TexasCHLforum.com

Net Neutrality is an example of a government action that is beneficial.

Could be, but even if it was I'd worry it's the wrong cure for the problem.

I think it's going to be a nightmare. Why should you become a public utility because you're letting others share an expensive phone line you bought? That's all a digital circuit is - a high capacity, expensive phone line.

This FCC move reminds me of the fictional Anti Dog Eat Dog Act in Atlas Shrugged. I worry that certain ways to compete have just been made unlawful.

I don't understand how a private entity can be told what to allow over its network. On the one hand we have folks wanting terrorists kept from communicating, and on the other we must have net neutrality.

In an earlier life I built an ISP in my back bedroom, eventually serving high speed access, pre-DSL, with wireless delivery. It nearly drove me under to support the cost and upkeep of the wireless network, but I couldn't stand to pass up a way to provide something faster than dial-up.

A local business discovered internet radio, and would stream to eight or ten computers. In present times, that doesn't seem like so much, but each computer was getting a separate copy of the stream. They were using a megabit per second or so on a one megabit wireless link.

Wireless systems are typically half duplex - but wait, there's less.

The tower is half duplex just like clients, so it can only 'talk' to one client at a time. It's not a bunch of links, each half duplex, but a half duplex system.

The short answer, a single endpoint could impact all the clients on a single tower with a little creative bandwidth hogging.

Then I implemented this thing called stochastic fair queuing, which ensured that everyone got a shot at their slice of the pie. Most users thought i got more bandwidth, and because of adaptive buffering, the folks streaming all that audio now worked without killing those not streaming.

Please tell me they didn't just make traffic shaping and bandwidth allocation unlawful.