FTC has decided to abandon net neutrality

[spidey07]

This is proably the best news the Internet could ever hear.

I've already explained how regulated "net neutrality" would completely kill the advancement and innovation of the Internet. Basically "net neutrality" prevents providers from offering advanced services customers want like voice, video and data.

Wonderful news indeed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Bowfinger is quite right on this one, and it's what I touched on above. The real threat of tiered internet isn't packet prioritization but actual intentional service degradation.

Which absolutely will not happen.

The FCC has already put a stomp down on any provider that has tried this.

 

[flyfish]

I agree.
The government should have never been involved in the first place.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07
This is proably the best news the Internet could ever hear.

I've already explained how regulated "net neutrality" would completely kill the advancement and innovation of the Internet. Basically "net neutrality" prevents providers from offering advanced services customers want like voice, video and data.

Wonderful news indeed.

No it does not. Net neutrality doesn't prevent anyone from offering any service. It just makes it so people can choose who they buy services from.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Bowfinger is quite right on this one, and it's what I touched on above. The real threat of tiered internet isn't packet prioritization but actual intentional service degradation.

Which absolutely will not happen.

The FCC has already put a stomp down on any provider that has tried this.

If you make one packet have a higher priority is a zero sum game. To prioritize one packet is to degrade performance of all other packets.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07
This is proably the best news the Internet could ever hear.

I've already explained how regulated "net neutrality" would completely kill the advancement and innovation of the Internet. Basically "net neutrality" prevents providers from offering advanced services customers want like voice, video and data.

Wonderful news indeed.

No it does not. Net neutrality doesn't prevent anyone from offering any service. It just makes it so people can choose who they buy services from.

In it's current definition and the bill and ideas in congres providers weren't allowed to use advanced services of a modern network. This continues to allow them to operate as they are now and providing the highly competitive services of voice video and data.

This is why net neutrality is a terrible idea as it sends the Internet to the dark ages of communications - no intelligence, no advanced features, just best effort everywhere.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah, I see he just retired last month. I was not aware of that, thanks.

All the same, I have no faith in a company like AT&T to not try to squeeze every cent possible out of their customers. QoS means the giant telcoms will be able to put off upgrading infrastructure, claiming that if people want better speed they need to spend more until EVERYBODY is paying extra for priority, and we'll end up with exactly the same performance we have now, only we'll all be paying for more for it.

Well, at the same time, if you have bunch of politicians coming up with rules specific to the Internet on how companies can or cannot charge for Internet usage, you may stop companies from charging appropriate amount of money for future investments. Companies like Googles can use up huge amount of free Internet resources with their youtube, and other Internet traffic related money making mechanism to make a huge profit while not paying their fare share.

I'd say FTC is correct in this to let free market sort out what the pricing for Internet usage is. But I do agree with you that Telcom industry suck and you have very little competition there. I dunno why FTC is letting ATT buying out all baby bells and forming a monopoly again.

Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07
This is proably the best news the Internet could ever hear.

I've already explained how regulated "net neutrality" would completely kill the advancement and innovation of the Internet. Basically "net neutrality" prevents providers from offering advanced services customers want like voice, video and data.

Wonderful news indeed.

No it does not. Net neutrality doesn't prevent anyone from offering any service. It just makes it so people can choose who they buy services from.

In it's current definition and the bill and ideas in congres providers weren't allowed to use advanced services of a modern network. This continues to allow them to operate as they are now and providing the highly competitive services of voice video and data.

This is why net neutrality is a terrible idea as it sends the Internet to the dark ages of communications - no intelligence, no advanced features, just best effort everywhere.

Would you care say specificly what is not allowed so I can copy and paste from the law and show you that are completely wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

It's absolutely true. You have all the various cable companies and telcos battling for your consumer dollar. One of these is with advanced services and innovation - on demand HD movies, advanced calling features and all of it getting cheaper. Net neutrality would have killed this golden age of the Internet.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

It's absolutely true. You have all the various cable companies and telcos battling for your consumer dollar. One of these is with advanced services and innovation - on demand HD movies, advanced calling features and all of it getting cheaper. Net neutrality would have killed this golden age of the Internet.

All those cable companies, here give me some names let me call them up and see if I can get cable internet installed. I'm willing to bet most are not going to run the required cable hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, so they can compete for my internet dollars. But if you want I will ask them to just to show your wrong.

Edit:
I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and it doesn't say anything about banning HD movies.

 

[spidey07]

Look at item 4a.

Without QoS you can't have all these rich services. That's why this bill would kill the internet.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

It's absolutely true. You have all the various cable companies and telcos battling for your consumer dollar. One of these is with advanced services and innovation - on demand HD movies, advanced calling features and all of it getting cheaper. Net neutrality would have killed this golden age of the Internet.

