Your reading the comment wrong it prevents the creation of the google tiered internet that allows you to access google as opposed to the yahoo tier SBC would offer by default.
Your reading the comment wrong it prevents the creation of the google tiered internet that allows you to access google as opposed to the yahoo tier SBC would offer by default.
Snowman,
The comment means: the ISP can prioritize VOIP traffic over other forms of traffic. If it does so, it must then prioritize other companies' VOIP traffic in the same way. This = non-discrimination. If they change their QoS prioritization to benefit their own services, the same benefits should transfer to companies providing competing services.
This seems very reasonable to me. What's your problem with it? Why should they be allowed to charge for this? If they are allowed to charge, the concept of a level playing field gets tossed out the window. It's a tollbooth, all right...it's like allowing the road repair company to drive for free, and letting them set up their own unregulated tollbooths wherever and whenever they like, charging whatever they like.
This would give services offered by the ISP a tremendous advantage in the marketplace, and kill competition.
If you use VOIP, you know that companies like Lingo and Sunrocket offer many more features at much lower prices than Comcast or the other major players. Sunrocket costs me less than half what Comcast would like for VOIP. Instead of Comcast being forced to add more features and lower cost eventually (competition = good for the consumer), they can now just stick with the same crappy VOIP product and charge Sunrocket a fee designed to make it unaffordable. So my Sunrocket VOIP could jump to $40 a month for something that has way more features than Comcast, which could the be offered at $20 per month, subsidized by the tolls they're collecting. This is unfair market manipulation arising from a monopoly situation that results in the textbook problems of monopolies: a provider-dictated marketplace where innovation is stifled, the monopoly gets richer, and consumers suffer.
Dave.
The comment means: the ISP can prioritize VOIP traffic over other forms of traffic. If it does so, it must then prioritize other companies' VOIP traffic in the same way. This = non-discrimination. If they change their QoS prioritization to benefit their own services, the same benefits should transfer to companies providing competing services.
This seems very reasonable to me. What's your problem with it? Why should they be allowed to charge for this? If they are allowed to charge, the concept of a level playing field gets tossed out the window. It's a tollbooth, all right...it's like allowing the road repair company to drive for free, and letting them set up their own unregulated tollbooths wherever and whenever they like, charging whatever they like.
This would give services offered by the ISP a tremendous advantage in the marketplace, and kill competition.
If you use VOIP, you know that companies like Lingo and Sunrocket offer many more features at much lower prices than Comcast or the other major players. Sunrocket costs me less than half what Comcast would like for VOIP. Instead of Comcast being forced to add more features and lower cost eventually (competition = good for the consumer), they can now just stick with the same crappy VOIP product and charge Sunrocket a fee designed to make it unaffordable. So my Sunrocket VOIP could jump to $40 a month for something that has way more features than Comcast, which could the be offered at $20 per month, subsidized by the tolls they're collecting. This is unfair market manipulation arising from a monopoly situation that results in the textbook problems of monopolies: a provider-dictated marketplace where innovation is stifled, the monopoly gets richer, and consumers suffer.
Dave.
Only because you can't read. Your complaints were
quote:
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
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
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;
The law clearly allows for having different QoS for different customers and different bandwidth for different customers. Where the customers are people like you and me not yahoo or google. Maybe you can come up with a complaint based on the law and not SBC propapganda.
Not a bad idea except that there is not enough Modem Pools to handle all of the people to get on the Intenet.
There is a few Modem Pools left like Netzero and People PC but not enough.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Tansmiton speed, bandwidth and QoS routing are all different things, and my comments are based on the law that was proposed and I've yet to read anything from any of the telcos on this. But I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you why I hold the postion I do as you are obviously just looking for anything you can to refrute my stance instead of actually understanding what I say.
You say that the telcos should be allowed to sell different levels of serives. I should you the bill stating that telcos can sell different level of serivces. I agree telcos should be able to sell different levels of serivces and this bill does nothing to change that.
The law allows telcos to offer different bandwidth levels and transmission speed ie latency. They just have to priotizes based on the type of serivces instead of server that the data is sent to. The only thing the law does is prevent ISP from favoring their own serivces.
If you look in the ATOT thread I posted a really long write-up about what I have found through my research along with citing articles. Since I'm too lazy to go through everything again here's an overview of what I have seen. Basically it boils down to 2 points:
Disclaimer: This is an overview, I am not going into detail. Understand this explanation is far from technically explicit but it, in my opinion, does a good enough job of explaining the situation for the average person but not a techno guru.
1) The Supreme Court has ruled that Telco providers have a right to free speech, which means they can regulate the "speech" done over their lines. Techninally this covers anything passed over the internet from your latest blog about your g/f to your VOIP provider. If Mediacom decides they don't like the competition from vonage for VOIP they can just block Vonage and force yo to use their service or nothing. This holds true for porn. If your Telco does not like porn you can be blocked from accessing any of it with that provider.
