Google/Verizon. The end of the internet as we know it.

[spidey07]

So the diplomats being the minority users (Bittorrent) hog the road (Bandwith) and generate traffic for everyone?

Got it.

This isn't about bittorrent. It's about providing video with the kind of treatment it needs to be high-quality, no stuttering experience. Notice I said TREATMENT. This isn't about bandwidth or capacity, this is about having quality of service to provide quality voice, video and data over the Internet. It's the future, it's what the internet needs to be. You WANT this.

This isn't about prioritizing anybody's traffic over another. This is all about how packets are queued in routers. Your non-voice/video will still be the same experience and you'd likely not even notice the difference.

How would you like your gaming to be totally lag and jitter free.

 

[techs]

This isn't about bittorrent. It's about providing video with the kind of treatment it needs to be high-quality, no stuttering experience. Notice I said TREATMENT. This isn't about bandwidth or capacity, this is about having quality of service to provide quality voice, video and data over the Internet. It's the future, it's what the internet needs to be. You WANT this.

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

 

[Patranus]

This isn't about bittorrent. It's about providing video with the kind of treatment it needs to be high-quality, no stuttering experience. Notice I said TREATMENT. This isn't about bandwidth or capacity, this is about having quality of service to provide quality voice, video and data over the Internet. It's the future, it's what the internet needs to be. You WANT this.

I know exactly what it is and why it is necessary.

Anyone who has ever touched a network that handles VoIP and data knows the benefits of proper packet management.

 

[her209]

See sig.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

If this is truly QoS then it's a good thing.

By using different methods to prioritize traffic you create a much more efficient use of the available bandwidth. FIFO sucks. As much as you may not want to admit it, there IS traffic that is more important than other traffic.

Highways and autos work very well as analogies. There is a reason that some traffic is more important. For example, emergency services (can equate this to "real time" requirements like VoIP) has absolute priority. Then you have stuff that is ordered and takes turns. This is akin to auto "right of way" laws.

The point of QoS isn't to "slow down" traffic, but instead ensure that all traffic gets the bandwidth it needs. Obviously this can be abused, but provided it is done correctly (i.e. not slowing down non-preferred traffic) I don't have a problem with this.

 

[Phokus]

If this is truly QoS then it's a good thing.

By using different methods to prioritize traffic you create a much more efficient use of the available bandwidth. FIFO sucks. As much as you may not want to admit it, there IS traffic that is more important than other traffic.

Highways and autos work very well as analogies. There is a reason that some traffic is more important. For example, emergency services (can equate this to "real time" requirements like VoIP) has absolute priority. Then you have stuff that is ordered and takes turns. This is akin to auto "right of way" laws.

The point of QoS isn't to "slow down" traffic, but instead ensure that all traffic gets the bandwidth it needs. Obviously this can be abused, but provided it is done correctly (i.e. not slowing down non-preferred traffic) I don't have a problem with this.

Yeah but this sounds company specific... like Google's youtube gets priority but small video services like vimeo and metcafe would have to pay up or they wouldn't get the same priority.

 

[oogabooga]

The methodology seems to have the potential to improve the internet. The problem is I don't imagine that's how it would go.

Ahh, ok, that's different, though it does not really change my opinion at all.

KT

Would it if KT.net was 100% of your income and needed for your livelihood? (just curious)

 

[dwell]

Hi troll, how are you today? Has Jobs given you your troll food yet, or are you hungry which is why you're trolling?

How's Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin treating you?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Except he isn't wrong in theory. Provided the ISPs follow the theory, then he is absolutely correct.

Voice and video requires low latency and guarantees to ensure they meet their service requirements. In the case of voice (VoIP) a round trip time of 60 ms, low jitter, and low delay to be able to actually have a voice conversation. Streaming video is similar (although obviously not the same). Web traffic is not nearly as sensitive to delay and jitter type issues, and is able to work with looser QoS requirements. Bittorrent type traffic should be classified as the least important in a routers queue, because it doesn't matter if it takes 10 ms or 500 ms to get from one end to the other or if one packet arrives before another.

 

[techs]

Let's call it for what it is. The ISP's are now going to demand a cut from sites like Youtube. Which means content will either no longer be free, or will be forced to use other measures to raise money.

Only a complete moron would think that, in effect, giving the ISP's the right to demand money from websites won't eventually be paid by the user.

Bottom line. This means that using the internet will cost more, content will be limited and ISP's will gain a stranglehold over popular sites..

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Yeah but this sounds company specific... like Google's youtube gets priority but small video services like vimeo and metcafe would have to pay up or they wouldn't get the same priority.

Which is why I said if it is truly QoS it's a good thing. So, if the agreement is that all video services get put higher up in the queue, that is a good thing and I'm in favor of it. If the agreement is that Youtube and anybody who pays x $ for being higher in the queue, I'm against it.

How's Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin treating you?

Quite well actually. I haven't seen their company having police break down reporters doors lately. Nor have I seen them attempt to brick my phone because I rooted it.

 

[Anubis]

How's Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin treating you?

great now tell us why we cant upload to BBZZDD

 

[her209]

Except he isn't wrong in theory. Provided the ISPs follow the theory, then he is absolutely correct.

Voice and video requires low latency and guarantees to ensure they meet their service requirements. In the case of voice (VoIP) a round trip time of 60 ms, low jitter, and low delay to be able to actually have a voice conversation. Streaming video is similar (although obviously not the same). Web traffic is not nearly as sensitive to delay and jitter type issues, and is able to work with looser QoS requirements. Bittorrent type traffic should be classified as the least important in a routers queue, because it doesn't matter if it takes 10 ms or 500 ms to get from one end to the other or if one packet arrives before another.

An ISP that wants to provide services beyond Internet service...

:hmm:

 

[techs]

An ISP that wants to provide services beyond Internet service...

:hmm:

Let's see. First the cable companies, who are the largest ISP's want to buy networks like NBC. Then they want to charge websites for access.

I guess the next step is the ISP's wanting to provide telephone service via voip.

Oh, wait.....

 

[Cogman]

An ISP that wants to provide services beyond Internet service...

:hmm:

Well, traditionally they always have provided services beyond Internet. Most ISPs came from phone companies. A lot have come from cable companies. Very few have come from, nowhere.

It is starting to get to the point, though, where the difference between a cable company and a phone company is almost moot. Phone companies usually have a "cleaner" setup then cable companies do, but that is about it.

 

[Kev]

Which is why I said if it is truly QoS it's a good thing. So, if the agreement is that all video services get put higher up in the queue, that is a good thing and I'm in favor of it. If the agreement is that Youtube and anybody who pays x $ for being higher in the queue, I'm against it.

Why shouldn't video services have to pay to have their content more efficiently delivered? What would be the difference between that, vs. paying for newer/faster web servers?

As for the issue of websites charging for content. Take youtube for example. The ONLY way they will charge for content is if a business model supports it. Youtube is filled with 99% complete bullshit, and I'm willing to bet most people would not pay a subscription fee for it. Youtube will continue to generate revenue through ad sales and however else they currently make money. This would just allow their service to be delivered faster to the consumer, thus increasing their brand preference.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Why shouldn't video services have to pay to have their content more efficiently delivered? What would be the difference between that, vs. paying for newer/faster web servers?

As for the issue of websites charging for content. Take youtube for example. The ONLY way they will charge for content is if a business model supports it. Youtube is filled with 99% complete bullshit, and I'm willing to bet most people would not pay a subscription fee for it. Youtube will continue to generate revenue through ad sales and however else they currently make money. This would just allow their service to be delivered faster to the consumer, thus increasing their brand preference.

My problem is when it becomes favored to one service over another. All content that is at the same point of QoS (all VoIP, all video, all web, etc) gets treated fairly. In other words, no preferential treatment because one company can pay you $10 million while another can't pay that amount.

 

[fisheerman]

Yeah but this sounds company specific... like Google's youtube gets priority but small video services like vimeo and metcafe would have to pay up or they wouldn't get the same priority.

^this

If it was internet wide then ok but it is going to be who has the most dollars gets the premium bandwidth not by importance (ie the emergency vehicle analogy on the highway).
Understanding routers, bandwidth, and traffic there are things that can be done but this leads us down a path of premium content pay plans (a la cable TV via IP).

No thanks let the net stay neutral.

Let ISP's deal with bandwidth hogs the way they see fit.

fish

 

[fisheerman]

Why shouldn't video services have to pay to have their content more efficiently delivered? What would be the difference between that, vs. paying for newer/faster web servers?

As for the issue of websites charging for content. Take youtube for example. The ONLY way they will charge for content is if a business model supports it. Youtube is filled with 99% complete bullshit, and I'm willing to bet most people would not pay a subscription fee for it. Youtube will continue to generate revenue through ad sales and however else they currently make money. This would just allow their service to be delivered faster to the consumer, thus increasing their brand preference.

But if youtube was paying for the top quality bandwidth and was the only reliable game in town because of it it would become a virtual monopoly when it came to delivery performance then what would you say? The problem I have with all of this is it is going to give the companies with the most money the ability to squash internet innovation/competition by prioritizing traffic (specific content).

 

[KeithP]

from your article:

"However, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Verizon confirmed that it has been in ongoing talks with Google and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for 10 months."

This is a quote that more accurately describes the situation...

Google, however, has not denied being in discussions with Verizon and other Internet companies about net neutrality issues in general. Verizon also confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that it has been in ongoing talks with Google and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

There is nothing to see here, move along.

-KeithP

 

[techs]

Well, traditionally they always have provided services beyond Internet. Most ISPs came from phone companies. A lot have come from cable companies. Very few have come from, nowhere.

It is starting to get to the point, though, where the difference between a cable company and a phone company is almost moot. Phone companies usually have a "cleaner" setup then cable companies do, but that is about it.

No, traditionally cable companies have provided for only cable television.
Its only in the last, about 10 years, that they have added internet and voip.
And they do so with an unfair advantage of having a guaranteed, protected franchise for cable televison.

 

[Fayd]

nobody is going to trottle anything, stop the fear mongering people.

All it means is the ISP will mark youtube as video and as it makes it's way along the path the packets will be delivered in a constant stream instead of the start/stop you get with best effort delivery. It's not going to slow any other traffic down at all. It just has to do with how packets are ordered when a router routes them. This is a GOOD thing. You WANT this.

no it isn't, no i don't.

 

[spidey07]

no it isn't, no i don't.

If you want to stick with crappy voice quality, choppy video, no awesome HD video conferencing then you can have that ancient opinion.

I want flawless online gaming, high quality video and video conferencing, voice quality as clear as a bel all while I'm downloading a large filel. I want the future of The Internet. We (service providers) am going to move the Internet forward whether the customers understand the technology or not, it's what they want.

 

[Cogman]

No, traditionally cable companies have provided for only cable television.
Its only in the last, about 10 years, that they have added internet and voip.
And they do so with an unfair advantage of having a guaranteed, protected franchise for cable televison.

10 years is a long time in terms of the internet's life span.

 

[BeauJangles]

This is bullshit. Leave the internet alone.