to extend the analogy, net neutrality would also mean slow and cheap transport(rail) as well as fast and expensive transport(air) would be stuck on those cloged roads as well as all traffic would have to be treated the same.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Completely related in 2 ways:
1) It shows spidey is a moron when it comes to the cost structure of computer networks.
2) It shows the cable companies have more than enough capital to increase their network capacity. The whole 'oh no, network neutrality will keep us from expanding' argument is total bs. TWC has increased their customer base while decreasing per subscriber costs and increased revenue. Spidey and the telecom monopolies are complete liars.
Phokus, here is a way (i believe if i understand this correctly) this bill harms competition and the future of the internet.
Say i was a small company about 5 years from now... I focus on the elderly as my demographic with an internet package for them... now, they dont need/want to go browse all these stupid ass blogs, forums, etc... all they want is email, skype, and news pages... I want to provide this to them for $10 a month in my "news and communications" package... because it is all they want... it is all i will allow them to view, news pages would be all US news sources, ap, google news, fox, msnbc, cnn etal... then some foreign sources say the BBC etc... and then access to skype and email... now, because of this bill... I CANT DO THIS... why? because the government says so...
why the fuck should what i posted above be illegal?
Say i was a small company about 5 years from now... I focus on the elderly as my demographic with an internet package for them... now, they dont need/want to go browse all these stupid ass blogs, forums, etc... all they want is email, skype, and news pages... I want to provide this to them for $10 a month in my "news and communications" package... because it is all they want... it is all i will allow them to view, news pages would be all US news sources, ap, google news, fox, msnbc, cnn etal... then some foreign sources say the BBC etc... and then access to skype and email... now, because of this bill... I CANT DO THIS... why? because the government says so...
why the fuck should what i posted above be illegal?
Cable MSOs are rapidly investing billions of dollars totally upgrading their entire network to move to docsis 3.0. So just stop it - they are always upgrading and investing, that's what pays me. You don't understand or can't comprehend how net neutrality would harm the Internet and provide poor service for voice and video. That's fine, you don't understand the issue, the definition of ignorance.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
You have absolutely no clue on cost of a last mile. From a carrier standpoint it is cheaper to buy a DS3 coast to coast then it is to deliver a DS1 to an end user. Spidey is 100% correct on this issue.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,626
- 35,384
- 136
A better analogy for describing abolishing net neutrality would be that traffic laws would be changed to force the average car driver to always have to pull off to the side of the road to let company owned cars pass. Company cars would have right of way at intersections. Traffic lights would go red for everybody else when a company car approached. Smooth sailing for company traffic, everybody else can rot. That is what the end of net neutrality means.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,626
- 35,384
- 136
The situation you described has nothing to do with net neutrality, absolutely nothing. You simply described offering a limited access package to end users.
I have a website. A few folks like to look at it, not many, but a few. I lose money on it but I don't care because I like having it. If net neutrality dies, it is highly likely that my site and many hobbyist sites like it and also samll business sites will also die. The load times will become intolerably long for folks visiting my site as bandwidth is reallocated to big spenders. Ad agencies will simply buy up bandwidth from the ISPs and squeeze out everyone else. The situation will be similar to what Standard Oil was able to do with railroad rebates. Net neutrality preserves the open freedom of the internet.
There is no net neutraility in place to abolish. So your entire premise is an assumption that isnt based in reality.
And with net neutrality you are trying to drive an average car to your average work but you're stuck forever in an insanely huge traffic jam because all the other cars are surfing porn and grabbing other music/movies from bittorrent and rapidshare.
This is what the beginning of net neutrality means.
But the more important question is, why do these debates always have to be one extreme versus the other? This is how dumb people create dumb solutions to win the hearts of dumb voters. The smart people create a middle-ground to protect most people's best interests.
unless cable companies and telecoms are allowed to screw it up, bandwidth isn't going to be an issue. this is an attempt to put the cat back in the bag, but it's much too late. crappy bandwidth controlling isps will go the way of print newspapers.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
The way I understand it, net neutrality wouldn't prevent an ISP from throttling a customer who was using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. Their network management would have to be protocol agnostic, though (they couldn't just throttle all BitTorrent traffic, for example, which is what Comcast tried to do a couple years back). And a lot of people bitch and moan about them, but reasonable bandwidth caps (something akin to Comcast's 250GB/mo) are another tool that should be available to ISPs to manage their networks, and last I knew, the FCC was fine with reasonable monthly caps as well.
What ISPs wouldn't be allowed to do is give priority to certain types of traffic. Let's say an ISP offers VoIP service, for example, and during network congestion, they slow down other VoIP services (such as Vonage) and give priority to their own VoIP traffic. Network neutrality would prevent this. The downside is that this would cause everyone's service to suffer, but this would also give ISPs incentive to increase their network capacity so they can provide good service to their own VoIP customers (and everyone's service would benefit from this). If they were able to just prioritize their own traffic, there's no incentive to increase network capacity and provide better service for Vonage customers, as long as they're keeping their own customers happy, it's not their problem.
Another member earlier summed it up pretty well. Companies who provide services over the internet tend to support net neutrality, because they want to be able to compete on a level playing field with everyone, including the ISPs. ISPs are against net neutrality because it would prevent them from managing their network in a way that gives them an advantage over competitors.
frostedflakes - the scenario you described regarding voice has been tried a few times and quickly stricken down by the FCC. You can't do that as it is anti-competitive.
The entire reason net neutrality is a bad idea is people equate real quality of service to "they're slowing down my internets!!!". That's not true at all. I and other network architects only want to advance The Internet to a single packetized network capable of delivering voice, video and data. That means we have to provide quality of service "QoS" in our queuing mechanisms and treat traffic differently. It doesn't mean we want to limit anything.
Folks not involved in the field think QoS is "priority queuing" which is a very ancient means of network management where certain applications or traffic is given top priority over all others. That's really old school, late 90s type technology.
The goal of the future of The Internet is to provide quality delivery of voice, video and data. Net Neutrality prevents this. Congestion will always happen, even if it is only for a few seconds, without some sort of QoS we can't provide the voice and video people want. No matter how much bandwidth you throw at it, congestion will always occur as all networks are over subscribed.
The entire reason net neutrality is a bad idea is people equate real quality of service to "they're slowing down my internets!!!". That's not true at all. I and other network architects only want to advance The Internet to a single packetized network capable of delivering voice, video and data. That means we have to provide quality of service "QoS" in our queuing mechanisms and treat traffic differently. It doesn't mean we want to limit anything.
Folks not involved in the field think QoS is "priority queuing" which is a very ancient means of network management where certain applications or traffic is given top priority over all others. That's really old school, late 90s type technology.
The goal of the future of The Internet is to provide quality delivery of voice, video and data. Net Neutrality prevents this. Congestion will always happen, even if it is only for a few seconds, without some sort of QoS we can't provide the voice and video people want. No matter how much bandwidth you throw at it, congestion will always occur as all networks are over subscribed.
We already have tiered internet pricing and it seems to work fine. If I want a 12Mb connection I pay more than a 6Mb connection. I think that's fair.
What net neutrality is supposed to prevent is Comcast dropping all my VOIP packets because I use Vonage and not Comcast's phone service. Essentially forcing me to buy comcasts product/service <- in that aspect I think net neutrality is just fine.
Maybe I'm misinformed, Is there a place in the bill that dolls out free internet connections for everyone or puts a cap on the price?
*EDIT*
here is what I'm going by. It gives an example of the VOIP issue using Vonage and Verizon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
What net neutrality is supposed to prevent is Comcast dropping all my VOIP packets because I use Vonage and not Comcast's phone service. Essentially forcing me to buy comcasts product/service <- in that aspect I think net neutrality is just fine.
Maybe I'm misinformed, Is there a place in the bill that dolls out free internet connections for everyone or puts a cap on the price?
*EDIT*
here is what I'm going by. It gives an example of the VOIP issue using Vonage and Verizon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
and the FCC can already prevent ISPs from doing that. they have to deliver the packets.
problem is, VOIP service isn't exceptionally awesome unless those packets get there in a specific order at specific time intervals. if all comcast is obligated to do, or allowed to do, the VOIP packets get lumped in with the torrent packets and the spam packets and the VOIP service is less than stellar. iirc, that can happen even if there is available network bandwidth.
the situation that people should be afraid of is if comcast uses packet shaping to give it's VOIP service the quality of service needed for really good VOIP service, but then either refuses to allow the same treatment for outside VOIP or charges ridiculous rates for QoS.
and VOIP isn't anywhere near as intensive as HD video.
the real issue (and this is an old one) is that the network providers are also content providers.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Could you maybe point me to an example? I wasn't aware that the FCC had dealt with that specific situation before.
Wouldn't net neutrality prevent against this "discrimination"? I would think equality in this aspect would be a good thing for consumers, and hardly a financial blow like what the ISP's and telecoms are saying.
Then again how much skin off their back is it to give HD video and VOIP traffic higher priority over web page and bit torrent downloads?
*EDIT*
I think I see what you meant. The italicized portion of your post is the bad part of implementing net neutrality the bold part is the good side of implementing net neutrality?
Net Neutrality says we can't do that, no quality of service, just crappy best effort delivery for everything. That's why you don't want this.
I suppose this is another case good intentions going horribly wrong. But hey the government has to be good at something right?
I don't subscribe to a VoiP or HD video service, why should my torrents, games & pr0n take a backseat to someone else's traffic?
Therein lies the problem, whoever gets to decide what traffic gets priority is obviously going to choose whatever is in their best interest. An ISP will undoubtedly choose their own services, or whoever pays them for the privilege.
Imagine the future of something as common-place as search engines, if Google pays your ISP to prioritize their traffic and searches at google.com load up in the usual 1.0 seconds while Bing takes 10+ seconds, you're probably going to search with Google regardless of your actual preference.
Since I'm unlikely to have any say in what gets priority I'd rather all traffic be equal.
Yeah right. These far fetched scenarios havent played out yet have they? What makes you think it will happen in the future?
I want to provide you the "Gamer option" at no extra charge. I'd mark your game packets Assured Forwarding with a precedence and low drop probability (AF41). What this would do is provide you extremely consistent gaming pings with very little jitter (variance in delay) and no packet loss. It's just a configuration setting so there wouldn't be any extra cost. It would be like gaming on a lan.
Net Neutrality prevents from from doing this as all traffic is just crappy best effort and you get whatever you get. laggy gaming, choppy video, poor voice quality. That's preventing us from advancing the internet and forces it to a dumb best effort delivery.
I even want to give you the "porn web cam" option that would provide reliable video conferencing, can't do that either.
Spidey07 has a valid point. The government may make it all best effort traffic.
I guess my only question now is; Do we have checks in place already that prevent the ISP's doing what is described in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter