Net Neutrality-Closing in

[Arcex]

How about instead of letting each company decide how much they want to charge someone to let SOMEONE ELSE view their site we just leave it alone? Is the current system so bad we need to let the telco's, which did such a GREAT job the last time we let them gain a monopoly (or any other kind of -opoly), change things to their advantage?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt this about traffic prioritization?
Do you think Johnnys counterstrike server he pays 60 bucks a month for should recieve the same traffic priorizitation as google or IP phone service?

It's primarily about stopping the progress of the Internet to provide next generation services like high quality voice, video and data.

If people are happy with their choppy, low quality audio and video then by all means net neutrality is for you. If you want a robust and rich High Definition Video Internet then you should staunchly disapprove of this bullcrap. Not to mention do you really want the gubment regulating the Internet?

Do you really want a few massive international corporations regulating the internet? How is that any better?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt this about traffic prioritization?
Do you think Johnnys counterstrike server he pays 60 bucks a month for should recieve the same traffic priorizitation as google or IP phone service?

As long as they're both paying for their bandwidth, yes. Why should Google get priority? Because they're bigger?

Yes and they provide a tangible service to millions of people.
afaik traffic priorizitation isnt all about bandwidth but latency and routing through the internet to a destination.

I see a couple of potential drawbacks with this act. It passes and the telco's starting charging johnny the going rate Google pays for bandwidth. Or the govt imposes a price control that kills the internet as low priority subscribers like johnny saturate the network with their low priority traffic.

Spidey07, correct me if I am wrong on my thinking.

Wow, I'm surprised at you Genx. I thought you were conservative, now I see you're just a Republican. Bigger is better. Might makes right. In that case, the government being bigger than any corporation is right, and we should just hand them the keys and let them drive. :roll:

If the cablecos and telcos want to decide on a packet by packet basis who gets to use their system and how, then maybe they should have to negotiate for easement rights on a property by property basis. Guess what, I want my easement back. They've got cables running under my front yard and I don't want them there anymore. If they want concessions from the public, then they can give something back. And what they give back is common carrier status. Start your reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

As far as Johnny saturating the network with his low priority traffic, how are his Counterstrike packets any less important than the American Idol packets flooding the internet?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Genx87 - you understand the drawbacks.

quality of service isn't just about bandwidth but providing reliable and consistent service levels for bandwidth, latency/delay and jitter (the variation in delay). Without that consistent service you cannot provide high quality voice and video.

But somehow Counterstrike packets aren't necessary and low latency isn't important to provide for games. Just the voice and video provided by massive corporations. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt this about traffic prioritization?
Do you think Johnnys counterstrike server he pays 60 bucks a month for should recieve the same traffic priorizitation as google or IP phone service?

As long as they're both paying for their bandwidth, yes. Why should Google get priority? Because they're bigger?

Yes and they provide a tangible service to millions of people.
afaik traffic priorizitation isnt all about bandwidth but latency and routing through the internet to a destination.

I see a couple of potential drawbacks with this act. It passes and the telco's starting charging johnny the going rate Google pays for bandwidth. Or the govt imposes a price control that kills the internet as low priority subscribers like johnny saturate the network with their low priority traffic.

Spidey07, correct me if I am wrong on my thinking.

Wow, I'm surprised at you Genx. I thought you were conservative, now I see you're just a Republican. Bigger is better. Might makes right. In that case, the government being bigger than any corporation is right, and we should just hand them the keys and let them drive. :roll:

If the cablecos and telcos want to decide on a packet by packet basis who gets to use their system and how, then maybe they should have to negotiate for easement rights on a property by property basis. Guess what, I want my easement back. They've got cables running under my front yard and I don't want them there anymore. If they want concessions from the public, then they can give something back. And what they give back is common carrier status. Start your reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

As far as Johnny saturating the network with his low priority traffic, how are his Counterstrike packets any less important than the American Idol packets flooding the internet?

Well looking at the situation I fail to see how the govt forcing an equal treatment on everybody is a republican or conservative way. If anything a conservative would want a more open market for business to be done. Not the govt telling companies they are forced to provide equal treatment for unequal pricing.

As for which one is more important? I guess it depends on who pays the most for that traffic. End users are shielded pretty good from the costs of bandwidth. They get a 40-60 dollar a month 3-8Mbit connection through their telco or cable company. Try getting a bonded T1 line from the same people to achieve 8Mbps and see what the costs are.

To me the big difference between a T1 and cable connection is quality of service. Yeah I can stream fast with cable but my latency is crap and my quality of service is as well. T1's are typically 99.999% uptime. Cable modems are, well we have a network outage in the area so hold on tight.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Genx87 - you understand the drawbacks.

quality of service isn't just about bandwidth but providing reliable and consistent service levels for bandwidth, latency/delay and jitter (the variation in delay). Without that consistent service you cannot provide high quality voice and video.

But somehow Counterstrike packets aren't necessary and low latency isn't important to provide for games. Just the voice and video provided by massive corporations. :roll:

The provider could offer better quality for games if it wants. It could even offer a competitive advantage to other providers by doing so.

However net neutrality would not allow this. Killing the Internet. Don't kill the Internet with net neutrality.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt this about traffic prioritization?
Do you think Johnnys counterstrike server he pays 60 bucks a month for should recieve the same traffic priorizitation as google or IP phone service?

As long as they're both paying for their bandwidth, yes. Why should Google get priority? Because they're bigger?

Yes and they provide a tangible service to millions of people.
afaik traffic priorizitation isnt all about bandwidth but latency and routing through the internet to a destination.

I see a couple of potential drawbacks with this act. It passes and the telco's starting charging johnny the going rate Google pays for bandwidth. Or the govt imposes a price control that kills the internet as low priority subscribers like johnny saturate the network with their low priority traffic.

Spidey07, correct me if I am wrong on my thinking.

Wow, I'm surprised at you Genx. I thought you were conservative, now I see you're just a Republican. Bigger is better. Might makes right. In that case, the government being bigger than any corporation is right, and we should just hand them the keys and let them drive. :roll:

If the cablecos and telcos want to decide on a packet by packet basis who gets to use their system and how, then maybe they should have to negotiate for easement rights on a property by property basis. Guess what, I want my easement back. They've got cables running under my front yard and I don't want them there anymore. If they want concessions from the public, then they can give something back. And what they give back is common carrier status. Start your reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

As far as Johnny saturating the network with his low priority traffic, how are his Counterstrike packets any less important than the American Idol packets flooding the internet?

Well looking at the situation I fail to see how the govt forcing an equal treatment on everybody is a republican or conservative way. If anything a conservative would want a more open market for business to be done. Not the govt telling companies they are forced to provide equal treatment for unequal pricing.

As for which one is more important? I guess it depends on who pays the most for that traffic. End users are shielded pretty good from the costs of bandwidth. They get a 40-60 dollar a month 3-8Mbit connection through their telco or cable company. Try getting a bonded T1 line from the same people to achieve 8Mbps and see what the costs are.

To me the big difference between a T1 and cable connection is quality of service. Yeah I can stream fast with cable but my latency is crap and my quality of service is as well. T1's are typically 99.999% uptime. Cable modems are, well we have a network outage in the area so hold on tight.

Keep spreading that miss information.

Network Neutrality has nothing to do with different costumers. Neutrality is with in a costumers bandwidth not between different costumers. All network neutrality prevents is the ISP prioritizing one provider of a service and not another that is it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Genx87 - you understand the drawbacks.

quality of service isn't just about bandwidth but providing reliable and consistent service levels for bandwidth, latency/delay and jitter (the variation in delay). Without that consistent service you cannot provide high quality voice and video.

But somehow Counterstrike packets aren't necessary and low latency isn't important to provide for games. Just the voice and video provided by massive corporations. :roll:

The provider could offer better quality for games if it wants. It could even offer a competitive advantage to other providers by doing so.

However net neutrality would not allow this. Killing the Internet. Don't kill the Internet with net neutrality.

No network neutrality would allow it but the better latency would have to be offered to all counter strike packets and not just packets going to a cable company owned server.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well looking at the situation I fail to see how the govt forcing an equal treatment on everybody is a republican or conservative way. If anything a conservative would want a more open market for business to be done. Not the govt telling companies they are forced to provide equal treatment for unequal pricing.

As for which one is more important? I guess it depends on who pays the most for that traffic. End users are shielded pretty good from the costs of bandwidth. They get a 40-60 dollar a month 3-8Mbit connection through their telco or cable company. Try getting a bonded T1 line from the same people to achieve 8Mbps and see what the costs are.

To me the big difference between a T1 and cable connection is quality of service. Yeah I can stream fast with cable but my latency is crap and my quality of service is as well. T1's are typically 99.999% uptime. Cable modems are, well we have a network outage in the area so hold on tight.

Do you honestly believe that allowing telcos and cablecos to set their rules for traffic prioritization will create a more open market? When the issue is bandwidth, the market is opened by creating more bandwidth. Not by charging more for the bandwidth that is already available. What will the incentive be to expand bandwidth? Just charge more to the big users, and choke out the small ones. That's anti-competition.

As for who pays more, ISPs already charge on numerous factors. Peak bandwidth, monthly traffic. If they're not satisfied with their pricing policies, then change it. But as long as I pay the same per gigabyte as a big company (or likely more than, because of economies of scale) then why should their packets take precedence? If somebody has more kids than you do yet lives in a smaller house, would you support trading homes? No, you'd call that socialism. So how is saying that Google is more important than Johnny just because he moves more packets any different?

Don't even bring up residential connections, they have nothing to do with the issue. Outside of P2P homes are generally downstream connections. We're talking about the fact that if Anandtech were hosted Sprints network (assuming, I don't know, my traceroute failed and I couldn't see where AT is hosted) users who were on AT&Ts network may or not be able to access Anandtech. Based on what the CEO of AT&T said that there's no "free ride", we could expect Anand to get a letter from AT&T stating that if he wanted his site to be reachable by anybody on AT&Ts network, he'd have to pay AT&T a fee. Talk about being double billed. Then add in the fact that he'd likely end up paying every other provider for access to their users, how are small businesses going to survive online? Hint: they're not. The small website will be a thing of the past, and the exchange of information will once again rest solely in the hands of megacorps.

So yeah, when I hear that AT&T wants to nickel and dime everybody when they're using my land for free, it gets me riled up.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Genx87 - you understand the drawbacks.

quality of service isn't just about bandwidth but providing reliable and consistent service levels for bandwidth, latency/delay and jitter (the variation in delay). Without that consistent service you cannot provide high quality voice and video.

But somehow Counterstrike packets aren't necessary and low latency isn't important to provide for games. Just the voice and video provided by massive corporations. :roll:

The provider could offer better quality for games if it wants. It could even offer a competitive advantage to other providers by doing so.

However net neutrality would not allow this. Killing the Internet. Don't kill the Internet with net neutrality.

Sure they could.

"Hey kid, nice packets. It'd be a shame if something happened to them. Just pay our monthly fee, and we'll make sure those packets make it across our network."

What you fail to mention is that as soon as those game packets leave the network where Johnny bought higher priority, they may land on a different network which lowers game priority. I guess Johnny should just cough up for that network too.

The beauty of the internet is that we're all peers. The vacation pictures served from Grandma's website are no different from the financial information being sent through a VPN from one megacorp to another. Net neutrality will not kill the internet, in fact it's quite the opposite. Forcing everyone to buy access to every possible end point will kill the internet. It'll no longer be a network of peers, it'll be a network where the deep pockets control access to everything.

 

[spidey07]

Net Neutrality cripples the Internet and IP communications as a whole by disallowing quality of service. No IPTV, no on demand HD video, none of that goodie goodie stuff.

If you support it you don't really understand the issues involved. The current legislation does not allow quality of service AT ALL. This is a VERY bad thing from a networks perspective.

Please don't fall for the scare tactics (that site is the worst) and read and undestand why this legislation is so dangerous and you do NOT want it passed.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Net Neutrality cripples the Internet and IP communications as a whole by disallowing quality of service. No IPTV, no on demand HD video, none of that goodie goodie stuff.

If you support it you don't really understand the issues involved. The current legislation does not allow quality of service AT ALL. This is a VERY bad thing from a networks perspective.

Please don't fall for the scare tactics (that site is the worst) and read and undestand why this legislation is so dangerous and you do NOT want it passed.

Net Neutrality does not prevent QoS. Saying it does is a lie.

Is it to much to ask to read the law before spreading your fud
http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/M...Net%20Neutrality%20Act%20of%202006.pdf

Yes, I know anti-net neutrality have introduced fake bills that they don't support.

 

[BoberFett]

I haven't read that site. I couldn't care less what it says. What I have read are the words out of the AT&T CEOs mouth, and I certainly don't want his vision being the future of the internet.

If companies want more bandwidth available for their content delivery (because obviously getting American Idol in HD over IP is paramount to the survival of the internet in your eyes) then let the backbone providers expand the bandwidth, and then sell that bandwidth to those providers. If they oversell their bandwidth and then can't live up to their own quality claims, that's nobody's fault but their own.

