Hacker News Reader

Comment by superasn | Hacker News Reader

What the fuck is wrong with these lame excuses: "But now that apps exist and nearly everyone uses them, big companies can boycott the web, forcing their users into apps instead. That just accelerates the rise of apps, and weakens the web even more. Apps are used to implement DRM, so DRM-using companies are moving to apps. To keep entertainment companies from killing the web outright, the Web must have DRM too."

That is equally lame as what Ajit pai said recently wrt to NN: "wouldn’t you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married."

View on HN

> wouldn’t you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married

A bit OT, but can't that already happen? I thought companies could set up private networks between various locations, and set up prioritized traffic on those already, with corresponding SLA if desired.

If so, then it's that much more disingenuous, considering that specialists are more likely to be aware of issues like those and of options they have to solve them. The Average Joe will never feel compelled to cross-check a claim like this.

It's been a long time, but I worked in a company with a call center in NC, and some support folks back in CA. We had some 'private pipe' between the two locations. I've no doubt it used 'public internet' connections along the way, but my recollection was it was somewhat separated, and we had some SLA in place. It wasn't pitched as "faster than the other internet", but I believe we had minimum ping times and minimum speed stuff in place, and when things were down we got some prioritized service (and probably some discount on the bill). It's been years, and I wasn't in the networking side of things, so I don't know all the details, but... I can't imagine hospitals that had a need for a certain level of network speed and availability couldn't contract for that already, and no doubt they'd pay more than home users any way (businesses generally already do).

> That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married

So the surgeon/operating room can pay more money for a faster link. Just like there are different tiers of internet already with different speeds. I don't see how NN affects this.

They can. Also, MPLS circuits exist.

But for that to happen wouldn't the surgeon need to outbid Google for network priority?

Well, it will endup on patient bill anyway. G's CTR losses on telesurgery QOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com