The only way the hops would be reduced would be if someone starts laying down new fiber and establishing new links.
The only way the hops would be reduced would be if someone starts laying down new fiber and establishing new links.
Yes, I do. You obviously haven't taken the time to read up on the legislation. Show me proof that either of these things may be caused by the legislation. You obviously can't. If you can't do it, you've just pwned yourself. Show me up, bad boy!
The internet is not a happy happy joy joy place.
Just look at what happened last year between L3 and Cogent.
AND FOR THE LAST TIME NET NEUTRALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH QOS
Some bonehead threw that out there and people ran with it.
In this case Dave is closer to the truth than what you think.
It is about how much traffic backbone provider A will off load to backbone provider B.
If backbone provider B or website owner on backbone provider B does not pay backbone provider A money
then backbone provider A throttles back traffic to "B". And maybe to the point where website B is not worth going to anymore
Net neutrality is mainly for the last mile. With out net neutrality Verizion can decided that I going to google.com should take twice as long as gooing to yahoo.com even if the servers at the exact same location and on the same connection.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
You mean without regulation they can do that, but denying net neutrally doesn't mean denying all regulation. Instating net *neutrally* does mean we can't have two QoS tiers, one for those who choose to pay more of the cost and one those who choose not to.
*doh
*doh
Net naturallity would still allow that. The naturallity is just between sites and not other serivices offered. Net naturallity prevents your ISP from forcing you to use its own serives.
Because wikipeidia is how laws are adopted. The law can be writen to allow multiteirs just add an ISP must transport a users packet in a first come first served basis.
The problem: This already exists.
Google wants more bandwidth? They pay for it. I want more bandwidth for my little blog? I'd pay for it, too. You, on the receiving end, want to see AT come up faster? You pay for that, too.
So even in a perfect world where everyone has broadband access, we're all paying more for higher speeds. Of course, to truly give everyone this choice, the telcos would have had to make good on their repeated promises to roll out rural broadband networks...which they haven't done. Much of the US simply has no broadband availability, at any price. They can't pay more for faster speeds even if they want to...so they're paying more for modem access than we do for DSL.
This is different from the question of network neutrality. Network neutrality means that if I, the consumer, pay for faster access, I have a right to faster access to the entire internet...without the telco filtering things out in the middle. If SBC has the right to filter content, and I find out that SBC is financing Bobby Rush and influencing his legislation, then SBC can now ensure that no SBC DSL user ever sees that report on my blog. No need to make excuses to the press...now they can just turn off the websites they don't like.
Similarly, Comcast can force users to sign up for Comcast VOIP by blocking all competitors...meaning that if I have a Comcast connection, I'm stuck with their overpriced, lower quality service. Companies like Sunrocket could go out of business, simply because they're not telcos...and every telco will want to offer their own VOIP service, filtering Sunrocket out of their networks.
That's what we're risking if we lose network neutrality for the internet; giving a telco complete and absolute authority over the internet to do as they please. This means filtering your email, filtering what websites you see, filtering what services you use, and making tons of money in the process. And the next time they're caught selling your personal information to the NSA without a warrant, you'll never know...because they'll never let you see a website with that content on it. AOL already had a "glitch" where they blocked all emails (even ones you sent yourself) referring to the dearaol site, which was set up to protest AOL's plan to charge people to send email to AOL users. Someone has an email address and you want to contact them? Well now, if AOL, SBC / Yahoo, MSN (or whoever) doesn't like you, they can prevent it.
The result? Everyone loves the telcos...if you don't, you simply have no ability to communicate, collaborate, or provide services over the internet.
Dave.
Both have already happened. ISPs have done this in the past. I posted a list in another thread, which was bashed because a couple of the ISPs on the list were Canadian, but it's definitely not something that could never happen.
Dave.
Actually no. They're not proposing to allow you, the end user, to buy a priority routing flag in their system. They're going to charge Google to do this, to get to you faster. With absolutely no checks or balances in place to prevent them from saying hey, if you want to even reach these users, pay up. Or actually, now that I think about it, since I (SBC) own Yahoo, I think I'll just kill Google anyway, and force everyone to use Yahoo instead, etc.
D.
Neither can even possibly happen as a result of this legislation. It's illegal now and it will remain illegal. That's what I mean.
I did some extensive reading on this subject when the last big thread popped up. It turned out that carriers are not allowed to filter content at all. This is due to regulations at the federal level. Hence Comcast cannot filter out any website you request.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
The way I understand it is... There will be many levels of speed... If you want a QUICK internet and move lot's of DATA you PAY more...
It's all about the money....
If for instance... You go to google and do searches a lot... And google has to pay MORE for it's bandwidth and speed then the average user will see more ads etc...etc... to pay for the higher price. While the average joe that throws up his own domain that is poor or doesn't give a rip he just wants a site to host pictures of family and friends and maybe have a blog for life discussion... Well it's gonna be slower then SNOT! Better start compressing those photos...
What does it mean for the average person? Well, not much... It's just another way for ATT / Sprint and other internet backbone providers get more $$ from you to access the higher speed. You will either have a very slow connection or Pay more in viewing more advertisements and more for access to the higher speed ways.
Aren't we paying enough already?
I see it as a "BAD" thing that is only going to make a few corporations richer and they spending big BUCKS throwing money to big shot lawyers, judges, and to an already corrupt government. Hmmm, I wonder who is looking out for the people?