Please, don't fall for the poor megacorp sob stories and FUD tactics.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Net Neutrality cripples the Internet and IP communications as a whole by disallowing quality of service. No IPTV, no on demand HD video, none of that goodie goodie stuff.

If you support it you don't really understand the issues involved. The current legislation does not allow quality of service AT ALL. This is a VERY bad thing from a networks perspective.

Please don't fall for the scare tactics (that site is the worst) and read and undestand why this legislation is so dangerous and you do NOT want it passed.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Arcex]

There are a lot of ridiculously stupid things being said about this issue, I myself am very much in favor of network neutrality for the following reason: I was working at a phone company (don't ask which one) when the push to redesign the current internet service standards started to get going.

One day at lunch I got to spend an hour listening to one of the provisioning engineers expound on how the changes they were trying to make would increase profits for the telco's and eventually give AT&T back the monopoly that was taken away from them in 1984, albeit in a different format. He was very detailed and technical as to how it would kill off small service providers, domain hosting, and most website owners, far more than I could ever be.

This is all the reason I need, but most people here are quoting all kinds of half-truths and misinformation that is the root of the problem, so for the sake of the people who don't want to be lied to at least check out the Wikipedia section on net neutrality and the particular fight in the US to keep it before you repeat lies you have been told.


Research it before you quote it.

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

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

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Arcex
There are a lot of ridiculously stupid things being said about this issue, I myself am very much in favor of network neutrality for the following reason: I was working at a phone company (don't ask which one) when the push to redesign the current internet service standards started to get going.

One day at lunch I got to spend an hour listening to one of the provisioning engineers expound on how the changes they were trying to make would increase profits for the telco's and eventually give AT&T back the monopoly that was taken away from them in 1984, albeit in a different format. He was very detailed and technical as to how it would kill off small service providers, domain hosting, and most website owners, far more than I could ever be.

This is all the reason I need, but most people here are quoting all kinds of half-truths and misinformation that is the root of the problem, so for the sake of the people who don't want to be lied to at least check out the Wikipedia section on net neutrality and the particular fight in the US to keep it before you repeat lies you have been told.


Research it before you quote it.

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

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

The wikipedia articles are complete crap and are biased. I bet some one at AT&T is being paid to edit them

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Arcex
There are a lot of ridiculously stupid things being said about this issue, I myself am very much in favor of network neutrality for the following reason: I was working at a phone company (don't ask which one) when the push to redesign the current internet service standards started to get going.

One day at lunch I got to spend an hour listening to one of the provisioning engineers expound on how the changes they were trying to make would increase profits for the telco's and eventually give AT&T back the monopoly that was taken away from them in 1984, albeit in a different format. He was very detailed and technical as to how it would kill off small service providers, domain hosting, and most website owners, far more than I could ever be.

This is all the reason I need, but most people here are quoting all kinds of half-truths and misinformation that is the root of the problem, so for the sake of the people who don't want to be lied to at least check out the Wikipedia section on net neutrality and the particular fight in the US to keep it before you repeat lies you have been told.


Research it before you quote it.

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

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

The wikipedia articles are complete crap and are biased. I bet some one at AT&T is being paid to edit them

It's been shown that at&T and the rest are spending millions to dupe the public.

You can clearly see it works on the resident P&N Republicans quite easily.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Arcex
There are a lot of ridiculously stupid things being said about this issue, I myself am very much in favor of network neutrality for the following reason: I was working at a phone company (don't ask which one) when the push to redesign the current internet service standards started to get going.

One day at lunch I got to spend an hour listening to one of the provisioning engineers expound on how the changes they were trying to make would increase profits for the telco's and eventually give AT&T back the monopoly that was taken away from them in 1984, albeit in a different format. He was very detailed and technical as to how it would kill off small service providers, domain hosting, and most website owners, far more than I could ever be.

This is all the reason I need, but most people here are quoting all kinds of half-truths and misinformation that is the root of the problem, so for the sake of the people who don't want to be lied to at least check out the Wikipedia section on net neutrality and the particular fight in the US to keep it before you repeat lies you have been told.


Research it before you quote it.

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

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

The wikipedia articles are complete crap and are biased. I bet some one at AT&T is being paid to edit them

It's been shown that at&T and the rest are spending millions to dupe the public.
You can clearly see it works on the resident P&N Republicans quite easily.

Really? Where?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It's been shown that at&T and the rest are spending millions to dupe the public.
You can clearly see it works on the resident P&N Republicans quite easily.

Really? Where?

There were articles and links posted. If you didn't see them then you were hired later.