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

[Fayd]

Then folks that don't will still be in best effort delivery and you'd have the same experience as you do today. This is all about making The Internet better, not worse.

or you could make the internet better by improving the infrastructure. but NOOOO, oh god, that might cut into your profits gathered from your lobbied for and government enforced monopolies.

 

[jackace]

Except for the fact that services like VoIP have narrow requirements compared to Bittorrent.

Do you want Bittorrent to be treated equally when it doesn't matter what order packets arrive or the latency of those packets when those are two issues that impact VoIP?

Like I said in an earlier post. I have no problem with ISPs using QoS for specific services like video or voice, but that is not what this topic is about. It's about companies buying QoS for their traffic on the internet.

 

[foghorn67]

I will not pay more than 20 dollars a month for internet. Period. I don't care if I'm on 1mbps DSL, if I need to pay a penny more, I will feel violated. This is before taxes and fees of course.

You also try to dick people around on CL. I hope you get reamed.

 

[spidey07]

Yes they will still get best effort delivery, but how will the metrics look for someone who is not paying for the QoS? Will they see increased latency, more packet loss, etc?



Even if the QoS traffic doesn't consume the entire egress queue it still effects (negatively) anything that is not prioritized with the same QoS. Slower downloads, higher latency, etc.

But that's how it is today. If queues start filling up then latency and drops go up exponentially. All the math is there, this isn't a new thing. If you want to get super technical then sure it could add latency of a few ms. If you just leave it as is then the typical tail drop behavior actually makes things much worse adding more latency and less throughput because you've missed multiple TCP segments and your window size goes to hell.

QoS is a great thing. It allows for reliable delivery of voice, video and data. We need to move forward and progress the Internet for a better experience for all.

 

[jackace]

But that's how it is today. If queues start filling up then latency and drops go up exponentially. All the math is there, this isn't a new thing. If you want to get super technical then sure it could add latency of a few ms. If you just leave it as is then the typical tail drop behavior actually makes things much worse adding more latency and less throughput because you've missed multiple TCP segments and your window size goes to hell.

QoS is a great thing. It allows for reliable delivery of voice, video and data. We need to move forward and progress the Internet for a better experience for all.

Like I said I'm fine with QoS being used for all voice, video and data needs independent of who sent the data. I'm against selling QoS to companies for their specific data. I just see too much room for it to be abused.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Like I said I'm fine with QoS being used for all voice, video and data needs independent of who sent the data. I'm against selling QoS to companies for their specific data. I just see too much room for it to be abused.

:beer:

 

[Modelworks]

Google is saying it isn't true.
The FCC has announced they are now going to make all the hearings public, no more back room deals. Which actually means they have already made all the important decisions, been paid off properly and now are ready to let the public hear enough to make them think the FCC cares about them.

Let the state utility commission regulate the last mile to my home and net neutrality is a non issue.

 

[Modelworks]

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.

SBC CEO in 2005:

How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

Laws do prevent them from discriminating against competitors but:

"But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it."

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I'm a little surprised that so many people are upset about this. As long as the QoS is implemented by service, and not company, this is a good news for the internet.

Notice how the people that are FOR this are all Network Engineers, and the people who are strongly against it have no idea what they are talking about?

Exactly.

If it's applied on a service level (i.e. VoIP gets higher priority then streaming video which gets higher priority then general web site traffic which is higher than downloads) and not on a company level (i.e. those who pay) I am all for it and it's a good thing for the internet.

 

[child of wonder]

Like I said I'm fine with QoS being used for all voice, video and data needs independent of who sent the data. I'm against selling QoS to companies for their specific data. I just see too much room for it to be abused.

This.

If we could all be trusted not to take advantage of each other there would be no need for laws.

But, we're greedy monkeys and we can't be trusted.

QoS is fine when it's agnostic to where the data is coming from. However, if companies are able to sell higher levels of QoS to service providers the internet as we know it will be replaced with the cable TV model we have today.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Not if implemented properly it won't. You're talking about queue starvation where one class consumes (starves) the egress (output) queue. You manage it properly so this doesn't happen. Also there will always be some capacity specifically reserved for best effort delivery traffic which is how it's delivered today.

As it is now, if you're talking about at or near capactiy then everybody's video experience sucks. QoS works best when there is actually congestion.

People need to realize how current QoS methods work.

The more advanced queuing methods have a low latency queue (for stuff like VoIP) that basically sends it asap out. Then, you have the non-low-latency queue for the rest of traffic. As an example of this queue, there is a high priority, normal priority, best effort, and scavenger classes of traffic. Each of these queues gets a percentage of the total bandwidth available. For example it might look something like this:

LLQ gets 10%
High priority gets 10%
Normal priority gets 30%
Best effort gets 30%
Scavenger gets 20%

So, no class can take over the entire routers bandwidth and each class gets bandwidth required. Usually there are 5-7 different queues, and to those who say "well they will get to 50 or more queues." Having more queues is not always beneficial, and once you start getting into double digits in number of queues there can be decreases in performance due to hardware limitations.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

or you could make the internet better by improving the infrastructure. but NOOOO, oh god, that might cut into your profits gathered from your lobbied for and government enforced monopolies.

You obviously have no idea on networking in the real world.

In the real world, adding more bandwidth does not solve all problems. Also, QoS can make significant improvements to the services without increasing bandwidth.

 

[shortylickens]

Providers are always looking for ways to charge more, now they will have an excuse.

And this will enable providers who aren't in bed with each other to be more competitive and offer better deals to customers.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

SBC CEO in 2005:



Laws do prevent them from discriminating against competitors but:

You don't think that if a ISP artificially introduced delay/jitter/whatever to make people pay for their service would be smacked down by the judicial system?

 

[jackace]

People need to realize how current QoS methods work.

The more advanced queuing methods have a low latency queue (for stuff like VoIP) that basically sends it asap out. Then, you have the non-low-latency queue for the rest of traffic. As an example of this queue, there is a high priority, normal priority, best effort, and scavenger classes of traffic. Each of these queues gets a percentage of the total bandwidth available. For example it might look something like this:

LLQ gets 10%
High priority gets 10%
Normal priority gets 30%
Best effort gets 30%
Scavenger gets 20%

So, no class can take over the entire routers bandwidth and each class gets bandwidth required. Usually there are 5-7 different queues, and to those who say "well they will get to 50 or more queues." Having more queues is not always beneficial, and once you start getting into double digits in number of queues there can be decreases in performance due to hardware limitations.

Exactly and what happens when an ISP starts selling QoS to so many corporations that the 10% allocated for those companies is not enough? Do they install more bandwidth or just take it from the other queues?

Like I said just too much room for abuse if they can sell it to individual companies.

 

[13Gigatons]

Sneaky lying bastards.

 

[techs]

Youtube this is Comcast. We decided to not accept your money to give you preference on our network. Instead, we are starting our own site ComTube.
Since this will pretty much put you out of business we are offering you a million dollars for your website. We know a million dollars is a small fraction of what is worth now, but in a few days it won't be worth sh*t.

Don't feel bad. We are taking over all the popular websites for a fraction of the true value. After all, we can kill off any website we want, so they will all have to sell to us for peanuts.

Have a nice day.

 

[spidey07]

Techs the FCC won't allow that and has proven time and time again they will stop any anticompetitive practices or slowing of competitors services. Put down the tinfoil hat and your hate of any corporartion.

 

[techs]

Techs the FCC won't allow that and has proven time and time again they will stop any anticompetitive practices or slowing of competitors services. Put down the tinfoil hat and your hate of any corporartion.

You failed to read the thread. THAT is exactly what Verizon wants to do.
Sigh. You do realize your total lack of legitimate arguments hurts your defense of internets companies?

 

[JJChicken]

You failed to read the thread. THAT is exactly what Verizon wants to do.
Sigh. You do realize your total lack of legitimate arguments hurts your defense of internets companies?

Problem is that he is saying that although google and verizon may be interested in anti-competitive behavior, the FCC will not let this happen.

 

[spidey07]

You failed to read the thread. THAT is exactly what Verizon wants to do.
Sigh. You do realize your total lack of legitimate arguments hurts your defense of internets companies?

What you need to realize is I know much, much, much more about this than you especially what the FCC has done and it's intent. There was the case of an ISP slowing down a competitor's voice over IP traffic because they wanted to sell more of their OWN VOIP service (which is EXACTLY what you are fearmongering about).

Guess what? The FCC smacked the ISP down and said you can't do that. THere were a couple of other cases as well where the FCC stepped in and prevented any such behavior you speak of or fear.

THAT is why no laws were needed regarding this net neutrality idea and why the original letter of intent was written. To outline the FCCs stance on it and why laws would be harmful to the advancement of the internet.

You simply have no idea of what you are talking about and your paranoia about the evil corporations is clouding your memory. Or you just don't want to learn.

 

[Modelworks]

You don't think that if a ISP artificially introduced delay/jitter/whatever to make people pay for their service would be smacked down by the judicial system?

The problem is you have to prove they are intentionally doing it. There are a number of ways of slowing down traffic that would appear completely normal. A provider could for instance have great service for their voip customers but have okay service for voip traffic that passes through their network. You can't prosecute them because they happened to spend more money on faster equipment for their services and less money for equipment that handles bandwidth for services they do not provide.

traffic entering network with service not from us---->okay router----->to desitnation
traffic entering network with our service---->high end router----->to destination

As long as they are not billing the service as faster if you use them and are not altering the packets nothing you can do. They are not filtering packets in that example , the content server is theirs from the start and they can choose where it enters the network. They just user faster lines and better equipment to connect it.

 

[James Bond]

Google and Verizon: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

 

[13Gigatons]

Damn it's even worst then expected. If they get this the internet won't exist anymore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:
1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.
3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)
4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.
If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

 

[spidey07]

Google and Verizon: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

Sounds really good and what I've been saying all along. This is about QoS, differentiated services or DiffServe for short. Notice how this covers all I want to offer you - lag free gaming, stutter free HD video conferencing, quality VoIP, etc. The proposal should shut up all the fear mongering right quick. Welcome to the future of The Internet. It's been done for a decade on private networks (MPLS), time for The Internet to advance.

This really is great news.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.