You know, that would be a stronger argument if the government didn't regulate the internet already in so many ways. Most of us have very little choice for broadband service thanks to government regulations. If we're going to have a free market, let's have a free market. This is nothing more than supporting a "free market" in the ways that help businesses and rejecting the free market when it helps the little guys.
You know, that would be a stronger argument if the government didn't regulate the internet already in so many ways. Most of us have very little choice for broadband service thanks to government regulations. If we're going to have a free market, let's have a free market. This is nothing more than supporting a "free market" in the ways that help businesses and rejecting the free market when it helps the little guys.
Sigh.
If you guys only understood how the Internet (and network communications as a whole)works you would understand why this is a bad idea.
I believe many are making up hypothetical circumstances that already exist today.
Want better broadband? Build your own network and get customers.
But do read some to understand the issue rather than make stuff up.
If you guys only understood how the Internet (and network communications as a whole)works you would understand why this is a bad idea.
I believe many are making up hypothetical circumstances that already exist today.
Want better broadband? Build your own network and get customers.
But do read some to understand the issue rather than make stuff up.
"How the Internet works" is sort of a broad topic. How it works as a tool to help huge telcoms make billions of dollars is different than how it works as a tool to help the end users access virtually unlimited information is different than how it works as a tool to help spread new and different ideas.
In any case, I'm not sure you understand how it works in ANY of those senses. As far as I remember, you are a NOC guy. If I need a good explanation of BGP, I'll ask you, but the technical guys who run things often understand the LEAST about how it fits into the big picture.
Enlighten me...
Seriously, I realize YOU are being an obnoxious smartass, but that's not what I'm going for here at all. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the situation, but I could be wrong. And if I am, I'd like to hear why. Who knows, I might even change my mind...
From Wikipedia:
"Network neutrality is the notion that networks should not distort application traffic by delaying, dropping, or modifying packets. As a regulatory principle, it is also defined as the notion that all Internet traffic should have the same priority regardless of its application requirements. Alternative options allow ISPs to offer a different quality of service to application streams depending on contractual agreements. Technical limitations, such as different levels of Internet access bandwidth, physical locations of users and servers, and varying abilities of systems to present packets to the network, and laws of physics, prevent the implementation of network neutrality in a strict sense. Therefore, the goals of a neutral network policy are either to meet specific application needs as nearly as possible while providing equal service to applications with similar needs, or to require uniform behavior on the part of network applications."
How, exactly, does this deter innovation? If you ask me, not only does this not discourage innovation, it encourages it. It gives the little guy a chance. And what if you're starting a small business? How can you possibly compete with a large company that can afford to pay the bandwidth providers large sums of money for faster access? I, for one, would dump the slow one and use the fast one.
All I can see this bill doing is increasing the already big monopoly these companies have over our internet. You want to know why Korea, Japan, etc. all have 50 mbps +? Their internet is regulated by the governemnt, not the companies that provide it.
"Network neutrality is the notion that networks should not distort application traffic by delaying, dropping, or modifying packets. As a regulatory principle, it is also defined as the notion that all Internet traffic should have the same priority regardless of its application requirements. Alternative options allow ISPs to offer a different quality of service to application streams depending on contractual agreements. Technical limitations, such as different levels of Internet access bandwidth, physical locations of users and servers, and varying abilities of systems to present packets to the network, and laws of physics, prevent the implementation of network neutrality in a strict sense. Therefore, the goals of a neutral network policy are either to meet specific application needs as nearly as possible while providing equal service to applications with similar needs, or to require uniform behavior on the part of network applications."
How, exactly, does this deter innovation? If you ask me, not only does this not discourage innovation, it encourages it. It gives the little guy a chance. And what if you're starting a small business? How can you possibly compete with a large company that can afford to pay the bandwidth providers large sums of money for faster access? I, for one, would dump the slow one and use the fast one.
All I can see this bill doing is increasing the already big monopoly these companies have over our internet. You want to know why Korea, Japan, etc. all have 50 mbps +? Their internet is regulated by the governemnt, not the companies that provide it.
Rainsford, et all.
I have put much thought into this over the last few hours so let me explain my position briefly. You had mentioned that I'm a NOC guy. I'll give a quick background on what I do.