All those cable companies, here give me some names let me call them up and see if I can get cable internet installed. I'm willing to bet most are not going to run the required cable hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, so they can compete for my internet dollars. But if you want I will ask them to just to show your wrong.

Edit:
I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and it doesn't say anything about banning HD movies.

Look up the definition of "Competitive Local Exchange Carrier" (CLEC). They don't have to run cabling or fiber thousands of miles, hundreds of miles ... probably not even a dozen feet. A CLEC buys access through the "Incumbent LEC" network (the guys that own the cabling). CLECs you've probably heard of are AOL, EarthLink, COVAD, Speakeasy ...

While it would indeed be rare for a single CLEC to cover the USA / North America, COVAD is pretty close, AOL used to be pretty close, and EarthLink was pretty close.

They all are allowed (by FEDERAL REGULATION) to purchase wholesale access from the ILEC at a rate that permits them to sell the same service for the same price or LESS. The ILEC is also required to provide service comparable or better than they provide to their own customers.

So you are on the ILEC infrastructure, but using the CLEC L2 access, you pay your bill to the CLEC, you call them when you have a problem.

QOS/COS has absolutely NO EFFECT unless the link is congested. That's the point; in a congested scenario, video and VoIP are more sensitive to delays in transit than your average web surfage; so the provider / seller of those services would be permitted to buy a better path through the congested channel.

It in no way degrades the other traffic. Go read up on it on Cisco's site (Alcatel, Lucent, and the other cloud infrastructure providers operate in a similar fashion) and look at how the queues are manipulated in a COS/QOS configuration.

"I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act..."

Oh yeah, that's what we want. Politicians that can't find their own ass with both hands crafting the design and engineering of the Internet. How f*cking stupid do you have to be, good grief.

FWIW

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

It's absolutely true. You have all the various cable companies and telcos battling for your consumer dollar. One of these is with advanced services and innovation - on demand HD movies, advanced calling features and all of it getting cheaper. Net neutrality would have killed this golden age of the Internet.

All those cable companies, here give me some names let me call them up and see if I can get cable internet installed. I'm willing to bet most are not going to run the required cable hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, so they can compete for my internet dollars. But if you want I will ask them to just to show your wrong.

Edit:
I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and it doesn't say anything about banning HD movies.

Look up the definition of "Competitive Local Exchange Carrier" (CLEC). They don't have to run cabling or fiber thousands of miles, hundreds of miles ... probably not even a dozen feet. A CLEC buys access through the "Incumbent LEC" network (the guys that own the cabling). CLECs you've probably heard of are AOL, EarthLink, COVAD, Speakeasy ...

While it would indeed be rare for a single CLEC to cover the USA / North America, COVAD is pretty close, AOL used to be pretty close, and EarthLink was pretty close.

They all are allowed (by FEDERAL REGULATION) to purchase wholesale access from the ILEC at a rate that permits them to sell the same service for the same price or LESS. The ILEC is also required to provide service comparable or better than they provide to their own customers.

So you are on the ILEC infrastructure, but using the CLEC L2 access, you pay your bill to the CLEC, you call them when you have a problem.

QOS/COS has absolutely NO EFFECT unless the link is congested. That's the point; in a congested scenario, video and VoIP are more sensitive to delays in transit than your average web surfage; so the provider / seller of those services would be permitted to buy a better path through the congested channel.

It in no way degrades the other traffic. Go read up on it on Cisco's site (Alcatel, Lucent, and the other cloud infrastructure providers operate in a similar fashion) and look at how the queues are manipulated in a COS/QOS configuration.

"I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act..."

Oh yeah, that's what we want. Politicians that can't find their own ass with both hands crafting the design and engineering of the Internet. How f*cking stupid do you have to be, good grief.

FWIW

I'm sure ATT would have no problem designing a QoS that degrees other services under all conditions. Don't worry they will find away because that is their goal.

As for your comment to go look up Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. Maybe you should go look up the fact it only applies to telephone lines and Verizon and ATT are ripping up copper as fast as they can so it doesn't apply to them any more.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Free market, WTF are you smoking. What ever it is it most be making you see double because that is the only way you could think there is anything close to a free market for internet access.

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

lol, good one.

It's absolutely true. You have all the various cable companies and telcos battling for your consumer dollar. One of these is with advanced services and innovation - on demand HD movies, advanced calling features and all of it getting cheaper. Net neutrality would have killed this golden age of the Internet.

All those cable companies, here give me some names let me call them up and see if I can get cable internet installed. I'm willing to bet most are not going to run the required cable hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, so they can compete for my internet dollars. But if you want I will ask them to just to show your wrong.

Edit:
I looked at the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and it doesn't say anything about banning HD movies.

