Net Neutrality

[Tom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't think you understand how the internet works.

I am very familiar with the way the Internet works. If you like I can explain it to you.

Please provide an example of why providers shouldn't use quality of service to deliver enhanced services such as voice, video and data?

-edit-
you see the Internet is a series of tubes....

bad joke, but good analogy.

If you think Google can switch to a different carrier to avoid tiered content provider fees, and that will allow them to reach everyone on the internet at the same speed as a preferred content provider, then you don't know how the internet works.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Tom
If you think Google can switch to a different carrier to avoid tiered content provider fees, and that will allow them to reach everyone on the internet at the same speed as a preferred content provider, then you don't know how the internet works.

How in the world would that EVER happen. What would be the motive of a carrier to do so?

Peering arrangements are agreed upon for mutual benefit. If a provider started doing this crap they would find themselves with decreased reachability and service and an eventual loss of customers.

See what I'm saying?

And even if they tried it the FCC would lay the smack down on them so fast their head would spin. Network Neutrality and the entire concept will force the Internet to stall technologically and is the worst idea to ever come about. Stop the madness and misinformation.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
If you think Google can switch to a different carrier to avoid tiered content provider fees, and that will allow them to reach everyone on the internet at the same speed as a preferred content provider, then you don't know how the internet works.

How in the world would that EVER happen. What would be the motive of a carrier to do so?

Peering arrangements are agreed upon for mutual benefit. If a provider started doing this crap they would find themselves with decreased reachability and service and an eventual loss of customers.

See what I'm saying?

And even if they tried it the FCC would lay the smack down on them so fast their head would spin. Network Neutrality and the entire concept will force the Internet to stall technologically and is the worst idea to ever come about. Stop the madness and misinformation.

Suppose ATT decides to start their own Youtube like service. Call it ATTvideo. Then they go to Youtube and say, if you want the same access to the 40,000,000 ATT customers that ATTvideo has, you have to pay us a fee, or we will slow down access to Youtube for all of our customers.

As I already told you, the FCC chairman thinks this is a GREAT IDEA. So does Jim Talent and the Republican Congess.

And ATT has already said they are going to do it.

I agree with you it would be stupid for ATT to do this, but what ATT does isn't up to you and me, UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING TO STOP THEM, by keeping access to the internet free and open, which is the whole point of the position you are against.

Look at cable tv. The same people who destroyed the promise of diversity that 100s of cable channels would deliver, and instead bring us 100s of channels almost all produced and owned by a handful of super-sized corportations, with 20 minutes of commercials an hour, not to mention dozens of channels that are 100% commercials.

That is how the cable companies and phone companies envision the internet. And you are all for it.

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: M00T
You neglected my earlier post. The telcos will do it, and have done it in Norway already.

The big telcos have the money to do whatever the fvck they want. The "scare tactic" is necesary. People have to be amassed, and fear is a good way to do it.

What in the world does Norway have to do with the FCC and us laws? Why do people have to be amassed? Why do you want to stop the progression of the internet with the BS? Do you really want to be stuck in the "best effort" delivery days of choppy video and laggy games?

Ok, please inform all of us about the following:

1. How does net neutrality stall progression?
2. How is "best effort" defined in today's delivery?
3. How will gauranteed priority be created for services such as gaming/video/voice between different providers without reducing the speeds of other "nonpriority" services?

I'm not a net neutrality blow hard, but if you can provide some information which dispells all the potential fixes it could bring or harm it could prevent... I'll take your side.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: M00T
Ok, please infrom all of us about the following:

1. How does net neutrality stall progression?
by not allowing preferential treatment (which is in use today on all routers of the internet, specifcally control plane protocols) for traffic it totally halts the advancement of offering advanced services like voice and video.
2. How is "best effort" defined in today's delivery?
best effort is a quality of service class that says "i will forward this packet provided I have resources available." If the provider doesn't have the resources/bandwidth then they will of course upgrade. If they already own the fiber (which they do) it isn't all that difficult to add another link. But of course these upgrades are already planned for.
3. How will gauranteed priority be created for services such as gaming/video/voice between different providers without reducing the speeds of other "nonpriority" services?
If you remain on that provider they can for sure provide you guaranteed low latency and jitter. In the future peering agreements can agree to listen to diffserv (qos) markings or by RSVP. Of course net neutrality would completely kill this kind of service that customers want. That's how QoS works, there is always a best effort class of service. Good network architects/traffic planners take this into consideration and build/provision accordingly.

You can't guarantee the service required for voice/video by throwing bandwidth at it. You MUST have quality of service. Net Neutrality seeks to destroy the progression of the Internet.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: M00T
Ok, please infrom all of us about the following:

1. How does net neutrality stall progression?
by not allowing preferential treatment (which is in use today on all routers of the internet, specifcally control plane protocols) for traffic it totally halts the advancement of offering advanced services like voice and video.
2. How is "best effort" defined in today's delivery?
best effort is a quality of service class that says "i will forward this packet provided I have resources available." If the provider doesn't have the resources/bandwidth then they will of course upgrade. If they already own the fiber (which they do) it isn't all that difficult to add another link. But of course these upgrades are already planned for.
3. How will gauranteed priority be created for services such as gaming/video/voice between different providers without reducing the speeds of other "nonpriority" services?
If you remain on that provider they can for sure provide you guaranteed low latency and jitter. In the future peering agreements can agree to listen to diffserv (qos) markings or by RSVP. Of course net neutrality would completely kill this kind of service that customers want. That's how QoS works, there is always a best effort class of service. Good network architects/traffic planners take this into consideration and build/provision accordingly.

You can't guarantee the service required for voice/video by throwing bandwidth at it. You MUST have quality of service. Net Neutrality seeks to destroy the progression of the Internet.

You can have all the QoS levels you want with net neutrality if all content of the same type gets the same QoS level. So the ISP would be neutrally when it comes to the content. That is all anyone for net neutrality wants. I know your side likes to make stuff up about net neutrality.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down
You can have all the QoS levels you want with net neutrality if all content of the same type gets the same QoS level. So the ISP would be neutrally when it comes to the content. That is all anyone for net neutrality wants. I know your side likes to make stuff up about net neutrality.

No it does not. Did you read the legislation?

And just what is "my side"? The one that understands how the Internet works or the one that screams "sky is falling conspiracy!!!!one"

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: M00T
Ok, please infrom all of us about the following:

1. How does net neutrality stall progression?
by not allowing preferential treatment (which is in use today on all routers of the internet, specifcally control plane protocols) for traffic it totally halts the advancement of offering advanced services like voice and video.
2. How is "best effort" defined in today's delivery?
best effort is a quality of service class that says "i will forward this packet provided I have resources available." If the provider doesn't have the resources/bandwidth then they will of course upgrade. If they already own the fiber (which they do) it isn't all that difficult to add another link. But of course these upgrades are already planned for.
3. How will gauranteed priority be created for services such as gaming/video/voice between different providers without reducing the speeds of other "nonpriority" services?
If you remain on that provider they can for sure provide you guaranteed low latency and jitter. In the future peering agreements can agree to listen to diffserv (qos) markings or by RSVP. Of course net neutrality would completely kill this kind of service that customers want. That's how QoS works, there is always a best effort class of service. Good network architects/traffic planners take this into consideration and build/provision accordingly.

You can't guarantee the service required for voice/video by throwing bandwidth at it. You MUST have quality of service. Net Neutrality seeks to destroy the progression of the Internet.

You can have all the QoS levels you want with net neutrality if all content of the same type gets the same QoS level. So the ISP would be neutrally when it comes to the content. That is all anyone for net neutrality wants. I know your side likes to make stuff up about net neutrality.

Its all GWB `s fault....

 

[yllus]

Wikipedia:

In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed a willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service.

While it is often thought that the FCC fined Madison River Communications following the investigation, it did not. The investigation was closed before any formal factual or legal finding. Instead, there was a settlement in which the company agreed to stop discriminating against voice over IP traffic and to make a $15,000 payment to the US Treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its inquiry.

Since the FCC did not formally establish that Madison River Communications violated laws and regulation, the Madison River settlement does not create a precedent. Nevertheless, the FCC's action established that it would not sit idly by if other US operators discriminated against voice over IP traffic.

Also, and this is important:

Net neutrality in the common carrier sense has been instantiated into law in many countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Japan, but none of these countries bans tiered service plans as American regulations would. In Japan, for example, the nation's largest phone company, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, operates a service called Flet's Square over their FTTH high speed internet connections that serves video on demand at speeds and levels of service higher than generic internet traffic.

Tiering is good sense for everyone, except for those extreme bandwidth users like Google or Amazon.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm inclined to see Talent working in Missouri in 2007. But suffice it to say, his staff (that wrote the letter) seem well informed and quite reasonable. The big question is to whether the FCC/FTC can be trusted to act in the public interest. The FCC has been sketchy at best since 2002.

the one time any ISP began noticeably slowing down packets of competitors the FCC slapped them down hard




seeing as how politicians probably don't know how to do much more than check their email, and that their aids probably aren't much more computer savvy (being gov't or public policy majors), i really don't trust them to do a network engineer's job.

The FCC of Janet Jackson's boob or media ownership . . . maybe.

 

[Aisengard]

So, don't sites already pay for bandwidth? Now they'll also have to pay additionally to get on the 'premium highway'? That's bull.

That's what happened in Norway. And WITHOUT LEGISTLATION ON INTERNET PROVIDERS (note, that does not = the internet for dullards like spidey) that's what will happen here. The status quo has been, can, and will be changed by the 2 or 3 major service providers in the USA via collusion. If you think different then you really pulled the wool over your eyes.

How about this. Sites are not allowed whatsoever to be charged more than what they already pay in bandwidth. To optimize your service, you can create these 'tiers' to stream video and the like faster. But an FCC regulator will oversee your business to make sure you do not unfairly shut out any sites that, say, don't 'donate' a lot of money to you.

That's what a network neutrality bill should be, in essence. Oversight of Internet service providers. (AGAIN, ISPs do NOT = the World Wide Web. Anyone who tries to tell you this is full of it. ISPs are the businesses that provide the gateway to sites on the web. Nothing. More.) And to my understanding, that is what spidey is fighting against, for whatever reason.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: smack Down
You can have all the QoS levels you want with net neutrality if all content of the same type gets the same QoS level. So the ISP would be neutrally when it comes to the content. That is all anyone for net neutrality wants. I know your side likes to make stuff up about net neutrality.

iirc, one of the laws proposed for net neutrality made paying extra for faster cable modem or dsl service (above the base price) illegal.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: M00T
3. How will gauranteed priority be created for services such as gaming/video/voice between different providers without reducing the speeds of other "nonpriority" services?

downloading and websurfing are not particularly dependent upon ping. voice services and tv-like video on demand would be very dependent upon ping. assuming you have enough bandwidth for it all, you can prioritize those packets that need it and let the others through as space is available. you're not going to recognize a 1/4 second interruption when a web page is loading, but you are going to recognize a word getting cut in half.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
So, don't sites already pay for bandwidth? Now they'll also have to pay additionally to get on the 'premium highway'? That's bull.

That's what happened in Norway. And WITHOUT LEGISTLATION ON INTERNET PROVIDERS (note, that does not = the internet for dullards like spidey) that's what will happen here. The status quo has been, can, and will be changed by the 2 or 3 major service providers in the USA via collusion. If you think different then you really pulled the wool over your eyes.

How about this. Sites are not allowed whatsoever to be charged more than what they already pay in bandwidth. To optimize your service, you can create these 'tiers' to stream video and the like faster. But an FCC regulator will oversee your business to make sure you do not unfairly shut out any sites that, say, don't 'donate' a lot of money to you.

That's what a network neutrality bill should be, in essence. Oversight of Internet service providers. (AGAIN, ISPs do NOT = the World Wide Web. Anyone who tries to tell you this is full of it. ISPs are the businesses that provide the gateway to sites on the web. Nothing. More.) And to my understanding, that is what spidey is fighting against, for whatever reason.

ok, so everyone's packets just get dumped into the general stream, and youre IP telephone system has lots of pops and cracks because packets get delayed, and your IP tv system drops frames.

again, no one that i can see is talking about locking out providers. tiered access != locking out providers. please understand that simple fact before discussing further.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the one time any ISP began noticeably slowing down packets of competitors the FCC slapped them down hard

The FCC of Janet Jackson's boob or media ownership . . . maybe.

i'm not really sure where you're going, but the event was the same that sully linked to, and happened in 2005. that was after janet jackson's boob.

as for 'media ownership,' the FCC has been a revolving door of industry types for years. it's called 'regulatory capture'

 

[Tom]

"again, no one that i can see is talking about locking out providers. tiered access != locking out providers. please understand that simple fact before discussing further."

Your just completely wrong and have it backwards. Net neutrality has nothing to do with tiered access, it's all about crippling competing providers.

Read the senators letter, it's in there in black and white, although cleverly put.

"However, it does not ban charging content providers differing prices for different delivery speeds."

example-that means ATT can offer their own VOIP, and charge Vonage anything it wants to for the right to compete with them for their ISP customers.

 

[Rainsford]

There might be good reasons for opposing net neutrality, but Senator Talent does NOT seem to understand the issue and does not "get it". He opposes net neutrality, but does so based on ignorance of what net neutrality actually is...and frankly I'm surprised spidey is supporting his view, since spidey has struck me as someone who truly understands the issue.

This concept that net neutrality doesn't allow for charging more money for more bandwidth (the core of Sen. Talent's argument) is flat out wrong. In fact, that's the core argument in favor of net neutrality, that it DOESN'T remove the ability of network providers to charge more for customers that use more bandwidth. The net providers would like to be able to differentiate service for things OTHER than bandwidth, and while there are arguments in favor of allowing them to do that, the "bandwidth debate" makes no sense.

Or perhaps I don't quite understand the issue, but net neutrality isn't advocating that all customers are charged a flat fee regardless of bandwidth usage as far as I can tell.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
You can have all the QoS levels you want with net neutrality if all content of the same type gets the same QoS level. So the ISP would be neutrally when it comes to the content. That is all anyone for net neutrality wants. I know your side likes to make stuff up about net neutrality.

No it does not. Did you read the legislation?

And just what is "my side"? The one that understands how the Internet works or the one that screams "sky is falling conspiracy!!!!one"

Yes I did read the legislation I will even quote it for you.

if the broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or quality of service;

So a broadband network can provide QoS they just can't have QoS for their VoIP for example, but they can have a surcharge if they wish to give preferance to all VoIP data.

And there is also this

EXCEPTIONS.?Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband network provider from implementing reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to?offer varying levels of transmission speed or bandwidth.

all from here http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/M...Net%20Neutrality%20Act%20of%202006.pdf
There is simple no reason to be against Net Neutrality

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tom
"again, no one that i can see is talking about locking out providers. tiered access != locking out providers. please understand that simple fact before discussing further."

Your just completely wrong and have it backwards. Net neutrality has nothing to do with tiered access, it's all about crippling competing providers.

Read the senators letter, it's in there in black and white, although cleverly put.

"However, it does not ban charging content providers differing prices for different delivery speeds."

example-that means ATT can offer their own VOIP, and charge Vonage anything it wants to for the right to compete with them for their ISP customers.

that's tiered access. it's "we can give you super priority and make sure that your packets get where they need to go on time by bumping customers that don't need super priority (like normal web pages), or you can get dumped in with everyone for normal access rates."

that is different from "if you don't pay us a ransom we're blocking your service"

as long as everyone is getting superpriority status at the same price, who cares?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There might be good reasons for opposing net neutrality, but Senator Talent does NOT seem to understand the issue and does not "get it". He opposes net neutrality, but does so based on ignorance of what net neutrality actually is...and frankly I'm surprised spidey is supporting his view, since spidey has struck me as someone who truly understands the issue.

This concept that net neutrality doesn't allow for charging more money for more bandwidth (the core of Sen. Talent's argument) is flat out wrong. In fact, that's the core argument in favor of net neutrality, that it DOESN'T remove the ability of network providers to charge more for customers that use more bandwidth. The net providers would like to be able to differentiate service for things OTHER than bandwidth, and while there are arguments in favor of allowing them to do that, the "bandwidth debate" makes no sense.

Or perhaps I don't quite understand the issue, but net neutrality isn't advocating that all customers are charged a flat fee regardless of bandwidth usage as far as I can tell.

one of the proposed versions of the net neutrality bill DID remove the ability to charge more for more bandwidth.

heck, techincally that isn't neutral and is discriminatory on its face.

'but i want faster speeds and i'm willing to pay for them so that's ok'

why is it ok when you're buying broadband, but not when you're buying QoS? and do you expect QoS to be free?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There might be good reasons for opposing net neutrality, but Senator Talent does NOT seem to understand the issue and does not "get it". He opposes net neutrality, but does so based on ignorance of what net neutrality actually is...and frankly I'm surprised spidey is supporting his view, since spidey has struck me as someone who truly understands the issue.

This concept that net neutrality doesn't allow for charging more money for more bandwidth (the core of Sen. Talent's argument) is flat out wrong. In fact, that's the core argument in favor of net neutrality, that it DOESN'T remove the ability of network providers to charge more for customers that use more bandwidth. The net providers would like to be able to differentiate service for things OTHER than bandwidth, and while there are arguments in favor of allowing them to do that, the "bandwidth debate" makes no sense.

Or perhaps I don't quite understand the issue, but net neutrality isn't advocating that all customers are charged a flat fee regardless of bandwidth usage as far as I can tell.

one of the proposed versions of the net neutrality bill DID remove the ability to charge more for more bandwidth.

heck, techincally that isn't neutral and is discriminatory on its face.

'but i want faster speeds and i'm willing to pay for them so that's ok'

why is it ok when you're buying broadband, but not when you're buying QoS? and do you expect QoS to be free?

It is ok to sell different levels of QoS. It is not ok to just give ATT VoIP phone a higher QoS but give vonage a low QoS.

Edit there many have been a proposed version but it might have been created to kill the true idea of net neutrality.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
"again, no one that i can see is talking about locking out providers. tiered access != locking out providers. please understand that simple fact before discussing further."

Your just completely wrong and have it backwards. Net neutrality has nothing to do with tiered access, it's all about crippling competing providers.

Read the senators letter, it's in there in black and white, although cleverly put.

"However, it does not ban charging content providers differing prices for different delivery speeds."

example-that means ATT can offer their own VOIP, and charge Vonage anything it wants to for the right to compete with them for their ISP customers.

that's tiered access. it's "we can give you super priority and make sure that your packets get where they need to go on time by bumping customers that don't need super priority (like normal web pages), or you can get dumped in with everyone for normal access rates."

that is different from "if you don't pay us a ransom we're blocking your service"

as long as everyone is getting superpriority status at the same price, who cares?

So you want the phone company/cable company deciding which providers "need" access to the internet, and at what speed, and what cost ?

That is fundamentally at odds with how the internet has developed, and is completely unecessary from a technical point of view. It's about who is going to control the content of the internet.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There might be good reasons for opposing net neutrality, but Senator Talent does NOT seem to understand the issue and does not "get it". He opposes net neutrality, but does so based on ignorance of what net neutrality actually is...and frankly I'm surprised spidey is supporting his view, since spidey has struck me as someone who truly understands the issue.

This concept that net neutrality doesn't allow for charging more money for more bandwidth (the core of Sen. Talent's argument) is flat out wrong. In fact, that's the core argument in favor of net neutrality, that it DOESN'T remove the ability of network providers to charge more for customers that use more bandwidth. The net providers would like to be able to differentiate service for things OTHER than bandwidth, and while there are arguments in favor of allowing them to do that, the "bandwidth debate" makes no sense.

Or perhaps I don't quite understand the issue, but net neutrality isn't advocating that all customers are charged a flat fee regardless of bandwidth usage as far as I can tell.

Rainsford,

There was specific verbage and misinformation being spewed about this new found buzzword. That is what I'm against, I am strongly against any and all government regulation of the Internet. It is very, very difficult to explain such a deeply technical issue to the layman, let alone a congressman being pounded by all 4 sides of this hypothetical "issue". This thread should reveal just how many illconceived interpretations there are, by people that are technically savvy. They only understand "priority" which from a quality of service issue hasn't been used since the late 90s. They don't understand what quality of service really is. Heck, it would take me a full day and a whiteboard just to explain it to somebody not deeply ingrained in network architecture and practice.

I'll just say that telecommunications is a severely cut throut business with super slim margins. It is this competition that is driving the services we see today.

As an "insider" (by that I mean I have exposure to enterprise and provider networks and their strategies) I will say that we are in the golden age of comm. It is the competition between the telcos/tier 1/2 ISPs and the cable companies that is delivering so much, for so cheap.

-edit- ignore gross spelling mistakes

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the one time any ISP began noticeably slowing down packets of competitors the FCC slapped them down hard

The FCC of Janet Jackson's boob or media ownership . . . maybe.

i'm not really sure where you're going, but the event was the same that sully linked to, and happened in 2005. that was after janet jackson's boob.

as for 'media ownership,' the FCC has been a revolving door of industry types for years. it's called 'regulatory capture'

I certainly concur that the FCC has had its share of industry-tools. But prior to the Powell doctrine, most FCC rulings at least 'considered' the public good. There's good reason to distrust the FCC and most of it is inside info.

WASHINGTON ? A former Federal Communications Commission attorney said the agency, in its push to let media companies own more television stations, killed a 2004 study that showed that locally owned TV outlets broadcast more local news because the outcome conflicted with its own agenda.

"The initial results were very compelling, and it was just stopped in its tracks because it was not the way the agency wanted to go," said Adam Candeub, an assistant law professor at Michigan State University. "The order did come down from somewhere in the senior management of the media bureau that this study had to end ? and they wanted all the copies collected."

 

[spidey07]

jebus...

Can anyone in this forum offer their own opinion and make their point without googling and quoting others?

I'm serious. Every point I've made has been met with blogs, things happening in other countries. Do you guys really understand this issue?

Not to be on a high horse here but quoting others isn't a good way to make a point IMHO.

 

[Aisengard]

Actually, it is P&N policy to back up our positions with fact, aka links.

All you've given us is how much of a super-smart 'insider' you are, and how we don't understand anything.

Face it. Telcom in the US sucks. And it's because of collusion of the major US TelCom industries that have been allowed to do whatever they want, and charge however much they want for far too long. Why is it that we're paying the same now for the same amount of broadband that we were 5 years ago, while places like Japan are light years ahead of us?

There is no regulation of ISPs in America.

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

The primary regulator of communications in the United States is the Federal Communications Commission. It closely regulates all of the industries mentioned below with the exception of the Internet service provider industry.

(bolds mine)

That's why network neutrality is something other than what you think it is. It's the regulation of internet service providers, NOT THE INTERNET. Read that again. Please. Read it several times, until you get it into your head. ISPs are not the internet. Period. The end. Please, whenever discussing 'network neutrality', don't include in your reasoning that you don't want the government's hands on the internet. This isn't China, the 'Internet' is not touched when regulating ISPs.