2) Right now you don't buy your own access to the internet. You share a line with other people, up to 50 or so other people in fact. Usually this is not a problem since loading a web page takes at most a few seconds of time. Everyone shares and you barely notice the slowdown. With the rise in streaming video, however, it would be possible for someone to capitalize on the internet connection for extended periods of time effectively "blocking" other people. The tiered internet system would allow ISPs to charge sites to provide streaming video to allow the ISP to create more connections for people to use so it does not continue to slow down people's access.
The way I see it I'm not so concerned about the second point, however it is pretty unbelieveable that in the US we are charged upwards of $50 for lesser service than most countries get for $15. If you look on google you can see some world wide internet charts including the cost to provide internet and I have a hard time feeling bad that the Telcos might get their profits cut considering it costs then about 25c to connect me.
As for the first point I understand the premise. I think it should be the right of the telco not to allow you to access the Anarchist's Cookbook if they don't want to, IF there was a free market system in place. Right now the argument from the telcos is if you don't like what they ban you can just switch to a different provider.
This would be a good argument except in most locations there is only 1 provider to choose from. The current legislation surrounding the providing of internet access does all but set up local monopolies. Ever notice there is 1 cable and 1 DSL provider in your area? If there are more you are extremely lucky. In the Atlanta area as well as the 5 next largest cities in GA there are only 1 cable and 1 DSL provider available.
I would have no problem with Bellsouth blocking wikipedia if I could switch to another provider. I think the captive audience clause comes into play here with consumers. It may be there right to free speech but, not to a captive audience. Give us a free market and give them free speech.
Disclaimer: This is an overview, I am not going into detail. Understand this explanation is far from technically explicit but it, in my opinion, does a good enough job of explaining the situation for the average person but not a techno guru.
1) The Supreme Court has ruled that Telco providers have a right to free speech, which means they can regulate the "speech" done over their lines. Techninally this covers anything passed over the internet from your latest blog about your g/f to your VOIP provider. If Mediacom decides they don't like the competition from vonage for VOIP they can just block Vonage and force yo to use their service or nothing. This holds true for porn. If your Telco does not like porn you can be blocked from accessing any of it with that provider.
2) Right now you don't buy your own access to the internet. You share a line with other people, up to 50 or so other people in fact. Usually this is not a problem since loading a web page takes at most a few seconds of time. Everyone shares and you barely notice the slowdown. With the rise in streaming video, however, it would be possible for someone to capitalize on the internet connection for extended periods of time effectively "blocking" other people. The tiered internet system would allow ISPs to charge sites to provide streaming video to allow the ISP to create more connections for people to use so it does not continue to slow down people's access.
The way I see it I'm not so concerned about the second point, however it is pretty unbelieveable that in the US we are charged upwards of $50 for lesser service than most countries get for $15. If you look on google you can see some world wide internet charts including the cost to provide internet and I have a hard time feeling bad that the Telcos might get their profits cut considering it costs then about 25c to connect me.
As for the first point I understand the premise. I think it should be the right of the telco not to allow you to access the Anarchist's Cookbook if they don't want to, IF there was a free market system in place. Right now the argument from the telcos is if you don't like what they ban you can just switch to a different provider.
This would be a good argument except in most locations there is only 1 provider to choose from. The current legislation surrounding the providing of internet access does all but set up local monopolies. Ever notice there is 1 cable and 1 DSL provider in your area? If there are more you are extremely lucky. In the Atlanta area as well as the 5 next largest cities in GA there are only 1 cable and 1 DSL provider available.
I would have no problem with Bellsouth blocking wikipedia if I could switch to another provider. I think the captive audience clause comes into play here with consumers. It may be there right to free speech but, not to a captive audience. Give us a free market and give them free speech.
one thing is clear, living in US = ghetto speeds + high cost for them
japan & s. korea crush the US. (at least most major cities should have fiber to the home, but no)
http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36459431_1_1_1_1,00.html
non-NN will probably make things even less ideal.
ahh, those corp guys are so loving this
japan & s. korea crush the US. (at least most major cities should have fiber to the home, but no)
http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36459431_1_1_1_1,00.html
non-NN will probably make things even less ideal.
ahh, those corp guys are so loving this
So passing Net Neutrality would have the federal goverment regulate ISPs or the internet? If so, no thanks.
Have you been inside a post office lately? Are you sure you still want the goverment regulating the internet?
What it comes down to is without NN they can prioritize packets.
That could be good or bad depending upon how they go about it.
They can spend a bunch of money and improve the network, leaving existing service as it is, while also providing a higher performance service for a fee, -OR- they can not improve the network, throttle 'regular' service and use the bandwidth they save to sell as higher priority service.
Being that the vast majority of people only have 1 option for broadband service, which do you think they'll do without regulation?
IMO once they start doing the things they are allowed to do without NN laws, we will have to pay extra to get the same level of service we have now.
That could be good or bad depending upon how they go about it.
They can spend a bunch of money and improve the network, leaving existing service as it is, while also providing a higher performance service for a fee, -OR- they can not improve the network, throttle 'regular' service and use the bandwidth they save to sell as higher priority service.
Being that the vast majority of people only have 1 option for broadband service, which do you think they'll do without regulation?
IMO once they start doing the things they are allowed to do without NN laws, we will have to pay extra to get the same level of service we have now.
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