Franken at the FCC, when the Net Neutrality fell. His eyes open!!!

[spidey07]

Why do I get the feeling that ISPs have Over Sold their Bandwidth?

All networks are oversubscribed. It would cost way too much money if they weren't.

 

[drebo]

Yeah, except that it will turn into the fast-track program at the FDA, where every company is squeezing whatever regulatory body determines what is high priority to have their service prioritized over others, creating an even worse mess than we're in now.

That's why it's left up to the service providers to set their QoS policies on their own networks, not the government.

 

[MovingTarget]

For fucks sake, near all the opposition of "net neutrality" is more along the lines of conspiracy theories. Crack-pots vision up a fictional reality to form real legislation around.

Your article even begins with imagine a world.

Most of it is hyperbole (this is atpn afterall ), but try comparing data rates of text messages to any other data service on cell networks (which iirc includes voice). Without net neutrality, similar prioritizations in biling for different "types" of data traffic can and probably will occur, depending on how much Comcast and the others decide they can gouge us. The current spat with netflix (and Level3) is another such example.

 

[drebo]

with what reg will the FCC smack them?

Indeed, this is an anti-trust issue, and governed by that already.

Until "content providers" and "service providers" are 100% separated from each other, you will not see service providers degrading content provider services. When service providers are also content providers, it would be deemed anti-competitive and there would be fines.

 

[drebo]

You've proven time and again that you know next to nothing about appropriate network management.

Are we bandwidth constrained? No. Let the user decide how to prioritize his or her own traffic.

Just because you think traffic type A is more important than traffic type B is irrelevant to me, since traffic type B is much more important to me today than A is. And tomorrow type C is more important than A or B. And next week I need A. I'm a consumer, and I want all my DATA treated the same, regardless of what that DATA actually is comprised of.

An end user cannot prioritize his downstream data. It can only prioritize what it controls...i.e. upstream.

When a path through the Internet changes speeds to a slower connection (for instance, from the provider's backbone to a T1 circuit), the direction that needs QoS is from the fast connection to the slow connection. That's in the ISP's domain, and thus the ISP needs to do that. You can prioritize data that you SEND to the ISP, as your local gigabit or 100mbps sends data up a 1.5mbps connection.

Obviously, data gets to that point of congestion much quicker than it can be sent through the congested port. You need to decide what's more important to send. Excess packets get dropped. The same is true in a service provider's network.

Contrary to what you might think, there are applications that are extremely sensitive to data delays and lost packets. Any real-time protocol that uses UDP, for instance.

If service providers are forced to treat all data the same, it will effectively kill the future of voice and video communications, as they will be forced to go back to circuit-switched networks to ensure good quality of service.

 

[sandorski]

All networks are oversubscribed. It would cost way too much money if they weren't.

Well, see that's the problem. Seems to me in their zeal to attract Customers with "Unlimited" or some high Xbandwidth promise, they neglected to consider what would happen if their Customers chose to use that Bandwidth. That said, I suppose the likes of Google/Youtube and others were given a Free Pass in order to help them get established and now it's time to pay the piper.

I'm much less opposed to these measures these days. Just as long as ISPs are properly Regulated to prevent shenanigans. Which is made more difficult with the intermingling of of ISPs, Media Content Makers/License Holders, and Online Retialers/Services. There really should have been resistance to allowing that kind of consolidation. I suppose it could work out and reversing it is not much of an option now, but for the next while they should be strictly scrutinized.

 

[sactoking]

We have had public widespread use of the internet for 2 decades. Yet all of these doom and gloom scenario's net neutrality proponents bring up simply havent happened at all. There is no need for congress to get involed and write laws for a problem that doesnt exist. Especially when what they are proposing will cause a hell of a lot more damage than what is is supposed to fix.

We've had public, widespread use of the internet in a manner such as we are seeing now (streaming movies, etc) for less than 5 years. The internet of 1990, the one dominated by AOL, CompuServe, Netscape Navigator, 36.6kbps modems on dial-up, etc is nothing like the internet of today. To compare the two is foolish.

Again, you cling to the fallacious idea that if it hasn't happened yet it can never happen. The whole point of regulation is to prevent problems from happening. If regulators were reactionary and not proactive, which is exactly what you propose, the marketplace would be completely unstable. Indeed, all of the horrible headlines you see in the business news stem from regulators assuming that something can't happen because it hasn't and thus there is no need to address the problem.

 

[Genx87]

We've had public, widespread use of the internet in a manner such as we are seeing now (streaming movies, etc) for less than 5 years. The internet of 1990, the one dominated by AOL, CompuServe, Netscape Navigator, 36.6kbps modems on dial-up, etc is nothing like the internet of today. To compare the two is foolish.

Again, you cling to the fallacious idea that if it hasn't happened yet it can never happen. The whole point of regulation is to prevent problems from happening. If regulators were reactionary and not proactive, which is exactly what you propose, the marketplace would be completely unstable. Indeed, all of the horrible headlines you see in the business news stem from regulators assuming that something can't happen because it hasn't and thus there is no need to address the problem.

We were "streaming" MP3s in the 1990s. Along with games, and movies, and anything else you wanted. The difference of course is today I can get a 20-50Mbps pipe to my home where in the 1990s I was limited to 1.5Mbps. This isnt a new thing at all.

I am not clinging to anything fallacious. In 2 decades what you propose hasnt happened at all. And every attempt to limit competition has been smacked down to date. So to fix this mythical problem you propose to treat all traffic the same via congress. That is worse than this mythical problem by a long shot. You want to see costs skyrocket? Force networks to expand their resources to handle traffic the same.

 

[SunnyD]

All networks are oversubscribed. It would cost way too much money if they weren't.

Hahaha... you mean all last-mile networks are oversubscribed. There's a reason for this - because data transport rates are ridiculously overpriced for last-mile providers to get the kind of bandwidth they need. Core networks are currently underutilized, with massive amounts of bandwidth sitting dormant.

If you think this isn't the case, then why do ISPs in Europe and Asia thrive an a massively competitive market unlike here in the US, and data prices are a fraction of what they cost here while bandwidth is far more available?

 

[drebo]

If you think this isn't the case, then why do ISPs in Europe and Asia thrive an a massively competitive market unlike here in the US, and data prices are a fraction of what they cost here while bandwidth is far more available?

That's a completely separate problem that would require the repeal (or atleast a HUGE amendment) of the Telco Act of 1996 to fix.

The best solution to that problem is for municipalities to own all of the last-mile copper and COs. Get rid of the CLEC/ILEC relationship and just have everyone be CLECs, leasing whatever copper they need from the local municipality at flat-rate costs that are the same for everyone. THAT would foster competition, and truely would separate content providers and service providers.

 

[sactoking]

We were "streaming" MP3s in the 1990s. Along with games, and movies, and anything else you wanted. The difference of course is today I can get a 20-50Mbps pipe to my home where in the 1990s I was limited to 1.5Mbps. This isnt a new thing at all.

I am not clinging to anything fallacious. In 2 decades what you propose hasnt happened at all. And every attempt to limit competition has been smacked down to date. So to fix this mythical problem you propose to treat all traffic the same via congress. That is worse than this mythical problem by a long shot. You want to see costs skyrocket? Force networks to expand their resources to handle traffic the same.

Cable TV- Invented in 1949
Went tiered and anti-competitive in 1975
Time it took: 26 years

We can see it happening in internet: data caps on "unlimited" service, throttling, services like ESPN3 available to select ISPs, Comcast/Netflix dispute, etc

 

[Modelworks]

People need to read what is in the letter. This isn't about prioritizing traffic because you need something to be more time critical. This is flat out blocking traffic or charging more for the traffic if you want it to get somewhere quicker or allow the content at all. It would give wireless the ability to control what content is on the network and how much to charge and even blocking content completely, something they cannot currently do on wired connections.

In effect the telecoms want to make wireless their own corporate branded version of the internet with whatever rules they want to make.

Under the language of the draft Order as I understand it, it would be entirely acceptable for a mobile ISP to prioritize its own such such applications and either degrade competing applications, or, quite simply, block them outright. To use a hypothetical, under this framework, Verizon could initially allow iPad owners access to a streaming Netflix video application over their 3G or LTE network—but then block that same Netflix application the very day that V CAST, Verizon's mobile video on-demand service, becomes available and offers competing content. In fact, they could have blocked the Netflix application the day they thought of offering V CAST on iPad.

 

[Harvey]

Took notice of what? What are Frankens qualifications in this matter?

Among other things, he's a voting member of the U.S. Senate, and he's very bright. What are yours?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I know why. But I am curious to see if you know why you arent on dial up being raped.

Nope, no idea. Fill me in, please!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ill take that as you dont have an answer. Requesting something that doesnt help your application wont make you any more money.

Think hard, I bet you'll come up with an answer.

 

[Genx87]

Among other things, he's a voting member of the U.S. Senate, and he's very bright. What are yours?

Being elected by people doesnt make you have a clue on the subject at hand. You think Stuart Smalley has a fucking clue about networks?

While not on Spidey's level of knowledge. I do manage corporate networks and understand allowing every packet equal priority is a recipe for disaster.

 

[cubby1223]

Most of it is hyperbole (this is atpn afterall ), but try comparing data rates of text messages to any other data service on cell networks (which iirc includes voice). Without net neutrality, similar prioritizations in biling for different "types" of data traffic can and probably will occur, depending on how much Comcast and the others decide they can gouge us. The current spat with netflix (and Level3) is another such example.

I for one do believe there should be some sort of "pay per megabit" scheme to the internet. Order one new computer part from Newegg, they charge $10 shipping. Order 100 new computer parts from Newegg, they sure as hell charge a helluva lot more than $10 shipping. But for the internet, some people think that's a horrible idea all for corporate greed. Download 1 megabit pay for 1 megabit, download 1 gigabit, pay for 1 gigabit. That's not gouging, those who make use of more of the available resources pay the higher share of the costs involved in providing internet service.

The UPS truck was traveling cross-country anyways, why not just toss my second package on there for no cost! It's corporate greed to charge me! Yea, no one ever says that. There isn't government legislation to "protect" consumers against that.

*and*

I don't see a "point of no return" anywhere, if all hell breaks loose, crack-pot theories come to fruition, net neutrality can always be voted on again. So much of the support is these doom & gloom scenarios and it's all false logic.


When I see a good sound reason for Net Neutrality, then I will support it. Until then, I will not. That's my bottom line.

 

[Harvey]

Being elected by people doesnt make you have a clue on the subject at hand.

No, but being elected puts him in a position where he's far more qualified than you to do anything about it.

You think Stuart Smalley has a fucking clue about networks?

Do you think Franken's comedic character, Stuart Smalley on SNL represents the entirety of his intellect and abilities, then either you're way out of touch with reality, or, more likely, you're just trying to smear him by blowing smoke and spewing bullsh8.

While not on Spidey's level of knowledge. I do manage corporate networks and understand allowing every packet equal priority is a recipe for disaster.

While not on Spidey's level of knowledge, I don't presume to know the extent of Franken's knowledge on the subject or his ability and resources to gather sufficient information to make a well considered judgment.

If you think you've got evidence to argue against Franken's position, post it on up. If you can't, and the best you can do is dismissing Franken's abilities with childish references to one of his comedy characters, you're not worth wasting the time to discuss anything. :hmm:

 

[JD50]

Think hard, I bet you'll come up with an answer.

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

 

[JD50]

No, but being elected puts him in a position where he's far more qualified than you to do anything about it.



Do you think Franken's comedic character, Stuart Smalley on SNL represents the entirety of his intellect and abilities, then either you're way out of touch with reality, or, more likely, you're just trying to smear him by blowing smoke and spewing bullsh8.



While not on Spidey's level of knowledge, I don't presume to know the extent of Franken's knowledge on the subject or his ability and resources to gather sufficient information to make a well considered judgment.

If you think you've got evidence to argue against Franken's position, post it on up. If you can't, and the best you can do is dismissing Franken's abilities with childish references to one of his comedy characters, you're not worth wasting the time to discuss anything. :hmm:

Someone's got a hard on for Smalley.

 

[Harvey]

Someone's got a hard on for Smalley.

Actually, I didn't particularly like the Stuart Smallye SNL segments, but I've spent some time listening to Franken speak on real issues. He's very bright, and he's very well informed.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute? You know -- hard facts and well reasoned conclusions. OTOH, maybe you don't. :\

 

[Zillatech]

http://stopnetregulation.org/stop/

 

[DanDaManJC]

People need to read what is in the letter. This isn't about prioritizing traffic because you need something to be more time critical. This is flat out blocking traffic or charging more for the traffic if you want it to get somewhere quicker or allow the content at all. It would give wireless the ability to control what content is on the network and how much to charge and even blocking content completely, something they cannot currently do on wired connections.

In effect the telecoms want to make wireless their own corporate branded version of the internet with whatever rules they want to make.

This.

We've had so many net neutrality discussions and it always ends up degenerating into Spidey setting up this strawman about how it's all about low level QoS... that's not it at all. Model hit the nail on the head.

 

[manimal]

I for one do believe there should be some sort of "pay per megabit" scheme to the internet. Order one new computer part from Newegg, they charge $10 shipping. Order 100 new computer parts from Newegg, they sure as hell charge a helluva lot more than $10 shipping. But for the internet, some people think that's a horrible idea all for corporate greed. Download 1 megabit pay for 1 megabit, download 1 gigabit, pay for 1 gigabit. That's not gouging, those who make use of more of the available resources pay the higher share of the costs involved in providing internet service.

The UPS truck was traveling cross-country anyways, why not just toss my second package on there for no cost! It's corporate greed to charge me! Yea, no one ever says that. There isn't government legislation to "protect" consumers against that.

*and*

I don't see a "point of no return" anywhere, if all hell breaks loose, crack-pot theories come to fruition, net neutrality can always be voted on again. So much of the support is these doom & gloom scenarios and it's all false logic.


When I see a good sound reason for Net Neutrality, then I will support it. Until then, I will not. That's my bottom line.

But I need my freedom to pirate porn with impunity....


this post in no way reflects any real or implied penchants for pornography or watching it for free online...


Too bad the new version of Tron wasnt about net neutrality!! Free the interwebs !!!!


Free Kevin!!!

wait hes free and working for security companies now isnt he...

 

[charrison]

This.

We've had so many net neutrality discussions and it always ends up degenerating into Spidey setting up this strawman about how it's all about low level QoS... that's not it at all. Model hit the nail on the head.

It is about QoS. All traffic is not the same.

And we have yet to see any of the things that model talks about either. Call it the strawman from the other side.