Bottom line... What does it mean for the average user? Dig a little deeper in your pockets...
I am thinking screw this high speed internet usage. I think we should all go back to dial up and boycott high speed Internet. They already got you over a barrel now they just want you to pay more!
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Becuase Wikipedia is right and the net neutrally leduslation which recently got shot down in congeress required exactly what you claimed it didn't.
You are blurring the difference between latency and bandwidth. High bandwidth can be maintained though less direct routing while providing lower latency though more direct routing for those paying extra for that priority.
We need regulation to aviod the abuse you suggest, but that doesn't mean we need outright neutrality.
6000SUX, I'm interested...I know a lot of the activists who are on top of telecom legislation (on both sides of this issue) and I've never heard it said by either side that these protections are already embodied in current telecom law. Could you tell me what you've been reading?
The Snowman, we may be differing on semantics. My definition of neutrality is the concept of common carriage. Your tax dollars paid for the road in front of your house. The city might have contracted a company to come build it, but once it's there you can drive anywhere you want, whenever you want. Sure, some people are going to pay for faster cars, and some people are going to pay to use the tollways to get from point A to point B faster, but you have ubiquitous, non-discriminatory access to all points connected to this road system. That's the level of neutrality the internet was built on.
For me, network neutrality = non-discrimination. It is not discrimination for Google to be able to pay for a dedicated server (or a farm) while I'm stuck with my crappy shared hosting, dreaming of upgrading to a colo. But it is discrimination for AOL to filter out emails they disapprove of (censorship) and for an internet service provider to unfairly deliver their own solutions at higher speeds than the competition.
I know the difference between latency and bandwidth, but they're irrelevant to a discussion on discrimination. To my knowledge, non-discrimination on the internet has been violated several times by several ISPs. While there have been protests, none have been slapped with regulatory fines for breaking the law. The rush to enact network neutrality legislation would suggest that there are indeed too few legal protections for the principle.
Allowing the telcos to create national franchising for cable services, while removing the requirement that they negotiate terms with local municipalities (the essence of the COPE act, which was a telecom rewrite act) means that we are handing them the keys to the banana plantation...we no longer have any say over whether rural areas are ever served with broadband, for example. Or whether we ever see fiber connectivity at affordable prices. Or whether there is any public access broadcasting preserved at all. Forget all about funding for community technology centers or other digital literacy initiatives. In giving this much unregulated (and unregulatable, since the FCC has effectively been muzzled) power and profit to the telcos, who have proven that they are not friendly to the idea of non-discrimination on the internet, network neutrality mandated by law is the only protection that can be meaningful.
Dave.
The Snowman, we may be differing on semantics. My definition of neutrality is the concept of common carriage. Your tax dollars paid for the road in front of your house. The city might have contracted a company to come build it, but once it's there you can drive anywhere you want, whenever you want. Sure, some people are going to pay for faster cars, and some people are going to pay to use the tollways to get from point A to point B faster, but you have ubiquitous, non-discriminatory access to all points connected to this road system. That's the level of neutrality the internet was built on.
For me, network neutrality = non-discrimination. It is not discrimination for Google to be able to pay for a dedicated server (or a farm) while I'm stuck with my crappy shared hosting, dreaming of upgrading to a colo. But it is discrimination for AOL to filter out emails they disapprove of (censorship) and for an internet service provider to unfairly deliver their own solutions at higher speeds than the competition.
I know the difference between latency and bandwidth, but they're irrelevant to a discussion on discrimination. To my knowledge, non-discrimination on the internet has been violated several times by several ISPs. While there have been protests, none have been slapped with regulatory fines for breaking the law. The rush to enact network neutrality legislation would suggest that there are indeed too few legal protections for the principle.
Allowing the telcos to create national franchising for cable services, while removing the requirement that they negotiate terms with local municipalities (the essence of the COPE act, which was a telecom rewrite act) means that we are handing them the keys to the banana plantation...we no longer have any say over whether rural areas are ever served with broadband, for example. Or whether we ever see fiber connectivity at affordable prices. Or whether there is any public access broadcasting preserved at all. Forget all about funding for community technology centers or other digital literacy initiatives. In giving this much unregulated (and unregulatable, since the FCC has effectively been muzzled) power and profit to the telcos, who have proven that they are not friendly to the idea of non-discrimination on the internet, network neutrality mandated by law is the only protection that can be meaningful.
Dave.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I'm talking about Ed Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006" where he specifically tried to legislate against at least what I think you are getting at with your metaphorical "tollways" here:
It seems to me that if providers want to prioritize quality of their own VoIP service, they shouldn't have to give everyone else VoIP service for free, but rather simply provide others with the option to pay a "toll" to get that same QoS for whatever applications they may care too. So maybe we are on the same page here; but in my opinion, the concept net neutrality that was recently put before Congress was rightfully shot down for going too far.
The law creates a toll road that everyone can use. If the ISP wants its VoIP packets to be served first it most also serve others VoIP packets first. If the ISP wishes it can charge one or more costumers to prioritize VoIP.
The bill you linked to clearly allows for multiple tiers.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.?Nothing in this section shall pro-
hibit a broadband network provider from implementing
reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to?
and under B is listed
(2) offer varying levels of transmission speed or
bandwith;
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I can see how you might take what you quoted to mean that, but it really doesn't. As Markey explains himself:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter