McCain want to free "Teh Internets"

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

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

Yes. The FCC would not allow such a practice. They frown very heavily upon anti-competitive practices.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BriGy86

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

Yes. The FCC would not allow such a practice. They frown very heavily upon anti-competitive practices.

Wrong. As things are right now, any ISP is completely free to do everything shown in that video. Only with net neutrality laws that they are trying to implement now would that become illegal.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dguy6789


Wrong. As things are right now, any ISP is completely free to do everything shown in that video. Only with net neutrality laws that they are trying to implement now would that become illegal.

I don't think you understand is that the FCC has smacked down ANY provider when they attempted to do anything even remotely as sinister as what was described. Heck, didn't you just hear they forced AT&T to carry googles voice app/service? There is already governing principles the FCC uses for net neutality.

This whole thing is a total non-issue and only hurts the Internet. The FCC smacks down any provider with anti-competitive practices.

 

[spidey07]

What? You guys don't want your gaming and porn to run smoothly?

I want gaming to be put into a low drop precedence queue. I want video conferencing to be put into an expedited forwarding queue. I want and deserve the future of the internets. Keep in mind that QoS only applies when congestion occurs, and there is ALWAYS some congestion along each hop. That's why diffserv calls it Per Hop Behavior. Do you REALLY want to prevent this? Is this really what you want?

If you support net neutrality you are preventing The Internet from evolving into the voice, video and data networks it needs to be. If you support it you are damning all users. The Internet is mostly best effort today, and that's why your voice, video, gaming and webcam porn sucks.

 

[Pulsar]

Originally posted by: spidey07
What? You guys don't want your gaming and porn to run smoothly?

I want gaming to be put into a low drop precedence queue. I want video conferencing to be put into an expedited forwarding queue. I want and deserve the future of the internets. Keep in mind that QoS only applies when congestion occurs, and there is ALWAYS some congestion along each hop. That's why diffserv calls it Per Hop Behavior. Do you REALLY want to prevent this? Is this really what you want?

If you support net neutrality you are preventing The Internet from evolving into the voice, video and data networks it needs to be. If you support it you are damning all users. The Internet is mostly best effort today, and that's why your voice, video, gaming and webcam porn sucks.

You know, it's interesting. Right now, I can game pretty well over my mobile broadband, and I'm pretty happy with my service. I think the same can be said of most people.

Yet, you want to provide me "better" service, by prioritizing different things. That sounds good to me. But never, in the history of anything I've ever purchased, have I seen prices come down as a result of an action you're talking about. A gaming "motherboard"? Be prepared for a premium. A gaming "NIC"? Be prepared for a premium. A gaming "mouse"? Same. A gaming "laptop"? Same.

See, the thing is Spidey, I'm an engineer too. I look at what you say, and it makes perfect engineering sense. It also adds complexity. Hardware. Software. Support. Etc. Etc.

None of which is free to the company. Meaning, none of which is going to be free to me. At the same time, as you said, the providers are already starting to go to Docsis 3, which is another huge improvement. We can already stream TV video at good resolution. We can already play video games. We can already use voip without an issue.

So tell us what problem it is you're aiming to fix, and how it's not going to cost us any more than what we already have (which is more than sufficient in 99% of the cases). You can't. You know it. You're arguing from an engineer's perspective trying to fix a problem that, right now, isn't really a problem from an end user point of view.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Pulsar

None of which is free to the company. Meaning, none of which is going to be free to me. At the same time, as you said, the providers are already starting to go to Docsis 3, which is another huge improvement. We can already stream TV video at good resolution. We can already play video games. We can already use voip without an issue.

so buffering isn't an issue?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Pulsar

Originally posted by: spidey07
What? You guys don't want your gaming and porn to run smoothly?

I want gaming to be put into a low drop precedence queue. I want video conferencing to be put into an expedited forwarding queue. I want and deserve the future of the internets. Keep in mind that QoS only applies when congestion occurs, and there is ALWAYS some congestion along each hop. That's why diffserv calls it Per Hop Behavior. Do you REALLY want to prevent this? Is this really what you want?

If you support net neutrality you are preventing The Internet from evolving into the voice, video and data networks it needs to be. If you support it you are damning all users. The Internet is mostly best effort today, and that's why your voice, video, gaming and webcam porn sucks.

You know, it's interesting. Right now, I can game pretty well over my mobile broadband, and I'm pretty happy with my service. I think the same can be said of most people.

Yet, you want to provide me "better" service, by prioritizing different things. That sounds good to me. But never, in the history of anything I've ever purchased, have I seen prices come down as a result of an action you're talking about. A gaming "motherboard"? Be prepared for a premium. A gaming "NIC"? Be prepared for a premium. A gaming "mouse"? Same. A gaming "laptop"? Same.

See, the thing is Spidey, I'm an engineer too. I look at what you say, and it makes perfect engineering sense. It also adds complexity. Hardware. Software. Support. Etc. Etc.

None of which is free to the company. Meaning, none of which is going to be free to me. At the same time, as you said, the providers are already starting to go to Docsis 3, which is another huge improvement. We can already stream TV video at good resolution. We can already play video games. We can already use voip without an issue.

So tell us what problem it is you're aiming to fix, and how it's not going to cost us any more than what we already have (which is more than sufficient in 99% of the cases). You can't. You know it. You're arguing from an engineer's perspective trying to fix a problem that, right now, isn't really a problem from an end user point of view.

Which is only possible because of prioritizing traffic. Something complete neutrality can take away.

 

[jonks]

The Daily Show weighs in:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa...rom-here-to-neutrality

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
I'm betting you aren't allowed to run any kind of server at all. For many reasons.

I sure as hell can. I pay for a business line with 5 static ips. I can host whatever the fuck I want. If you want to host things, upgrade from a residential plan to a business plan.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
What? You guys don't want your gaming and porn to run smoothly?

I want gaming to be put into a low drop precedence queue. I want video conferencing to be put into an expedited forwarding queue. I want and deserve the future of the internets. Keep in mind that QoS only applies when congestion occurs, and there is ALWAYS some congestion along each hop. That's why diffserv calls it Per Hop Behavior. Do you REALLY want to prevent this? Is this really what you want?

If you support net neutrality you are preventing The Internet from evolving into the voice, video and data networks it needs to be. If you support it you are damning all users. The Internet is mostly best effort today, and that's why your voice, video, gaming and webcam porn sucks.

What the fuck are you talking about, i game heavily and have absolutely no issues with lag in North America. It's rare for me to get more than 50 ms lag and any dropped packets anywhere... most places i get 10-20 ms and no noticeable packet loss. Being on the east coast, i can even play on European game servers fine with few dropped packets and 100 ms (if i play on servers in England). And i don't even have FIOS. I don't need anymore improvements to QOS for gaming or any other real-time app. You're just making shit up.

 

[Phokus]

Oh and to put the nail in the coffin on QOS, and for spidey07 to finally shut the hell up about this because he has NO idea what he's talking about, here's what the chair of Internet2's QOS working group had to say.


http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html

Here's the summary:

This point raises a technical question: for it depends on whether you think Quality of Service guarantees are possible across a large public networks. Most agree that they work on smaller networks, but how about the entire internet? Among others, the Internet2 research group has argued that QoS systems don't work well on public networks -- Andy Oram has a great piece explaining the development in their thinking.

If we assume that QoS generally doesn't work on public networks but does work well on private networks then we reach a common conclusion: the neutrality principle's main exception needs to be for private networks. It may be better for the entire network's design to distinguish between what's generally public, and what's private, and treat each network differently.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...02/06/11/platform.html

Here's the more technical analysis of the summary:

In theory, it's awesome. In practice, RSVP has been declared viable only for small networks. According to Ben Teitelbaum, chair of the Internet2 QoS Working Group, recent protocol development on "aggregated RSVP" may overcome the objections that "it doesn't scale."

Still, his group has come to the conclusion that logistical, financial, and organizational barriers will block the way toward any bandwidth guarantees. Here are a few of the daunting problems, summarized from an article by Internet2 researchers Teitelbaum and Stanislav Shalunov:

*

Guaranteed service assumes that every router along the route supports the QoS protocols. As the RSVP RFC points out, non-RSVP nodes not only ignore QoS requests, but might reroute packets so they aren't using the reserved route at all. While the RFC considers this result tolerable, real guarantees would require huge numbers of ISPs to agree to deploy the protocols all at the same. The Internet does not work that way.
*

ISPs must cooperate in ways that help their competitors more than themselves. In other words, one ISP will be promising a premium service as a way to win customers, then asking competing ISPs to help meet that promise. Such help is not likely to be proffered until ISPs are run by the spiritual descendents of St. Francis of Assisi.
*

New, complex payment mechanisms would have to be put in place. Who pays whom along the route? How much more should QoS cost? What if users want the priority service to kick in only when the network gets congested? Moving from a flat, one-size-fits-all system to a tiered system is always a headache.
*

Complex monitoring systems will have to be put in place along the routes. How do customers know they're getting the throughput they paid for? (Subjective experience is a very poor indicator.) What kinds of penalties can be imposed on ISPs that cheat and get caught only once in a long while? And suppose the ISP cannot meet its promise due to a Denial of Service attack beyond its control?
*

Once ISPs start offering QoS, they have incentives to degrade standard service so as to nudge customers toward paying for the premium service.

In addition to these and other specific criticisms, the premise of premium service runs fundamentally counter to the architecture of the Internet. Consider this: traditional IP routing chooses the best route for each packet based on local considerations. In fact, this practice is the justification for breaking up data into packets in the first place.

As Teitelbaum puts it: "The best-effort service model allowed the Internet to become the fast, cheap, and global infrastructure that we know and love. The temptation to teach it new tricks--like offering circuit-like QoS assurances--is very real. Unfortunately, there is a huge risk that in doing so, we would undermine the very properties that have made the Internet so successful."

Reaching the realization that premium services were both impractical and philosophically undesirable, the Internet2 QoS working group made an astonishing turnaround. They officially announced they were halting all efforts on premium service -- turning their backs on years of impressive research and specification work. And then they demonstrated some true out-of-the-box thinking by looking for efficient bandwidth use in an entirely new direction.

 

[spidey07]

You so don't understand this issue at all. Off to google with you. I wasn't talking about RSVP, I was talking about diffserve per hop behaviors, that CAN be controlled withing a particular AS.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
You so don't understand this issue at all. Off to google with you. I wasn't talking about RSVP, I was talking about diffserve per hop behaviors, that CAN be controlled withing a particular AS.

Yeah, off to google with me:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/IP-...008/3/Diffserv-qos.htm

Answer
Achieving end-to-end qos is not an easy task and involves much more than just setting diffserv bits. Diffserv allows you to prioritize traffic on your network - but not where it leaves your network and goes on to someone elses (e.g. internet or a long haul carrier). The reason for that is that they may or may not choose to honor your diffserv values. Normally, you would have to agree that with them and pay a premium based on how much bandwidth of each priority level that you wish to contract for.

If the network is all under your own control, then you can use the diffserv bits but without understanding the topology of your network and the actual throughput of the links, it will not alone ensure QoS. Lets assume you have a link between to points that is rate limited to 300 Kbps due to the phsyics of the cable system / transport protocol you are using. Now lets imagine you want to guarantee a certain portion of that pipe for high priority traffic and throttle back other less important traffic. To do this effectively, your router needs to be able to do traffic shaping as well as set and honor diffserv bits. Traffic shaping allows you to set pre-defined data rates for each type of traffic. For example you can define 200 Kbps for voice and 100 Kbps for data. The router will then know if the data rates are coming close to their threasholds, that certain types of data have to be throttled right back if the limits are to stay within the contracted boundaries. If the router does not have that information, then all it can do is service those packets with the highest priority first without knowing if it is already overloading the pipe itself.

Are you specifically looking at information with regard to voice versus data or was it just a general question?

That bolded part has the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as described by RSVP

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_services

DiffServ as rationing

Hence, DiffServ is for most ISPs mainly a way of rationing customer network utilisation to allow greater overbooking of their capacity. A good example of this is the use of DiffServ tools to suppress or control peer-to-peer traffic, because of its ability to saturate customer links indefinitely, disrupting the ISP's business model which relies on 1%-10% link utilization for most online customers.

Yeah screw you spidey

 

[spidey07]

LOL!

You don't even know what a per-hop behavior is! LOL! Keep googling, you keep self owning it's hilarious!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

You don't even know what a per-hop behavior is! LOL! Keep googling, you keep self owning it's hilarious!

Explain it to me then, considering you're a lying sack of shit, i'm very interested in what you 'know'.

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that your argument on gaming is entirely bunk and full of shit. You're acting like we're using the internet from 1999. NOBODY has problem with network gaming these days (unless you have a really shitty last mile connection like dialup, and that's a separate thing). I've never had problems with intermediate hops.

 

[Phokus]

yeah, just as i thought, spidey, you're full of shit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...vices#Per-Hop_Behavior

One disadvantage is that the details of how individual routers deal with the type of service field is somewhat arbitrary, and it is difficult to predict end-to-end behaviour. This is complicated further if a packet crosses two or more DiffServ clouds before reaching its destination.

From a commercial viewpoint, this is a major flaw, as it means that it is impossible to sell different classes of end-to-end connectivity to end users, as one provider's Gold packet may be another's Bronze. Internet operators could fix this, by enforcing standardised policies across networks, but are not keen on adding new levels of complexity to their already complex peering agreements. One of the reasons for this is set out below.

 

[spidey07]

LOL! You don't even know what an AS is! Keep it up! Keep going! You can keep on googling and googling, posting stuff you read on the intarweb you you're showing a very fundamental lack in understanding of this issue. Blatant ignorance.

-edit-
And that's OK. I understand you don't know how the Internet works, it's a very difficult and complex system so don't have opinions on things you are ignorant about.

Now if you can explain to me how different PHBs and diffserv allow me to maintain consistent quality of service for my own AS (which could be as huge as AT&T or Comcast or L3) and the impact of that (as in dealing with inevitable congestion that is ALWAYs present) then maybe you'd know what you're talking about. For now, you're just google boy.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL! You don't even know what an AS is! Keep it up! Keep going! You can keep on googling and googling, posting stuff you read on the intarweb you you're showing a very fundamental lack in understanding of this issue. Blatant ignorance.

-edit-
And that's OK. I understand you don't know how the Internet works, it's a very difficult and complex system so don't have opinions on things you are ignorant about.

And i keep inviting you to explain it to us. Oh, you can't? That's because you're forever full of shit.

The only LOL, is that i called your bluff, and you fail to deliver... ***YET AGAIN***

Do me a favor then, edit the wiki page and contact the authors of those other links i have and set them straight. Oh you can't? then step the fuck off. Idiot.

Now if you can explain to me how different PHBs and diffserv allow me to maintain consistent quality of service for my own AS (which could be as huge as AT&T or Comcast or L3) and the impact of that (as in dealing with inevitable congestion that is ALWAYs present) then maybe you'd know what you're talking about. For now, you're just google boy

Since YOU'RE the expert, why don't YOU explain what that has to do with this:

From a commercial viewpoint, this is a major flaw, as it means that it is impossible to sell different classes of end-to-end connectivity to end users, as one provider's Gold packet may be another's Bronze.

 

[spidey07]

Still waiting on you to offer ANY knowledge other than what you've googled.

1) What is the affect of diffserv within a world wide AS? I've already explained what happens when you cross AS boundaries. Here's a clue - it allows that particular AS to deliver quality and consistent voice, video and data.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Still waiting on you to offer ANY knowledge other than what you've googled.

1) What is the affect of diffserv within a world wide AS? I've already explained what happens when you cross AS boundaries. Here's a clue - it allows that particular AS to deliver quality and consistent voice, video and data.

Still haven't answered this:

From a commercial viewpoint, this is a major flaw, as it means that it is impossible to sell different classes of end-to-end connectivity to end users, as one provider's Gold packet may be another's Bronze.

What happens when it goes over two different operators networks who don't agree. WOW, YOU CAN ENSURE THAT PACKET GOES TO SOMEONE ON THE SAME NETWORK WITH MINIMAL DELAY.

Do you even know how to fucking read?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Still waiting on you to offer ANY knowledge other than what you've googled.

1) What is the affect of diffserv within a world wide AS? I've already explained what happens when you cross AS boundaries. Here's a clue - it allows that particular AS to deliver quality and consistent voice, video and data.

Don't care about "That particular AS", tell me what happens across the whole internet. Oh wait, you can't, because, again, you're full of shit, and obfuscating.

 

[spidey07]

You're using wikipedia as a source, you simply do not understand the technology. That's OK, you just can't have an informed opinion about it. Peering arrangements do include QoS parameters, markings and mappings and trust boundaries, sometimes.

Can you not see that within my own AS I can offer this future of the internet and any problems you have are outside of my control? I'm just doing what is best for the customer.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
You're using wikipedia as a source, you simply do not understand the technology. That's OK, you just can't have an informed opinion about it.

I keep imploring you to explain it, but all you're doing is obfuscating.

I'm ASKING YOU, what happens BETWEEN the major network peers. Oh wait, you can't fucking answer that because you don't fucking know

And here's the non-wiki link i provided:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/IP-...008/3/Diffserv-qos.htm

Achieving end-to-end qos is not an easy task and involves much more than just setting diffserv bits. Diffserv allows you to prioritize traffic on your network - but not where it leaves your network and goes on to someone elses (e.g. internet or a long haul carrier). The reason for that is that they may or may not choose to honor your diffserv values. Normally, you would have to agree that with them and pay a premium based on how much bandwidth of each priority level that you wish to contract for.

Which is basically what the wiki entry said.

Still waiting for your answer and not "THAT PARTICULAR AS" bullshit, you're spewing.

I'm loving this, you're a fucking fraud. keep throwing out acronyms, as if that shows that you actually know anything.

 

[spidey07]

lol, you still can't explain it in your own words. It's like your brain just doesn't work ore something.

But damn you can copy/paste/google with the best of them.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
lol, you still can't explain it in your own words. It's like your brain just doesn't work ore something.

But damn you can copy/paste/google with the best of them.

Lol, you still can't fucking answer the question and need to stick with "THAT PARTICULAR AS".