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

[charrison]

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.

So do you want a network built to handle the full capacity of everyones possible demands built for peak performance? IF you do, are you willing to pay for it?


Or do you want networks that are built to meet the users needs, including cost.

 

[DanDaManJC]

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

Sure that's true, you're technically correct.

However, I'd argue there's a fundamental difference between something that has, as a part of itself, an inherent need for low latency (say VOIP) as opposed to something like Comcast favoring their video content over youtube's (or any other competitor).

Or put another way --- QoS for the purpose of fairly distributing bandwidth due to bandwidth limitations, is in my opinion OK and technically necessary, while QoS for the sole purpose of anti-competitively blocking the opposing content providers is monopolistic and not OK.

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

True that. Doesn't change anything I said earlier either.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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. :\

Still waiting for those hard facts on why Bush should be prosecuted.

 

[sandorski]

So do you want a network built to handle the full capacity of everyones possible demands built for peak performance? IF you do, are you willing to pay for it?


Or do you want networks that are built to meet the users needs, including cost.

Depends on what that would Cost.

 

[drebo]

something like Comcast favoring their video content over youtube's (or any other competitor).

Right, and that's an anti-trust issue that will exist as long as service providers are also content providers.

Until the two are completely separate, you will never see a service provider in the US throttle another content provider's content. If they did, they would be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit so fast their heads would spin. As long as their service provider monopolies are guaranteed by the government, we will not see them also become monopolistic in the content arena as well.

This is, however, a vastly different thing than "net neutrality".

 

[drebo]

Depends on what that would Cost.

Depends on the speed. You could get end-to-end line rate 56k to anywhere in the country from anywhere in the country.

Cost for 50 Mbps, or even 10 Mbps, CIR end-to-end to anywhere from anywhere? A whole fucking shitload of money.

 

[ch33zw1z]

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

Why is it so hard for others to do the same?

 

[ebaycj]

I didn't realize this was about QOS. If that is the case and if this is the only thing that this is about, it is obviously a good thing. I don't understand why people are against this if it is only about QOS. This makes me suspicious that there is something I am not seeing. Either that or people are just paranoid.

It is not about QOS. That's only spidey's "excuse" for supporting the RRRRRRed team.

What it is really about is:

I pay $$$ to Comcast to provide me access to the internet.

Content provider YT purchases it's own internet lines from Level3 (or whoever) to provide itself access to the internet so that it can serve it's customers.

Company YT and I should be able to talk successfully over the internet under such an agreement, yes?




Now, Company YT puts out some media that Comcast doesn't like (or doesn't want to compete with now that Comcast is also a media provider). This pisses Comcast off.

Comcast goes to YT and says, "hey, we have all these millions of captive subscribers that are unable to change internet providers at a moment's notice. If you want your service to continue working with them correctly you need to pay us $1/month/subscriber." YT hears Comcast's proposal and thinks "Why the hell should I pay Comcast? I get my internet through Level3. I pay big bucks to them for high-speed low-latency lines that I am free to fill with whatever traffic I please. This feels like extortion by Comcast.", and therefore, YT does not comply. Comcast then de-prioritizes traffic to all IP addresses in YT's IP block such that my computer (on comcast's network) carrying on a prolonged conversation with a YT server is impossible, thereby ruining YT's "product" for ALL Comcast end-users.

Now multiply YT inc.'s plight times EVERY internet company out there (really every company out there, it just matters more for internet companies usually).

Imagine if Comcast decided to charge AnandTech for your high-speed access to it's forums, and made them load at dial-up speed if Anand did not pay up. Would you not be flaming pissed? This is what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent.

Now do you see?

 

[ebaycj]

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.

Exactly. QOS is the strawman. The goal of Net Neutrality is to prevent the "Tollbooth" model from forming.

 

[JD50]

Why is it so hard for others to do the same?

 

[ch33zw1z]

So, you don't have any answers to the easy questions either?

 

[JD50]

So, you don't have any answers to the easy questions either?

You're the one making the claim, stop deflecting.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're the one making the claim, stop deflecting.

So I'll take that as a no.

 

[JD50]

So I'll take that as a no.

I don't even know what "easy questions" you're talking about, but go on deflecting.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't even know what "easy questions" you're talking about, but go on deflecting.

Ok, thanks.

 

[JD50]

Ok, thanks.

 

[ch33zw1z]

lol...

 

[DanDaManJC]

Right, and that's an anti-trust issue that will exist as long as service providers are also content providers.

Until the two are completely separate, you will never see a service provider in the US throttle another content provider's content. If they did, they would be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit so fast their heads would spin. As long as their service provider monopolies are guaranteed by the government, we will not see them also become monopolistic in the content arena as well.

This is, however, a vastly different thing than "net neutrality".

I'd have to disagree. This is exactly what net neutrality is all about, as I said before, it's not about low level, technical QoS, but all this "business side" stuff.

The wiki site, though not the definitive source of truth, does provide a good gauge of what the consensus of the definition is... and also shares this definition.

 

[Modelworks]

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.

The reason you haven't seen those things yet is because there is a law preventing it currently. Telecom wants that law partially removed so that it does not apply to wireless systems. It would still protect wired internet like in homes and offices but not smart phones and 3G+ type products.

Telecom has used this tactic repeatedly over the decades. If they cannot repeal it completely they will slowly try to get parts of it repealed until the whole thing is moot.

 

[charrison]

The reason you haven't seen those things yet is because there is a law preventing it currently. Telecom wants that law partially removed so that it does not apply to wireless systems. It would still protect wired internet like in homes and offices but not smart phones and 3G+ type products.

For years the debate has been about what needs to be done with WIRED net neutraility. Now you tell me wired is not a problem? Right....