I dunno where you live, but where I am at, I have choice of cable Internet, DSL, fix wireless, mobile wireless. I am pretty sure there are CLEC offering DSL in addition to ATT/SBC, and there are number of different companies offerring fix wireless and mobile wireless. In different areas, there are more than one company offering cable Internet. If those broadband providers charge too much, you can always go back to dialup.....hehe. In addition, there are work in place to provide city wide WiFi access here in Chicago.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: AAjax
"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue."


Whole article Here

Truly, we live in dark times my friends. First internet radio, now this?

what do u mean charge websites for access?

what's net neutrality?

 

[ScottMac]

Smackdown:

"I'm sure ATT would have no problem designing a QoS that degrees other services under all conditions. (Assuming your spell checker missed "degrades" for "degrees")

It costs too much, is seriously bad PR, and a magnet for government intervention. They don't have to degrade others, they don't degrade others, and they never will. Charging more for better service is as American as Apple Pie. Remember, it's all one big happy network; the "competitors" all terminate each others customers and promise each other to do a good job of it.

Don't worry they will find away because that is their goal.
Still wearing your tinfoil hat, eh? Got any credible sources for that claim?


As for your comment to go look up Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. Maybe you should go look up the fact it only applies to telephone lines
Bzzzzzzzzzz - Wrong

...and Verizon and ATT are ripping up copper as fast as they can ...
Source? (you're wrong, of course) Verizon is putting in FIOS where they can. The existing copper stays put. For the sake of the rules, regulations, and laws there is no distinction between fiber and copper media. It's all available wholesale to the CLECS, voice or data.

...so it doesn't apply to them any more.
Yes, it does.

They're businesses, it matters to them. It's a very competitive business these days, especially since they must compete with people that are their best customers (the CLECs and other competitors, both (groups) of whom purchase huge blocks of bandwidth for resale against them).

I get the impression that you're one of those "misery loves company" kinda people. Give "Harrison Bergeron" (by Kurt Vonnegut) a read. It's your kinda story (one of my favorites, actually).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Look at item 4a.

Without QoS you can't have all these rich services. That's why this bill would kill the internet.

Oh good, here's spidey again pretending to be the number one authority on everything networks.

Rich services? How does throttling my throughput because the neighbor wants to watch a movie providing me with rich service? Sounds like lousy service to me.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: spidey07

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

Choice!?! What choice? In my area you can choose from one cable provider and one or two DSL providers (the second of which has to pass through the first). Far from being perfect competition, it's an oligopoly that is almost a monopoly.

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: spidey07

The mojority of broadband consumers have a choice. It's abolutely a free market. And a highly competitive one at that.

Choice!?! What choice? In my area you can choose from one cable provider and one or two DSL providers (the second of which has to pass through the first). Far from being perfect competition, it's an oligopoly that is almost a monopoly.

Same here. I live in a fair-sized city (Cleveland) and the best we can do is 6mbs down/768 up for $60/mo from TWC or 3mbs from AT&T. Its been this way for something like two years now. No chance for FiOS to come here, due to their noncompetitive agreements with AT&T, this is a U-verse area which is so far down the list I'll be a grandfather before I break 20mbps for $50/mo. Obviously there's a great deal of innovative competition when prices and services have stayed stagnant in one of the more rapidly moving industries. Funny how in the same time friends in Europe, NE, and other areas have moved to 50mbps connections or faster... Its a bloody oligopoly, just as spidey said.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Look at item 4a.

Without QoS you can't have all these rich services. That's why this bill would kill the internet.

Oh good, here's spidey again pretending to be the number one authority on everything networks.

Rich services? How does throttling my throughput because the neighbor wants to watch a movie providing me with rich service? Sounds like lousy service to me.

I'd think Spidey has some input on the situation considering what he does for a living.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Look at item 4a.

Without QoS you can't have all these rich services. That's why this bill would kill the internet.

Oh good, here's spidey again pretending to be the number one authority on everything networks.

Rich services? How does throttling my throughput because the neighbor wants to watch a movie providing me with rich service? Sounds like lousy service to me.

I don't think you get it yet. You don't get throttled.

voice and video have specific delay and jitter requirements to function. This is where qos comes in.

So if there is a choice on which queues to service on a link an intelligent decision is made on which packet to send. You do NOT get throttled, your packet just might have to wait an extra 100 nano seconds before it is transmitted, which for normal TCP activity is below statistical measurement in throughput.

In other words this delay does NOT affect the operation/throughput or state tables of TCP AT ALL! Meaning you can't even notice it. If this bill were to pass this kind of intelligence could not be allowed and you are left with a best effort network which is how it was in the early 90s. We DO NOT want to go back to that time.