The open internet ends today!

[Schadenfroh]

The people "own" water pipes, roads, electricity grids and many other forms of infrastructure. The telcos have proven to be quite inept at serving people's needs, so if a politician came out in support of public internet infrastructure, I'd certainly support him.

Rather difficult for the government to invade your privacy via water pipes and electrical grids. As far as "public" telecommunication infrastructure goes, if it is a public utility in the form of a community-owned association (like a water / power association), then that is a different story than a Federally owned system of phones / broadband. Think the Bush / Obama warrantless wiretapping / privacy violations are easy now, think of how it would be if the feds completely owned AT&T, Comcast or UUnet...

 

[James Bond]

LOL you're such a corporate whore, it's unbelievable. I have optimum online in connecticut and we have NO CAPS and we can get 100 mb/s cable. I highly doubt CT is a profitable area for them. Comcast has 250 Gig caps, nowhere near as fast internet, and they actively try to fuck content providers like Netflix. You're unbelievable.

You're the loudest one in this thread but you have no idea what you're talking about.

You've got this blind hate for Comcast, like a lot of people, and that's fine. But don't spread BS.

They did a massive DOCSYS 3 rollout to improve their speeds. That's great that you have a provider that is uncapped and fast, but most providers simply can't handle that. For the majority of users, Comcast is much faster than they need (12mpbps+). The only people affected by caps are torrenting all day.

I just don't get what you're problem is I guess.

 

[James Bond]

I have one simple rule. If you are for it, its bad for internet customers like me.

Even though you have zero understanding of the issue, you're against it just because someone else is for it.

Way to go.

 

[BoberFett]

This thread is a week old, and I'm still waiting for the internet to end.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I heard that Craig234's internet provider will be charging him extra for "Wall of Text" posts.

 

[BeauJangles]

How am I the first person to ask what's wrong with the way the internet operates now?

I'd rather pay more money to providers so that they can bolster their networks rather than leaving it up to them to decide what should be prioritized.

 

[James Bond]

How am I the first person to ask what's wrong with the way the internet operates now?

I'd rather pay more money to providers so that they can bolster their networks rather than leaving it up to them to decide what should be prioritized.

Certain traffic types need to be prioritized to function properly. It's not so much "up to them", as it is a fact. Voice needs low latency and low jitter, etc. Without Quality of Service, applications like that simply won't work. You can't just keep throwing money and bigger pipes at it.

 

[BeauJangles]

Certain traffic types need to be prioritized to function properly. It's not so much "up to them", as it is a fact. Voice needs low latency and low jitter, etc. Without Quality of Service, applications like that simply won't work. You can't just keep throwing money and bigger pipes at it.

They work fine today. And they'll work fine tomorrow.

At some point you're right, they'll need to be priority, but why now? Outside of the fact that Comcast and Verizon are sick of being in the middleman game and want to force out competitors I really see no reason the FCC needs to deal with this issue any time in the near future.

 

[blackangst1]

They work fine today. And they'll work fine tomorrow.

At some point you're right, they'll need to be priority, but why now? Outside of the fact that Comcast and Verizon are sick of being in the middleman game and want to force out competitors I really see no reason the FCC needs to deal with this issue any time in the near future.

The reason they work fine is BECAUSE of QoS! And what do you mean "why now"? QoS has been implemented in just about every major backbone provider for at least as long as Ive been in telecom (12 years). I remember in 2000-2002 when I worked for a reseller of Williams (one of the largest backbone providers then) we were provisioning CBR, rt/nrt VBR, and UBR (QoS features on ATM) for every customer. Now, with the widespread deployment of MPLS, its much easier to do.

There are a few people who dream of a QoS free internet (maybe youre one of them) but in reality, it's not going to happen. With the demands on backbone providers being as they are, QoS is absolutely necessary.

 

[BeauJangles]

The reason they work fine is BECAUSE of QoS! And what do you mean "why now"? QoS has been implemented in just about every major backbone provider for at least as long as Ive been in telecom (12 years). I remember in 2000-2002 when I worked for a reseller of Williams (one of the largest backbone providers then) we were provisioning CBR, rt/nrt VBR, and UBR (QoS features on ATM) for every customer. Now, with the widespread deployment of MPLS, its much easier to do.

There are a few people who dream of a QoS free internet (maybe youre one of them) but in reality, it's not going to happen. With the demands on backbone providers being as they are, QoS is absolutely necessary.

I really don't give a shit, as long as I can access the websites I want without being told what to do by some company or forced to pay more if I visit site x versus site y.

edit:

I'd also like to add that you're just bolstering my point. Things work now. Why do we need regulation?

 

[boomerang]

Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda

People are often smarter than political types give them credit for.

 

[James Bond]

I really don't give a shit, as long as I can access the websites I want without being told what to do by some company or forced to pay more if I visit site x versus site y.

edit:

I'd also like to add that you're just bolstering my point. Things work now. Why do we need regulation?

We never said we need regulation. We don't. I'm sure Blackangst1 agrees.

I'm just saying that we need QoS. You then replied and said "why now?", as in, why do we need it now if we had gone on this long without it. He was correcting you - QoS has been in place for years.

 

[blackangst1]

I really don't give a shit, as long as I can access the websites I want without being told what to do by some company or forced to pay more if I visit site x versus site y.

Oh, now that you've been given facts, all of a sudden you dont give a shit? Well guess what partner...your ISP is, and always has, "told you what to do" in regards to your bandwidth in the way of QoS.

You responded to James's comment about QoS by saying

They work fine today. And they'll work fine tomorrow.
At some point you're right, they'll need to be priority, but why now?

And earlier you said

How am I the first person to ask what's wrong with the way the internet operates now?
I'd rather pay more money to providers so that they can bolster their networks rather than leaving it up to them to decide what should be prioritized.

indirectly telling us you somehow dont think traffic is shaped now, and this legislation will do so. Those of us who know are telling you, it always has been. Your traffic has always been prioritized.

edit:

I'd also like to add that you're just bolstering my point. Things work now. Why do we need regulation?

No, Im arguing against your point that you somehow believe our traffic is not prioritized NOW. If Im wrong, let me know. If you like the way things are now, then you are enjoying the benefits of QoS and traffic shaping. The very thing you seem to have been arguing against.

 

[hal2kilo]

Certain traffic types need to be prioritized to function properly. It's not so much "up to them", as it is a fact. Voice needs low latency and low jitter, etc. Without Quality of Service, applications like that simply won't work. You can't just keep throwing money and bigger pipes at it.

Technologically, I don't think the wired world should provide bandwidth preferences, there is plenty of bandwidth in optics. On the other hand I can simpathize with the wireless providers. Unless there's some new magical mutiplexing technology there's only so much bandwidth. These companies on the other hand seem to be their own worst enemies by trying to promote their products with TV brodcasts and movies feeds. I guess that's the point though. Get people hooked, then make them pay premium rates if that's the kind of service they want.

I just wonder how long the cable provider, Wave Broadband in my case, is going to put up with being undercut on the price they charge for movies, while they supply me with my internet connection. This is the source of the battle in my opinion.

 

[blackangst1]

Technologically, I don't think the wired world should provide bandwidth preferences, there is plenty of bandwidth in optics. On the other hand I can simpathize with the wireless providers. Unless there's some new magical mutiplexing technology there's only so much bandwidth. These companies on the other hand seem to be their own worst enemies by trying to promote their products with TV brodcasts and movies feeds. I guess that's the point though. Get people hooked, then make them pay premium rates if that's the kind of service they want.

I just wonder how long the cable provider, Wave Broadband in my case, is going to put up with being undercut on the price they charge for movies, while they supply me with my internet connection. This is the source of the battle in my opinion.

Well, in all fairness, the problem isnt backbone availability. There's lots. The problem is not so much wireless, but last mile bandwidth. The fact is, the majority of last mile bandwidth is still copper. And the facilities and central offices just arent set up for fiber in the sense of servicing private residences. There was a study done in Europe and Asia in 2006 that showed 60% of all internet traffic was P2P, and that 5% of total subscribers were responsible for approx. 75% of all data use. Thats HUGE. People dont understand the effect of P2P unless you've worked in the industry and seen its effects on your own network. P2P can cripple a cable head end, or a DSL CO depending on subscribers. Hell, Ive seen it on my own network at home.

With so many more people doing P2P, ISP's are being forced to implement stricter bandwidth management. I personally dont like it, as I use P2P quite a bit. But being in the industry, I certainly see the need. Getting back to the point, until the majority of the country is set up with fiber to the curb, available bandwidth will continue to be a problem.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, in all fairness, the problem isnt backbone availability. There's lots. The problem is not so much wireless, but last mile bandwidth. The fact is, the majority of last mile bandwidth is still copper. And the facilities and central offices just arent set up for fiber in the sense of servicing private residences. There was a study done in Europe and Asia in 2006 that showed 60% of all internet traffic was P2P, and that 5% of total subscribers were responsible for approx. 75% of all data use. Thats HUGE. People dont understand the effect of P2P unless you've worked in the industry and seen its effects on your own network. P2P can cripple a cable head end, or a DSL CO depending on subscribers. Hell, Ive seen it on my own network at home.

With so many more people doing P2P, ISP's are being forced to implement stricter bandwidth management. I personally dont like it, as I use P2P quite a bit. But being in the industry, I certainly see the need. Getting back to the point, until the majority of the country is set up with fiber to the curb, available bandwidth will continue to be a problem.

Wow, that's an amazing statistic if true, although I'm really not surprised. I've pretty much gone completely legit with acquiring media anymore (geez, can't afford $.40 cents for your songs?). The pirates can come up with all kinds of justifications they want, but theft is theft.

 

[blackangst1]

Wow, that's an amazing statistic if true, although I'm really not surprised. I've pretty much gone completely legit with acquiring media anymore (geez, can't afford $.40 cents for your songs?). The pirates can come up with all kinds of justifications they want, but theft is theft.

Here's one study by Cisco: http://www.hbtf.org/files/cisco_IPforecast.pdf

P2P makes up 62 percent of all consumer Internet traffic in 2006, but despite quadrupling in size, will only make up 43 percent of consumer Internet traffic in 2011.

 

[James Bond]

Here's one study by Cisco: http://www.hbtf.org/files/cisco_IPforecast.pdf

Cool study, thanks for the link.

 

[Xonoahbin]

I'm for one primary part of net neutrality: no content discrimination. I really do believe the large telecoms will try to force their hands in favoring or crippling certain websites and services--they'll do it slowly, so people scarcely notice, but I really think they will.

The Reason.tv video someone posted earlier suggested "Well, that wouldn't happen because customers would then switch to another ISP." Bull crap. People can't switch to another ISP--and if any ISP upstarts come along, they'll be pushed off and defeated. That's what I really want net neutrality to avoid.

Metered pricing.. meh, as long as it's reasonable, whatever; however, I have a feeling a lot of ISPs wouldn't use reasonable metered pricing either.

 

[spidey07]

I'm for one primary part of net neutrality: no content discrimination. I really do believe the large telecoms will try to force their hands in favoring or crippling certain websites and services--they'll do it slowly, so people scarcely notice, but I really think they will.

The Reason.tv video someone posted earlier suggested "Well, that wouldn't happen because customers would then switch to another ISP." Bull crap. People can't switch to another ISP--and if any ISP upstarts come along, they'll be pushed off and defeated. That's what I really want net neutrality to avoid.

Metered pricing.. meh, as long as it's reasonable, whatever; however, I have a feeling a lot of ISPs wouldn't use reasonable metered pricing either.

NO! STOP IT! NO! People can choose any ISP they want.

This whole topic is really amusing. Thankfully people like myself and others WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND how the internet works are advising congress and the FCC.

You fucking dumbass net neutrality supporters wanted the FCC to get involved and create regulation? Well merry fucking christmas! You got what you wanted, regulation.

Only it wasn't what you expected, was it? That's because your dumbass net neutrality crap is against the best interests of ALL users. But by all means, keep cheering for shit that harms you.

Fucking useless lemmings. Or as they say "usefull idiots".

While this forum and all the other useful idiots scream on message boards and tech forums, the people that actually understand how the internet works and networking are fighting against you with knowledge and the ear of the FCC/Congress. And you know what? They listen to people that know what they are talking about and dismiss tinfoil hat net neutrality supporters.

 

[Engineer]

NO! STOP IT! NO! People can choose any ISP they want.

LOL. I'll just hop on over to FIOS tomorrow then and tell Insight and their 10% rate hike (January) to suck it. Thanks for the tip.

/bullshit.

 

[blackangst1]

NO! STOP IT! NO! People can choose any ISP they want.

This whole topic is really amusing. Thankfully people like myself and others WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND how the internet works are advising congress and the FCC.

You fucking dumbass net neutrality supporters wanted the FCC to get involved and create regulation? Well merry fucking christmas! You got what you wanted, regulation.

Only it wasn't what you expected, was it? That's because your dumbass net neutrality crap is against the best interests of ALL users. But by all means, keep cheering for shit that harms you.

Fucking useless lemmings. Or as they say "usefull idiots".

While this forum and all the other useful idiots scream on message boards and tech forums, the people that actually understand how the internet works and networking are fighting against you with knowledge and the ear of the FCC/Congress. And you know what? They listen to people that know what they are talking about and dismiss tinfoil hat net neutrality supporters.

spidey...you and I are in agreement about net neutrality...but you damn well know there is ZERO competition for internet service. People are generally limited to whatever CLEC services their area and possibly a cable provider. Everything else is a reseller of one of the two above mentioned "options". But thats a discussion for another thread.

 

[hal2kilo]

NO! STOP IT! NO! People can choose any ISP they want.

You are kidding, right?

I live about 15 miles west as a crow flies, from a major Pacific Northwest city. I barely have a useable cell phone, DSL doesn't make it to where I live. My only realistic option is cable. When is the great build out ever going to happen? I'm still waiting.

 

[drebo]

You are kidding, right?

I live about 15 miles west as a crow flies, from a major Pacific Northwest city. I barely have a useable cell phone, DSL doesn't make it to where I live. My only realistic option is cable. When is the great build out ever going to happen? I'm still waiting.

It'll happen with the Telco Act of 1996 is rewritten and municipalities buy up all of the "last mile" copper.

 

[First]

They work fine today. And they'll work fine tomorrow.

At some point you're right, they'll need to be priority, but why now? Outside of the fact that Comcast and Verizon are sick of being in the middleman game and want to force out competitors I really see no reason the FCC needs to deal with this issue any time in the near future

I wouldn't say VoIP without QoS works just fine today, that's not quite well founded and is highly dependent on providers and last mile connectivity. You can easily test this reality by holding a Skype or web conference call with someone using your residential ISP and see just how often you'll experience drop-outs and echo even during a call as short as 10 minutes. UDP packet delivery during VoIP calls is 99%+ reliable assuming you have something at the application layer ensuring packet delivery, so even without QoS it's great. But QoS is without question a necessity at some level.

In terms of net neutrality in general, it's not terribly difficult to see that this whole issue is probably coming to a head in part due to Comcast and NBC merging, which could easily result in Comcast (i.e. Time Warner Cable) prioritizing their NBC content over other content for not one good reason except to monopolize their profits. There's a big difference between altering/capping bandwidth usage for users (totally legitimate practice, assuming those caps are reasonable) vs. prioritizing NBC content over, say, ABC content for monopolistic purposes. It's ripe for abuse and that's not a left/right position, it's a position of seeing a cause and its potential (negative) effect on consumers.