I consult with fortune 100/500 companies to merge their business and communications/security goals. Many of these clients include Tier 1 service providers, broadband providers and enterprise customers. My goal is to learn and assist with their business model and help them navigate the technological and regulatory landscape that lay before them. Although I do like to keep my technical skills sharp as referenced by the AT networking forum.
OK.
From my understanding the "net neutrality" concept is one that doesn't want preferrential treatment for different customers traffic in an end network or a strict transport one. That's where I don't understand the "it's gonna cost me more money" aspect. Free market will dictate what the customer wants and what can be provided/what the market will bear. Not to mention that treating different traffic flows/conversations is how a modern network is able to deliver services. It's like what ATM promised in the mid 90s, but now we have it at layer3. A truly unified network that offers voice, video, data services in a single cohesive network. Not a hodge-podge of separate networks that have their own cost of ownership and associated expense outlay. I believe current stats are 70% of any transport network is expense, not capital = running it.
But that's where my technical side comes in. The entire industry is moving towards (and is mostly there) of a carrier network being able to provide adequate service and charge accordingly. Think backbone here, not the edge that provides the service to homes.
The whole problem with the "don't prefer one over the other" is that it smacks in the face or current/good network design principles. You want to prefer some traffic over the other and provide certain guarantees of the level of service. We have moved to a new model in technology/transport, MPLS, to truly leverage a single packet based network to carry all services. The holy grail over any provider - lower total cost of ownership/operations = lower cost to customer = more customers = more revenue. This enables you to tier your services and manage capacity accordingly. Please understand that bandwidth is still epensive, mainly because of the capital outlay - they aren't giving the optics away (50K for one end of an OC-768 link, just the optics) nor the cost of running the fiber.
My main point is I would prefer less government mandation (is that even a word?) of what the free market and stiff competetion do. Think about it for a second. A multi-megabit connection to the internet in the year 2000 probably cost 2500-40K/month depending on the level of service you required. Now you can get it for 30-40. What drove that? Competition.
I'll end by saying I really can see both sides. And in some ways both sides are right. But IMHO, handicapping the development and augmentation of what we are seeing as the golden age of communications (a true, single network to deliver all services...the holy grail) isn't a good idea. However I can see how ownership could be abused and hopefully that is where the FCC steps in and does something about it.
I know I may seem like the bad guy in the P&N forum but I hope my post can shed some light.
I have put much thought into this over the last few hours so let me explain my position briefly. You had mentioned that I'm a NOC guy. I'll give a quick background on what I do.
I consult with fortune 100/500 companies to merge their business and communications/security goals. Many of these clients include Tier 1 service providers, broadband providers and enterprise customers. My goal is to learn and assist with their business model and help them navigate the technological and regulatory landscape that lay before them. Although I do like to keep my technical skills sharp as referenced by the AT networking forum.
OK.
From my understanding the "net neutrality" concept is one that doesn't want preferrential treatment for different customers traffic in an end network or a strict transport one. That's where I don't understand the "it's gonna cost me more money" aspect. Free market will dictate what the customer wants and what can be provided/what the market will bear. Not to mention that treating different traffic flows/conversations is how a modern network is able to deliver services. It's like what ATM promised in the mid 90s, but now we have it at layer3. A truly unified network that offers voice, video, data services in a single cohesive network. Not a hodge-podge of separate networks that have their own cost of ownership and associated expense outlay. I believe current stats are 70% of any transport network is expense, not capital = running it.
But that's where my technical side comes in. The entire industry is moving towards (and is mostly there) of a carrier network being able to provide adequate service and charge accordingly. Think backbone here, not the edge that provides the service to homes.
The whole problem with the "don't prefer one over the other" is that it smacks in the face or current/good network design principles. You want to prefer some traffic over the other and provide certain guarantees of the level of service. We have moved to a new model in technology/transport, MPLS, to truly leverage a single packet based network to carry all services. The holy grail over any provider - lower total cost of ownership/operations = lower cost to customer = more customers = more revenue. This enables you to tier your services and manage capacity accordingly. Please understand that bandwidth is still epensive, mainly because of the capital outlay - they aren't giving the optics away (50K for one end of an OC-768 link, just the optics) nor the cost of running the fiber.
My main point is I would prefer less government mandation (is that even a word?) of what the free market and stiff competetion do. Think about it for a second. A multi-megabit connection to the internet in the year 2000 probably cost 2500-40K/month depending on the level of service you required. Now you can get it for 30-40. What drove that? Competition.
I'll end by saying I really can see both sides. And in some ways both sides are right. But IMHO, handicapping the development and augmentation of what we are seeing as the golden age of communications (a true, single network to deliver all services...the holy grail) isn't a good idea. However I can see how ownership could be abused and hopefully that is where the FCC steps in and does something about it.
I know I may seem like the bad guy in the P&N forum but I hope my post can shed some light.
Spidey,
After reading your post (thank you for explaining your position more thuroughly, btw) I think I see where you're coming from. As far as I can figure, the argument of "we'll have to pay more" is referencing the people buying the bandwidth, not the end user. Of course, I could be wrong, they might mean it the other way 'round, which I would disagree with. However, assuming it's the former, I think they're right. It woud give large companies complete (or almost complete) freedom over how much they charge for their bandwidth. Companies like Google, Amazon, etc. get millions of visitors a day, ipso facto they will need to pay a pretty penny to keep their sites acessible at a fast speed, which is what users want.
I also agree with you that some traffic has preference over others. This has been illustrated by such products as Hawking's network booster, or whatever it's called. It sorts out different packets, giving priority to games, VoIP, etc. This is just for personal use though; it can be turned on/off by the user. If you give companies with monopolies over the market the right to be preferential, they can be bought off, if you will. I have no faith in the morals of the large telecommunications companies, and IMO they're not above a little (or big) scam.
Now, traffic such as emergency communication should obviously have priority over normal traffic, I don't argue that. So if there was a way to let them (emergency workers) have higher priority, go for it. I just don't see that happening.
I don't know nearly as much about networking as you do, but that's what I'm getting at.
After reading your post (thank you for explaining your position more thuroughly, btw) I think I see where you're coming from. As far as I can figure, the argument of "we'll have to pay more" is referencing the people buying the bandwidth, not the end user. Of course, I could be wrong, they might mean it the other way 'round, which I would disagree with. However, assuming it's the former, I think they're right. It woud give large companies complete (or almost complete) freedom over how much they charge for their bandwidth. Companies like Google, Amazon, etc. get millions of visitors a day, ipso facto they will need to pay a pretty penny to keep their sites acessible at a fast speed, which is what users want.
I also agree with you that some traffic has preference over others. This has been illustrated by such products as Hawking's network booster, or whatever it's called. It sorts out different packets, giving priority to games, VoIP, etc. This is just for personal use though; it can be turned on/off by the user. If you give companies with monopolies over the market the right to be preferential, they can be bought off, if you will. I have no faith in the morals of the large telecommunications companies, and IMO they're not above a little (or big) scam.
Now, traffic such as emergency communication should obviously have priority over normal traffic, I don't argue that. So if there was a way to let them (emergency workers) have higher priority, go for it. I just don't see that happening.
I don't know nearly as much about networking as you do, but that's what I'm getting at.
You don't seem like a bad guy, you seem like a guy I disagree with a lot...which is a good thing, that's how you learn stuff
Forgive me if I don't respond to the rest of your post right away, I really want to put some thought into my own reply.
It has shed some light, and I somewhat understand the other side of the argument now. I agree with you that innovation of service providers should not be stifled, and maybe this net neutrality bill is too vague in that regard.
What I'm afraid of is what we've been espousing, and you understand this so I don't have to repeat it. The voting down of this bill, I'm also afraid, will look as an endorsement for the cable companies to do whatever they want. Deregulation isn't always a good thing: look at the California energy system after Enron got done with it. I just don't trust the big service providers to hold the interests of the consumer in a high regard, since there are only about 2 or 3 major service providers in the US. I'm talking about AT&T and Time Warner, and Verizon, if none are owned by each other. They could form some kind of collusion where doing exactly what we feared will become the status quo, and no one will be able to do anything about it.
So maybe this bill isn't the right one. But that doesn't mean we scrap the idea altogether. We need protections against this sort of thing, as huge companies aren't known for being trustworthy.
It seems to me the only relevant question should be,
'Is access to the internet a utility?'
Telcos are certainly localized monopolies like water & electricity providers. Are those regulated?
'Is access to the internet a utility?'
Telcos are certainly localized monopolies like water & electricity providers. Are those regulated?
I can see how you might have a point when it comes to things like providing VOIP a different level of access than HTTP because of the various requirements of different types of traffic all sharing the same IP network. But I don't think that's what the debate here is about...I think the concern is really that it will become a business decision, not a technical one. In other words, a backbone provider can make a deal with MSN to slow down access to Google and speed up MSN access (or the other way around). This obviously doesn't help consumers very much, as they have fewer choices, and it certainly doesn't help the businesses on the other end, as they are going to be caught in a bidding war for equal access.
However, I agree that the net neutrality bill might be doing a little more than preventing tiered service from becoming what some people fear it will be, but I'm also not sure what a good balance point is. I think I'd be more for a free market if the market was a lot more free overall, not just in certain instances. You say it's not a matter of edge providers, but in some sense it is. After all, the edge providers will be the ones passing on customer dissatisfaction if backbone providers abuse tiered service...but why would the edge providers do this if customers have no way to show their displeasure? If I want decent broadband, I have ONE choice in my community...and that's true in most areas. Verizon is thankfully starting to roll out a fiber network in my area, but that is a very rare thing in most of the country. If we had more of a free market overall, I'd certainly agree with you. But now I kind of feel like we're dealing with Microsoft, not a free market system. We're in a position, IMHO, where the service providers (backbone and edge) have too much control, and the consumers have too little. Until that changes, I'm not sure how much I like the idea of allowing them even more free reign.
Here is the technical part I don't really understand though, isn't access already tiered for the most part? Obviously it is on the edge, but my understanding is that it's segmented on the backbone as well...you pay more, you're going to get more of the overall pipe. And while I can see the technical argument of further tiering for certain types of traffic (like VOIP over non-time critical packets), I'm not sure I see the same kind of argument applying to traffic from certain companies...the end result most people suggest will happen if net neutrality is killed.
Yep, free speech is the reason this rejection was paid for by those who lobbied for it. The internet has become too fertile a ground from which to get real news other than the bullsheit provided by mainstream media. It's power has been noted, and it must be stopped.
You people who are arguing against this for economic reasons are totally missing the point, and just too ignorant to see what's happening around you. It's just another step in your future police state nightmare. Enjoy your boxcar, dumbass!
You really have no clue about the broadband business, do you? You may consult businesses about the nitty-gritty of the networking, but you obviously don't know much about how cable and phone companies work. Almost everywhere broadband is a regulated monopoly, and you can't just lay your own cable even if you had new houses where to run it to. In a town where the cable company owns all the cable and the bandwidth, where will you "Build your own network and get customers"? Lay cable parallel to the already existing one? The lawyers for the cable company and the cops will be at your door before you can say cable.
skooma
Senior member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 635
- 28
- 91
How encouraging. This is what you do for a living and yet your opinion is based on nothing more than a a few hours of contemplation? I'd think an industry insider such as yourself would have been poring over the details of these bills and their implications for months now. You sound as if you just heard of net nuetrality
Your posts clearly show you are incompetent in whatever Broadband related job you claim to be in.
Simply look in my Internet thread for many folks around the Country that tried to start their own broadband service and they were quickly and quite soundly shot down by the likes of Companaies like BellSouth and Comcast.
I suspect you work for one of the giant Government endorsed Monopolies and the real reason why you are quite happy with this further destruction of the U.S.
Has anybody even read Spidey's full post? He explains his position very well, and has some good arguments to think over. It seems to me most of it was just miscommunication. And on a side note, I went and read (most) of the bill, and it's a lot trickier than some of you think. It doesn't just say "Big companies can now charge for faster access". Text
The Republicans could fvck up a wet dream. There is not a single thing that they can not fvck up.
This is what happens when you give corrupt, greedy bastards control of all 3 branches of the US government.
This is what happens when you give corrupt, greedy bastards control of all 3 branches of the US government.
Please take off your corporate hat and put on your citizen's hat. What you said reeks of the same corporate BS that gets fed to employees like yourself.
No, it's not their network. It's mine. My tax dollars paid for it in incentives and kickbacks for rural broadband deployment buildout. In every state in the nation, telcos have fallen far short of what they've promised. Illinois was promised fiber to every home, 100Mbs synch. Now, they're saying it can't be done, and won't be cheap. Japan, meanwhile, has 40Mbs synch for $40 a month.
Think this won't affect you? Here's a list of what's *already* happened:
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
Telcos have monopolies because munipal governments intended them to provide universal service, at affordable rates, at substantial speeds. If they'd kept up their end of the bargain, we wouldn't have dropped from #1 to #16 in broadband deployment.
Handing them the ability to filter content is insane. They have already shown (read the list above) that they'll happily censor content that they don't like. If Bobby Rush is bought and paid for by SBC, does this mean anyone running against him in the next election will have the general public locked out of their website, unable to call their telephone numbers, and unable to view content critical of Rush? This is what we're allowing.
I read your longer post, and it explains things somewhat better, but I think your problem is that you are too familiar with the technology. You're thinking packet prioritization. This is more about control, and filtering. If ISPs are already abusing their position to stifle competition, then in an arena of government mandated monopolies this will allow ISPs to completely control what we access through their pipes.
It's like a road. You paid for your road (if you paid your taxes, property taxes, etc). The mayor doesn't come out and fill out the cracks in it...he hires a contractor to provide that service. Sometimes, those contractors have exclusive contracts, and operate in a monopoly situation.
Do you think it would be fair for the cops to show up at your door and say hey, you can't visit Store A or Community Organization B because Corporation C just bought access rights for the road, and wants all of your traffic, whether you like going to Corporation C or not? Should be able to pay the contractor, or the mayor, to make this happen?
Simplistic analogy, obviously, but a fair one, I think. Publicly mandated monopolies should not be under corporate control. The spirit of innovation that made the internet an incredibly egalitarian field for successful, creative enterprise will die with this.
Dave.
The list I posted was taken from here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat
...forgot to credit it, and lots of good reading material on that page if you're wondering why / how this could affect you.
Dave.
...forgot to credit it, and lots of good reading material on that page if you're wondering why / how this could affect you.
Dave.
A lot of us on ATOT play video games and/or watch streaming movies.
In the future, it may be possible to for an ISP to have a "gamer" network or a video network that lies on top of their normal broadband WWW layer. If you AND your game provider (or video provider) do not pay the special rate, you will NOT get useable service.
The problem becomes that blizzard will in the future have to negotiate with dozens (or at least 5+) major ISPs to make sure they get "premium" speed service to their customers. If negotiations fail for any reason, millions of consumers in say... Virginia ... might not be able to play World of Warcraft II (for example).
In contrast, the internet today works for EVERY CONSUMER and EVERY CONTENT PROVIDER regardless of if they signed up for the special network (assuming they have big enough pipes).
In the future, it may be possible to for an ISP to have a "gamer" network or a video network that lies on top of their normal broadband WWW layer. If you AND your game provider (or video provider) do not pay the special rate, you will NOT get useable service.
The problem becomes that blizzard will in the future have to negotiate with dozens (or at least 5+) major ISPs to make sure they get "premium" speed service to their customers. If negotiations fail for any reason, millions of consumers in say... Virginia ... might not be able to play World of Warcraft II (for example).
In contrast, the internet today works for EVERY CONSUMER and EVERY CONTENT PROVIDER regardless of if they signed up for the special network (assuming they have big enough pipes).
Puffnstuff
Lifer
- Mar 9, 2005
- 16,255
- 4,928
- 136
Well where I live the only broadband access I have is via my cable company and there is only one servicing my area. I have no choice so if I want broadband I have to use my cable company. They knowing this have continuously increased the cost because they have no competition. Each time a bill tries to even the playing field and allow for more providers to access potential customers it gets shot down so the monopolies can continue to dominate their current markets. I would like to know how this particular bill will help consumers who are already under the domination of a single provider. If I had a choice in providers I would exercise it but I don't.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter