You are and the senator are the ones spreading misinformation about net neutrality. Repeat after me net neutrality does not prevent priotizing traffic using any method you wish including any QoS you wish to have as long as all traffic of the same type gets the same QoS.
You are and the senator are the ones spreading misinformation about net neutrality. Repeat after me net neutrality does not prevent priotizing traffic using any method you wish including any QoS you wish to have as long as all traffic of the same type gets the same QoS.
Where did I quote anybody or refer to other countries ?
What is your reason for wanting no government regulation of the internet ? Do you have a rational reason, or is it just your philosophy that government is bad ?
And you say it's competition that's making this the golden age, with low prices. The fact is lots of people are being drastically overcharged for bandwidth and other services, in the USA, because of the lack of competition.
example, Time Warner charges $40 for their voip service, which costs them almost nothing. They charge $45 for 5mb of bandwidth that ought to cost $20, or less, possibly even be free for existing cable customers.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,418
- 8,368
- 126
which prevents QoS because no one is going to do QoS for free.
anyway, as i've said before, i'm going to take what network engineers think above what everyone else thinks on this issue, and i haven't seen a single network engineer saying that network neutrality, as pushed by markey and snowe, is a good idea.
QoS doesn't have to be free, it just needs to cost all QoS providers the same amount. A way to do that would be to prevent ISPs from being QoS application/content providers, but they will never agree to that. That's what they are after, monopoly and control.
And I guess you think it's fine for them to have an economic advantage, that will drive independent application/content providers out of business ?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,418
- 8,368
- 126
the ISPs have to be QoS providers, if my understanding is at all correct. if not then the packets just get dumped in in whatever order with whatever time spacing and your VOIP cracks, pops, and pauses.
and like the ISPs are going to drive google out of business. if you don't provide google you're going out of business. there is already evidence of a 'reverse' network neutrality abuse by ESPN, locking out subscribers from certain ISPs that weren't doing what ESPN wanted them to do. the big in-demand content providers are already treating ISPs like cable companies.
anyway, my biggest beef with this thing is that it's all a reaction to a hypothetical, a what if. do we really need government intervention for something that hasn't happened yet? are the laws in place already good enough to punish abusers (what you're complaining of is most likely a violation of anti-trust law)? is this really just google wanting QoS and not wanting to pay for it? what if what is predicted comes to pass and it's actually good? are you willing to temp the law of unintended consequences to mediate a dispute between huge corporations? and, importantly, is there any network engineer out there that thinks the markey bill was a good idea?
I don't know how to put it any more simply to you than the ISPs are the Internet.
Look up the definition of an Internetwork.
I really don't have the time nor the patience to explain it to you. Plus the comment about telecomm in the US just reaks of ignorance. We will rapidly surpass Japan in the next 5 years simply because we waited for the next generation of passive optical networks.
ElFenix,
It's not about Google. It's about companies that may not even exist, yet.
And I didn't say the ISPs wouldn't be QoS providers, I said they wouldn't provide the applications and content that needed QoS.
That is a big distinction. Please respond to what I say, not change the subject again and again.
And I am not proposing changing the internet, it's the other way around. You should ask yourself about unintended consequences, not me.
It's not about Google. It's about companies that may not even exist, yet.
And I didn't say the ISPs wouldn't be QoS providers, I said they wouldn't provide the applications and content that needed QoS.
That is a big distinction. Please respond to what I say, not change the subject again and again.
And I am not proposing changing the internet, it's the other way around. You should ask yourself about unintended consequences, not me.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,418
- 8,368
- 126
oh, QoS application and content providers. with the slash i couldn't see what you were saying, that the ISPs should be doing QoS and content providers should be doing content. my mistake.
anyway, again, are there any network engineers (not pundits, politicians, newspaper editors, or people that would lose or gain money on this deal) that think the markey bill was a good idea? just from a network performance standpoint? it may seem like i'm 'changing the subject' but this is an important question. if generally computer savvy people on this BBS can't come to an agreement on what is going on, i don't see how politicians and government majors could ever hope to figure it out. and you need to know the problem intimately before you could fix it and even hope to determine all the consequences. is the problem that carrier-content providers would lock out or discriminately price competing content providers? is that not a violation of existing anti-trust law?
and you're the one advocating a law to fix some perceived hypothetical flaw in the marketplace. i suggest you try to determine all the implications of such a law, as you're the proponent.
First of all, you can keep your useless unfounded speculation. Where's the link that shows that the ISPs have 'waited' for the 'next gen'? And what is this mythical 'next-gen' past fiber-optics? spidey, please provide links to back up your speculation. That is forum policy.
Second of all, I think I owe you an apology. I was using the Internet and the World Wide Web interchangably. ISPs are not the World Wide Web, is what I meant. You know that. Okay. So is there some valid, tangible reason you are against regulation of Internet companies? Or, like someone said above, is it some random mistrust of the government? I think it is telling that the USA doesn't regulate ISPs. I think it is telling because our TelCom industry has crawled along so slowly for the past 5 years, while other countries scream past us. Why can't our TelCom industries make advances? Why do they charge the same as they have 5 years ago? Don't give me BS about 'waiting for the next-gen'. Until you can provide a solid, verifiable link for that it is just so much bullshit.
The government doesn't regulate ISPs, unlike many other (successful, mind you) countries. The problem is, the 2 or 3 main TelCom industries in America do not have any competition. They can charge whatever they want, because in most places, they are the only company around. And they prevent other local startups from forming because they own 'rights' to areas. This is all fact, and you as an insider should know this. It hurts the industry to not have competition. These people don't upgrade their technology, they aren't forced to become more efficient, they don't ever lower prices because of all of this. Come on, stop playing stupid. The government doesn't regulate an industry, and that industry flounders because they sit on their laurels of yesteryear. That's what has happened here.
And the fact remains that these people can start doing whatever they want to businesses using their network. Sure, they pay for bandwidth, but wait a minute, you need faster speeds for your business to function? Pay us more. It's double-charging, it's wrong, and there's nothing current laws can do anything about.
Aisengard, there are so many artilcles about fiber to the home and the rapid advancements in technology that there isn't "one" link to show what the industry is doing. Sure Japan will have more FTTH, but that's due to size and density of people.
but if you want you can start here and search for GPON.
http://www.lightreading.com/search.asp
oh, and another statistic - most consumers with broadband have a choice of more than one provider. Nobody is bending anybody over. telecomm is fiercly competative with each and every provider fighting to get you as a customer.
As far as charging the same, haven't most broadband providers upped their speed for the same price? The battle grounds are set between telcos and your cable company and only the consumer is going to win with rich, advanced, blazing speeds and on demand HD video. I can't wait.
but if you want you can start here and search for GPON.
http://www.lightreading.com/search.asp
oh, and another statistic - most consumers with broadband have a choice of more than one provider. Nobody is bending anybody over. telecomm is fiercly competative with each and every provider fighting to get you as a customer.
As far as charging the same, haven't most broadband providers upped their speed for the same price? The battle grounds are set between telcos and your cable company and only the consumer is going to win with rich, advanced, blazing speeds and on demand HD video. I can't wait.
"anyway, again, are there any network engineers (not pundits, politicians, newspaper editors, or people that would lose or gain money on this deal)"
LOL, and that would leave who ?
Anyway, my points are about competition and monopoly, not technology. You don't need to hear from a network engineer, you need to listen to Adam Smith
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. "
LOL, and that would leave who ?
Anyway, my points are about competition and monopoly, not technology. You don't need to hear from a network engineer, you need to listen to Adam Smith
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. "
Really? So when does this happen? When do these mythical 'higher speeds' appear? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if it hasn't happened in places like New York yet, it won't be happening in my little home town of Kinderhook anytime soon.
Er, actually at my home the only provider was Time Warner, with two different ISPs, Earthlink and Roadrunner, using their lines. That's what I'm talking about when I say 'providers', there's only one company running the rights to certain areas.
Unless you're talking about DSL, which you're right, Japan has an advantage there since it's unusable in any rural environment, no. I've had the same line since 2002. $45 a month for the same speeds for almost four years. And it was $45 a month at least 2 years before that, when I started paying attention to broadband. Prices do not come down when there are no alternatives.
Do you actually pay attention to the market, or are you shilling out what your boss tells you to say? US 'high-speed' internet access, for the price, is becoming a worldwide joke. And call me crazy, but I'd rather have America being ahead of the curve.
Verizon has their FIOS system up and running on the east coast offering upto 50Mbps with plans to push it to 100Mbps soon.
I think it really depends on where you live. Where I used to live Mediacom started at 1.5Mbps in 2002 and by the time I left last summer was pushing near 6-8Mbps for the same package.
Charter where I live now pretty much sucks ass, 3Mbps down 256kbps up.
I think it really depends on where you live. Where I used to live Mediacom started at 1.5Mbps in 2002 and by the time I left last summer was pushing near 6-8Mbps for the same package.
Charter where I live now pretty much sucks ass, 3Mbps down 256kbps up.
Genex87, I looked at Verizon's page on FiOS and to tell you the truth it makes me think happy thoughts about the future. I would love to have fiber optics running from home to home, really bringing the US's internet service to the next (current?) generation of technology.
Believe me, I want this to happen. I want these companies to succeed, but in terms of technological advancement, not revenue generated. While you can get the latest and greatest in the big cities, the fact remains that most if not all rural areas are screwed. Until we can get government to clamp down on ISP anti-competitive practices, we're not going to see the acceleration in technology advancement that we need to vault us into the 21st century.
Believe me, I want this to happen. I want these companies to succeed, but in terms of technological advancement, not revenue generated. While you can get the latest and greatest in the big cities, the fact remains that most if not all rural areas are screwed. Until we can get government to clamp down on ISP anti-competitive practices, we're not going to see the acceleration in technology advancement that we need to vault us into the 21st century.
Aisengard - any anti-competitive behavior is because of your state/county and not the federal level. As far as rural areas are concerned, bulding networks cost a ton of money. The lightreading site I gave you should provide much insight.
I'm not trying to be condescending because I think you really care and want to learn more. So I'm suggesting you check that site every week for news and infromation. It offers no-nonsense analysis of telecomm.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter