http://gamingtrend.com
April 24, 2014, 05:14:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Net Neutrality?  (Read 1448 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 20976



View Profile WWW
« on: June 09, 2006, 03:36:28 AM »

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn

I am really scared of old people who don't know the first thing about how to turn a computer on, much less about the Internet making decisions about the future of the largest network in the world.  Anyone else keeping up on this?
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15846


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2006, 04:07:50 AM »

Yeah, I have been, and it's really scary. And not right at all.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Semaj
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1946


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2006, 06:07:15 AM »

it just makes me wonder whetbher or not the old people are on drugs, not the young ones....
Logged

WoW:
Venerable
Skywarden
Eagerly awaiting Drakes Fortune 2...
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2006, 08:26:18 AM »

I guess the envelope handed to Tom DeLay just wasnt big enough.

Maybe Net Neutrality will fare better once the Republicans lose control of the government.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2006, 08:33:20 AM »

Quote
The concept of network neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the technical pioneers of the Internet. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it--and telecom companies that oppose what they view as onerous new federal regulations.


Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2009, 07:58:37 PM »

Verizon's CEO decided to speak out against it at Supercomm.

And AT&T wants its employees to tell off the FCC from their personal e-mail addresses.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12293



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2009, 08:42:15 PM »

Can someone paraphrase what this is?
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2009, 08:54:11 PM »

In short, neutral networks transport all traffic equally.  The network providers want to be allowed to prioritize certain types of traffic.  This could possible lead to corporations having faster delivery times than their competitors if the company has paid to have priority access to the network provider's clients.

Think of it like the current cable/satellite stuff.  Don't expect to be able to view Time Warner websites if you are a customer of AT&T's internet service.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12293



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2009, 08:55:47 PM »

Thank you!
Logged
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2009, 01:31:37 AM »

The term QOS (Quality of Service) comes into play here. It means the prioritization of certain types of traffic to the denigration of other traffic.

Basically, it is used to make Voice over IP and streaming video content work.

The problem is, if the net was entirely neutral, these technologies wouldn't work at all. You can't resend a missed voice packet, or a missed video section, because they'd be out of sequence, and it would end up jibberish. Data, mostly web, email, and file transfer, is built to accept and deal with that as well.

The part that most people have a problem with is that service providers want someone to pay for higher levels of service, with less delay, etc... This could lead to certain alliances. For example, JimBob voice gets AT&T and Qwest to prioritize his voice and video traffic as high priority. Vonage is best effort. When the network gets congested, Vonage gets dropped and JimBob's voice and video service remains flawless. The slippery slope is that even companies with good intentions will end up on the far side of extortion and intimidation when selling these offerings.

Working at a service provider, I have come up with a pretty good analogy.

You like to swim every day. But it costs $2000 per month to pay for a pool, including all up-keep. If swimming to you is critical, you pay for your own pool, and thus have 25,000 gallons of water at your disposal, whenever you want, however you want. You can swim in a corner, or swim laps across the whole pool, or put up a net and play volleyball.

-Or-

You don't want to pay that much for a pool. You live in a community of 40 families, each willing to pay $50 per month for a pool. You then have a community pool. Sometimes, the pool is empty, but it's pretty crowded when everyone is there, which can make it nearly unusable at times.

That's what you get if you use dialup, DSL, or Cable Internet. A community pool. Sometimes it's a great deal, sometimes it's not. But the alternative costs more money.

Service Providers act as lifeguards, policing and patrolling the pool to try to allow as many people to swim as possible.

QoS, in this analogy, is the lifeguards roping off 2 lanes (one voice, one video), and the rest of the pool remains open swim (data, P2P, etc..) The voice and video traffic can use all of the lanes they have, as much as they want, but they can't take over more of the pool than that. The open swim side is best effort for everything else.

*end analogy*

I think that to an extent, service providers need QoS, and could reasonably want to offer tiers of service to promote certain applications. I can also see it becoming very one-sided, and ending all innovation and marketplace competition. Neutrality is definitely not the answer, since business critical applications would stop working altogether, but the unregulated market could end up being a really bad idea.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2009, 02:52:25 AM »

The needs of different applications obviously have differing needs.  It's just that I don't know of anyone that trusts the corporations in power to make decisions based on the best needs and desires of the customer, especially when so many providers have legal monopolies that make them the only game in town in certain municipalities.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6032


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2009, 04:52:35 AM »

Quote from: Einsteinium on October 22, 2009, 01:31:37 AM

The problem is, if the net was entirely neutral, these technologies wouldn't work at all. You can't resend a missed voice packet, or a missed video section, because they'd be out of sequence, and it would end up jibberish. Data, mostly web, email, and file transfer, is built to accept and deal with that as well.

I think you need to research this a bit more. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the net neutrality debate and seems to be mere speculation coming from a lack of understanding of the IP protocols. For example, every ISP in Norway is completely neutral (one of them tried something a year back and got all kinds of nasty feedback, so they reverted their decision) but video streaming and voice chat still works perfectly here. There is little to no packet loss whatsoever.

I'm sure you know that the TCP/IP protocol guarantees that packets will arrive and in order. The ISP doesn't need to do anything in particular to make this work. For time critical applications you can use UDP which is way faster but doesn't make such guarantees, yet it's easy enough to code a wrapper around the protocol to replicate the behavior of TCP while keeping most of the speed of UDP. ISPs don't prioritize packets in order to make this work. It's just not necessary.

The point is moot in any case. Net neutrality doesn't prohibit an ISP from optimizing their internal operations. It merely prevents them from making deals with content providers to prioritize their particular content over other providers' content. The debate is very specific in this regard, but there is occasionally confusion about what those of us who support net neutrality are actually arguing for.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 04:56:16 AM by TiLT » Logged
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2009, 05:24:21 PM »

No trying to start a flame war or an argument, but respectfully, I disagree. I am responsible for this work within an ISP, and this is how protocols work.  It's why Voip service from a service provider is flawless while Skype/Vonage can have issues. That's the difference between best effort and tiered service.
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6032


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2009, 05:58:15 PM »

Well, American providers are sort of known for not following the net neutrality principle in the first place, so you are probably right about that. I strongly disagree that VOIP and streaming video won't work without artificially prioritizing those services though. If that was the case, my internet connection would be a mess.
Logged
The Grue
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8084


You are likely to be eaten by a grue.


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2009, 06:07:27 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 22, 2009, 05:58:15 PM

Well, American providers are sort of known for not following the net neutrality principle in the first place, so you are probably right about that. I strongly disagree that VOIP and streaming video won't work without artificially prioritizing those services though. If that was the case, my internet connection would be a mess.


What if, let's say, tons of P2P traffic was hogging up the ISP's pipe?  Then you try to make your VoIP call, but the VoIP application is bandwidth-starved?  How do you think that phone conversation might go?  Now, imagine if you as a customer, through some kind of QoS, were guaranteed that your VoIP calls got the steady stream of bandwidth required to make them nice and smooth and it did so at the expense of other applications, such as the aforementioned P2P?

I work for a company who is in the QoS business and I see first-hand how our technology can benefit VoIP.  You'll see a business, for example, whose other traffic impairs the VoIP and then if you protect it, problem goes away.
Logged

XBox Live ID: The Grue
Playstation Network Name: TheGrue
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 20976



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2009, 06:19:05 PM »

For some info on the whole traffic breakdown:

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_102109.html
Quote
According to a new survey from Cisco studying global broadband use, the average broadband connection generates approximately 11.4 gigabytes of Internet traffic per month. The survey included anonymous, aggregated network usage data provided by a group of more than 20 global ISPs. The data, which included largely residential but some business customers, suggests that about 10% of global users comprise about 60% of all global traffic, and the top 1% consumed about 20%.

That's why we need QoS.

Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2009, 06:36:08 PM »

NY Times - September 18th.

Quote
In a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Genachowski is expected to outline a proposal to add a fifth principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web.
...
While the communications industry does not like more regulation, it has generally not found it difficult to comply with the existing four principles, lobbyists said. But there are a few areas where opposition is expected.

One is over the opportunity some Internet providers see in offering faster or more reliable connections to some companies offering services over the Web. A company offering high-definition movies, for example, might pay an Internet provider to deliver them more quickly.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to propose a compromise that would allow some experimentation with premium services but with limits to ensure that sites that do not pay for preferred treatment would continue to be available as they are now.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3025



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2009, 07:27:33 PM »

I think we need to see there are really two issues.  One is QoS as in how all VOIP is prioritized and one is "special" prioritization (for lack of a better term) as in VOIP from Cisco has a high priority and VOIP from Vonange is give a much lower priority to purposefully push people to using Cisco.  I don't have a problem with the first but the 2nd is why we need net neutrality.  I don't want a situation where since I have AT&T Youtube plays great becuase they have an "agreement" but Hulu plays terrible. 

 
Logged

TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6032


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2009, 07:44:25 PM »

Quote from: farley2k on October 22, 2009, 07:27:33 PM

I think we need to see there are really two issues.  One is QoS as in how all VOIP is prioritized and one is "special" prioritization (for lack of a better term) as in VOIP from Cisco has a high priority and VOIP from Vonange is give a much lower priority to purposefully push people to using Cisco.  I don't have a problem with the first but the 2nd is why we need net neutrality.  I don't want a situation where since I have AT&T Youtube plays great becuase they have an "agreement" but Hulu plays terrible. 

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. The issue often gets muddied because people think the net neutrality debate is about both those things.
Logged
kadnod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1258



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2009, 08:03:41 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 22, 2009, 07:44:25 PM

Quote from: farley2k on October 22, 2009, 07:27:33 PM

I think we need to see there are really two issues.  One is QoS as in how all VOIP is prioritized and one is "special" prioritization (for lack of a better term) as in VOIP from Cisco has a high priority and VOIP from Vonange is give a much lower priority to purposefully push people to using Cisco.  I don't have a problem with the first but the 2nd is why we need net neutrality.  I don't want a situation where since I have AT&T Youtube plays great becuase they have an "agreement" but Hulu plays terrible. 

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. The issue often gets muddied because people think the net neutrality debate is about both those things.

As a tech illiterate, this is where I get confused on the concept.  If my phone company was my ISP, and they decided all forms of VOIP get low priority because they want me to keep my old-school phone line, that violates the "neutrality" principle even though they haven't cut a special deal with anyone, right?
Logged

Can five murderous vagabonds heroes save their world from a roman empire knockoff the forces of evil?  Apparently so! Find out how they did it in the only best D&D game in General Analog Gaming!
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2009, 08:11:14 PM »

You want to see how bad this particular issue can get?  Read up on ESPN 360.  To me, this illustrates perfectly what the possible repurcussions could be on a much wider scale.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 08:12:57 PM by Isgrimnur » Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6032


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2009, 08:34:46 PM »

Quote from: kadnod on October 22, 2009, 08:03:41 PM

As a tech illiterate, this is where I get confused on the concept.  If my phone company was my ISP, and they decided all forms of VOIP get low priority because they want me to keep my old-school phone line, that violates the "neutrality" principle even though they haven't cut a special deal with anyone, right?

I don't think so, though I may be wrong. At least it should be ok as long as they aren't boosting a service they offer while reducing speed on services that compete against them. The idea isn't to stop service throttling. The idea is to stop huge companies from gaining an impenetrable monopoly because smaller companies can't get the same quality of service from ISPs. Imagine if Google (who supports net neutrality, btw) paid all American ISPs to prioritize traffic from YouTube. If a smaller competitor were to try and break into the market for streaming video, they'd never be able to achieve the same quality of service as YouTube simply because the ISPs won't let them. It kills competition, and the only ones who lose are us, the customers.
Logged
kadnod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1258



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2009, 08:41:09 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 22, 2009, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: kadnod on October 22, 2009, 08:03:41 PM

As a tech illiterate, this is where I get confused on the concept.  If my phone company was my ISP, and they decided all forms of VOIP get low priority because they want me to keep my old-school phone line, that violates the "neutrality" principle even though they haven't cut a special deal with anyone, right?

I don't think so, though I may be wrong. At least it should be ok as long as they aren't boosting a service they offer while reducing speed on services that compete against them. The idea isn't to stop service throttling. The idea is to stop huge companies from gaining an impenetrable monopoly because smaller companies can't get the same quality of service from ISPs. Imagine if Google (who supports net neutrality, btw) paid all American ISPs to prioritize traffic from YouTube. If a smaller competitor were to try and break into the market for streaming video, they'd never be able to achieve the same quality of service as YouTube simply because the ISPs won't let them. It kills competition, and the only ones who lose are us, the customers.


Thanks for explaining.  I think I get the particulars of the concept a bit better now.
Logged

Can five murderous vagabonds heroes save their world from a roman empire knockoff the forces of evil?  Apparently so! Find out how they did it in the only best D&D game in General Analog Gaming!
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2009, 11:36:41 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 22, 2009, 08:34:46 PM


I don't think so, though I may be wrong. At least it should be ok as long as they aren't boosting a service they offer while reducing speed on services that compete against them. The idea isn't to stop service throttling. The idea is to stop huge companies from gaining an impenetrable monopoly because smaller companies can't get the same quality of service from ISPs. Imagine if Google (who supports net neutrality, btw) paid all American ISPs to prioritize traffic from YouTube. If a smaller competitor were to try and break into the market for streaming video, they'd never be able to achieve the same quality of service as YouTube simply because the ISPs won't let them. It kills competition, and the only ones who lose are us, the customers.


That's the point I've been trying to make. In order to implement Quality of Service (in effect, making the net NOT neutral), you prioritize traffic at the expense of other traffic. I agree with your second point however: The problem is who gets to control what is "reasonable QOS" and what is "monopolizing QOS".  I don't think there is a simple, fair solution. The companies need to have a lot of freedom to determine how their traffic works, in order to make multiple features work. On Demand, Streaming Video, VOIP, Video and Voice Teleconferencing all are delay-sensitive and cannot be retransmitted. They have to be prioritized, and in fact, are prioritized by almost all providers, based on secure, safe markers that they can use to identify the traffic as such (i.e. trust boundary of a network) They work ok if there is no congestion anywhere on the network path, but need priority when there is a bottleneck somewhere.

But is it ok for a service provider to promote their voice, their video, their on-demand application on their network, to the detriment of other services? In one sense, yes it is ok. In another, it stifles creativity and innovation.

You'll start to see, if you haven't already, that most business-class plans offer QOS services. They don't care what you consider high, medium, or low priority: they sell you bandwidth allotments in each class. It's a way to ensure that the 1% of power users don't get to usurp internet traffic at the expense of others.

So, in a sense, the net neutrality debate is about who has control to say what is prioritized, where, and when. The carriers want it to be them, and I think that's a pretty good idea, as long as there are very lax guidelines for them to work within. There should be some, but not overwhelming regulation to ensure that time-sensitive applications are given their due, in a fair and somewhat equitable arrangement. But as a consumer, there will (and probably should be) an obligation to pay a premium to choose those options.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8526



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2009, 03:02:04 PM »

Stay classy, McCain.

Quote
The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.
...
McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom'.

According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
...
Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6032


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2009, 03:49:34 PM »

Okay Einsteinium, you sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'll assume you are correct in what you're saying. However, the thing that still doesn't make sense to me (based on your explanations) and which you haven't explained is how the internet works so well in Norway when all ISPs here follow the net neutrality guidelines to the letter? Attempts to throttle particular kinds of traffic have been quickly struck down by either the lawmakers or the general public. For example, decisions to limit torrent bandwidth have been quickly reversed. All our ISPs agree today that net neutrality is an important concept, and the government either has, or will in the very near future, make it law.
Logged
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2009, 06:33:54 PM »

Unless a Norwegian ISP Engineer can tell me they aren't using QOS for Voice and Video, I'm going to say that they are running in a configuration similar to every other ISP. They have a lot more available bandwidth because they are building a new network, unlike America, which is retrofitting existing networks with more capacity. But there is always a bottleneck, and that is why QoS was invented.
Logged
SkyLander
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1869



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2009, 08:11:39 PM »

Quote from: Einsteinium on October 23, 2009, 06:33:54 PM

Unless a Norwegian ISP Engineer can tell me they aren't using QOS for Voice and Video, I'm going to say that they are running in a configuration similar to every other ISP. They have a lot more available bandwidth because they are building a new network, unlike America, which is retrofitting existing networks with more capacity. But there is always a bottleneck, and that is why QoS was invented.

This isn't about QOS. This is about not catering to who has more money. Without Net Nuetrality it can get to the point that you can't go to certain sites if they didn't pay the ISP to be on there. The thing with ESPN360 is a perfect example of that. Not everyone can go to ESPN360 since there ISP didn't pay for it. So I want net nuetrality and I don't want goddamn bandwidth caps. And yes, the network can handle it.
Logged

Pretty....what do we blow up first?
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2009, 08:37:25 PM »

No, your ESPN360 example is completely backwards.  If you cannot get to ESPN360.com, it's not because ESPN360 didn't pay your ISP.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 08:42:33 PM by Freezer-TPF- » Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2009, 12:36:37 AM »

I think I've found the right term, since Net Neutrality is a meaningless one.

Data Discrimination (i.e. classifying things as Voip, Video, Data) most people seem to agree is desirable, mostly because they would like them to continue to function. If we can agree, at least theoretically, that if you would like these types of services to function universally, you want that type of data discrimination.

But that fundamentally means that in a crunch of bandwidth (which does happen, absolutely everwhere on the "Internet" - Which by the way is not a mythical cloud, but a collection of interconnected bandwidth pipes owned by different carriers), Data will suffer (P2P if you wish) to keep VoIP and Video services running. In most cases, this is a temporary fix until bandwidth capacity is increased, but that takes time and money, which is a relatively slow process in all forms (moving at the speed of business, anyone?)

What is wanted is universal access at the same rate for the same types of services. All Websites equal, all voip carriers equal, all video/streaming content equal. And that is what I, as the engineer for an ISP, want to provide for my customers, and is what I want for myself.

The thought that all P2P traffic will ever be treated the same as VoIP, or some other delay-sensitive application is never going to happen. You will never have a surplus of bandwidth (i.e. Supply) that exceeds use (i.e. Demand) to that extreme.

Most ISP conversations about neutrality and QoS are about the above. Believe me, I don't want to know, nor do I really care what you use your bandwidth for. But the Internet is a large community of people, and not everyone gets to go as fast as they want, all the time that they want. And the reason is that the content providers want to be paid for their content, and the people providing access want to be paid for their access path, and they want the consumer to do it.
Logged
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7844



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2009, 10:51:19 PM »

I hate to say it, but the whole opposition to net neutrality is bogus. The real issue is the evolution/upgrade of the Internet backbone, or more importantly how that evolution has slowed/stagnated, and not an issue of how it should be streamlined and constricted for certain traffic. I can speak from a personal perspective, because I started using the net in the mid 80's when it was still DARPANET and restricted to academic and military research. There were no problems with bandwidth back when universities, public institutions and a few private companies were tasked with maintaining and evolving the backbone as needs demanded - the real problem then was the speed of connectivity.

The fact is that ISP's can't profit a lot from evolving the backbone and thus we've arrived at a situation where they're demanding the right to restrict bandwidth. It should also be noted that many of the Universities and institution that built the early backbone were public and paid for by the tax payers money. I can only speak for myself, but I'm personally bothered by the fact that companies that reaped large profits off that public infrastructure are now demanding the right to limit it. By no means am I saying the commercialization of the Internet in the mid 90's was a bad thing, quiet the opposite as I was very active at my University in trying to make the net public when it wasn't. What I am saying, is that if ISP's aren't willing to invest in the backbones evolution they can stand in line like the rest with their specialized -profit generating- services.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 11:01:31 PM by kronovan » Logged
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2009, 02:56:09 AM »

I don't remember the exact principle: The one stating that things double in computers every x years. But I don't think there will ever be enough. Bandwidth goes up, applications and products use more bandwidth.

And most people will never use enough bandwidth to hit a cap. I don't much like the idea of a limit to what I can use, but the entire model may change soon, everywhere. I'd rather pay less for what I actually use then have to pay for the guys that do open filesharing 24x7. And I do a fair amount of downloading (legit and not-so-legit), streaming applications, VoIP, and all kinds.

We live in a capitalist society. Consumers want the maximum product for the lowest price. Those providing a product or service want to maximize profit for their product or service. I know that my perspective has changed on this debate, as I have moved into a job wherein I am the one making decisions on how we maintain our network. I recognize that I know how to do what I do well, but that I don't have a good answer on this debate. From both a consumer and provider perspective, something has to change. I'm hoping that neither side is too stubborn to compromise, because the answer will be somewhere in between.
Logged
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7844



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2009, 05:55:43 AM »

Quote from: Einsteinium on October 26, 2009, 02:56:09 AM

I don't remember the exact principle: The one stating that things double in computers every x years.

That would be Moores law; that computer processing on average doubles every 18 months. I think that the advent of duo and quad core processing in recent years may have skewed that a bit - not 100% sure about that though.

And just to clarify things I'm not 100% opposed to bandwidth limitations, but I'm opposed to it being a laissez-fair, private sector only driven endeavor. There's been billions of tax payers dollars dumped into the Internet globally and I don't think it should be left up to a small consortium of ISP's to regulate who gets what piece of the bandwidth pie. It's also not a decision to be made by 1 country either as the Internet evolved as an internation initiative and bandwidth restrictions in one geographic jurisdiction can impact others.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2009, 07:20:46 AM by kronovan » Logged
Einsteinium
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 523



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2009, 10:58:15 PM »

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2620750120091026?sp=true

Swine Flu, it may be the death of net neutrality. Brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security. Interesting and probable scenario presented.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5073



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2009, 05:14:58 AM »

Quote from: kronovan on October 25, 2009, 10:51:19 PM

I hate to say it, but the whole opposition to net neutrality is bogus. The real issue is the evolution/upgrade of the Internet backbone, or more importantly how that evolution has slowed/stagnated, and not an issue of how it should be streamlined and constricted for certain traffic. I can speak from a personal perspective, because I started using the net in the mid 80's when it was still DARPANET and restricted to academic and military research. There were no problems with bandwidth back when universities, public institutions and a few private companies were tasked with maintaining and evolving the backbone as needs demanded - the real problem then was the speed of connectivity.
You can't really compare bandwidth utilization of a couple dozen Universities sending text emails and FTP files between a limited number of researchers to today's modern Internet. Today's Internet is application driven by the end users wanting everything from real time audio and video conferencing to streaming videos. There are too many congestion points, namely the major peering sites (NAPs) and the last mile, that eventually traffic will have to be shaped in order to avoid jitter and packet loss.

Quote from: kronovan on October 25, 2009, 10:51:19 PM

It should also be noted that many of the Universities and institution that built the early backbone were public and paid for by the tax payers money. I can only speak for myself, but I'm personally bothered by the fact that companies that reaped large profits off that public infrastructure are now demanding the right to limit it. By no means am I saying the commercialization of the Internet in the mid 90's was a bad thing, quiet the opposite as I was very active at my University in trying to make the net public when it wasn't. What I am saying, is that if ISP's aren't willing to invest in the backbones evolution they can stand in line like the rest with their specialized -profit generating- services.
This makes it seem like we're all still using the original DARPANET. We're not. Even the original technology has long since been surpassed and improved upon by both private and public researchers. The Internet isn't a thing, but a set of agreements between many companies, most of whom have spent millions and even billions of dollars expanding their network reach. Why shouldn't they be able to offer CoS and QoS options to consumers whose applications require these additional services? So what if they charge more. That's how the market works: pay more for value add services. Consumers can decide how badly they want to use Vonage based upon the service quality and the going price.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 94 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.043s, 2q)