in an office, and despite the fact
that the links in and out were regularly saturated and QOS was triggered -
nobody complained, because their expectations were met. Netflix had the same
priority as YouTube. Downloads of Linux ISOs or the latest GOT episode never
interrupted in-progres VOIP calls.

~~~
ethbro
_> The source or destination of the packets shouldn't matter._

Specifically, if the source is the ISP itself. Comcast or Spectrum or AT&T
shouldn't be allowed to prioritize their own streaming traffic* over
Netflix's.

If they can't deliver quality streaming (theirs) to their customers, they
should invest in better infrastructure.

* Yes, this includes trying to make the claim that their own VLAN / segregated TV-over-IP network is "different". They own the last mile, they need to provide RAND access.

------
anilgulecha
To US law experts: does this letter carry any legal weight towards forcing FCC
to act in favour of net-neutrality?

~~~
dfabulich
The letter carries no legal weight at all.

