http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172316/fcc_net_neutrality_rules_are_a_win_consumers.html

I searched and didnt see any current thread for this so if its been posted, I apologize

Quote :

"The FCC's new "Net Neutrality" proposal, which would prevent carriers from slowing or blocking Internet traffic as they see fit, is a huge win for entrepreneurs and consumers, and a major setback for telecom giants such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. The new rules, proposed this morning by Chairman Julius Genachowski, would prohibit discrimination among applications and users on the nation's telecommunications, wireless, and cable Internet services. A related proposal would require carriers to make their network management practices public. Genachowski said its not an issue of "good guys" versus "bad guys," but that the Internet suffers from three major problems. The first, he said, is limited competition between carriers. The second are perverse incentives for carriers to not promote services that compete with their existing telephone and cable businesses. While the third is the continuing growth of Internet traffic causing problems for carriers. Taken together, the proposals prevent the carriers from selecting winners-and-losers among Internet applications and heads-off potential discrimination against services that might compete with carriers' own offerings. (Read our full coverage of Genachowski's announcement of the proposals). If enacted, likely by a 3-2 party-line vote at the FCC's October meeting, the rules would prevent the carriers from deliberately blocking or slowing some types of Internet traffic. The rules take away the carriers' control over development of the Internet. Proponents of the new rules say they will ensure predicable Internet access to new services and applications. My take: This is a great day for the Internet and it will be an even greater one when the FCC takes a formal vote. It is a win for the future in a battle against the established telecom interests as well as a move toward making the Internet a level playing field for developers. Lacking these new rules, the carriers would be free to charge companies more to carry certain types of Internet traffic or to not carry it at all. There could be no uniformity between networks, meaning that an application that worked on one might not work on the others. The Internet is successful because it has (mostly) been an open platform, available to all developers and technologies. The FCC is taking steps to make sure openness continues and yesterday's telecom giants will not have a veto over the Internet's future."

9/21/2009 12:45:42 PM

Well I know that I'm very happy but I also know it's only a matter of time before the libertarians on here descend on this thread to tell us how this is a bad regulation, strips ownership of the internet away from its "rightful owners", will kill innovation (as if the true innovators aren't the end users, who don't need always want or need the same inspiration to innovate, and are much more resilient and collectively creative than corporate departments w/ their models and bureaucracy), or, as the more common argument reads, "wasn't necessary" (as if the telcos weren't pushing to block this already so they could, as they've said, discriminate).

9/21/2009 12:53:58 PM

anyone who sides with corporations has no idea how shitty the internet will become if companies can buy their way into controlling internet development.



its nice to see the FCC is still on the people's side for some things

9/21/2009 1:18:13 PM

you searched, really?

message_search.aspx?type=posts§ion=4&searchstring=&username=V0LC0M&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page=

9/21/2009 1:20:31 PM

Quote :

"I searched and didnt see any current thread for this so if its been posted, I apologize"

really?

9/21/2009 1:25:37 PM

That would be why you pm a moderator to bump it for you. More to the point, if noone cared the first three times you made this thread, why make it again?

9/21/2009 1:28:31 PM

Quote :

" I also know it's only a matter of time before the libertarians on here descend on this thread to tell us how this is a bad regulation, strips ownership of the internet away from its "rightful owners", will kill innovation (as if the true innovators aren't the end users, who don't need always want or need the same inspiration to innovate, and are much more resilient and collectively creative than corporate departments w/ their models and bureaucracy), or, as the more common argument reads, "wasn't necessary" (as if the telcos weren't pushing to block this already so they could, as they've said, discriminate)."

No, I just question what the potential unintended consequences are. This sounds great in theory, but I know for a fact that this is not the black-and-white issue NN proponents have made it out to be. There is obviously a trade-off in here, in that certain types of bandwidth discrimination work to the majority of users' interests. I am curious to what effect this will have upon network traffic prioritization as far as ISPs go, because the naive reading of this seems to make it off-limits.

None of this means that the trade-off isn't worth it to consumers, but let's refrain from the dishonest framing that this is black hats vs. white hats. There are legitimate concerns as to the practical implications of this as well.

9/21/2009 1:29:45 PM

umm, the thread was a year old and this thread was just about the article posted


seriously, why don't you find something more important to whine about

9/21/2009 1:30:28 PM

Until there is serious evidence that not being able to discriminate seriously harms the actual quality of content, then I have a hard time not seeing this as a positive.

Not to mention, are these possible side effects worth throwing out NN for?

This was a big reason why I backed this administration from the election up till a few months ago (now I'm sort of apathetic). They've show a serious interest in maintaining an open internet and (at least in theory) supporting open source, definitely moreso than past administrations. Time will tell if they don't backtrack and slide into Janet Reno territory with the sort of security controls that were discussed then.

9/21/2009 1:36:13 PM

agreed

9/21/2009 1:38:51 PM

Quote :

"Until there is serious evidence that not being able to discriminate seriously harms the actual quality of content, then I have a hard time not seeing this as a positive."

Again why I ask about QoS. I don't have bandwidth statistics handy, hence consider this a simple hypothetical: why it should be considered a bad thing if, say, torrent users who suck down a disproportionate share of network bandwidth for an ISP would be bumped down the priority queue over other types of traffic? What about applications like VoIP?

Again, I am not disclaiming the absence of potential harm in the opposite situation (where discrimination is allowed), but I feel like it is worthwhile to consider what is given up here as well. What your objection basically seems to say is that QoS prioritization is a trivial thing to give up.

Perhaps my reading of this policy is wrong, and QoS is not explicitly disclaimed, but it certainly seems to be so. Thus, it seems like you're going to inherently be giving up some benefits (which, in fairness, may be the ones the telco providers found to be the most profitable). Unless my reading of the policy is wrong, allowing for high-priority traffic for continuous operations like VoIP seems to be off the table, which means such services will inevitably suffer during times of network congestion.

I don't think it requires a tremendous amount of proof to demonstrate this to be so; if all network packets must by law be treated equally, applications like VoIP will inherently suffer.

Is the trade-off worth it? Perhaps still. But it's not like we're not making a trade-off at all.

Quote :

"Not to mention, are these possible side effects worth throwing out NN for?"

This is why I ask the question; I am not explicitly declaring it to be so, I am asking that we actually consider potential adverse side effects before declaring this a simple Good vs. Evil type of policy. It may very well be that the side effects are marginal compared to the harms it is intended to prevent, but the fact is unintended consequences will exist, and therefore merit discussion.

9/21/2009 1:46:34 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention, are these possible side effects worth throwing out NN for? "

But, see, now that it is law there is nothing we can do about it, since we will never know what we are missing, since what we would be missing is now illegal. It is the surest way to win an argument: make the generation of opposing evidence illegal.

And this is ignoring the error in your sentence: the question is whether the Government should be neutral or not. NN involves sacrificing government neutrality in hopes of preventing some imagined future which would possibly never arrive anyway (and could always be ruled away at that time). Well, as these things go, some network traffic will be more neutral than other, as network discrimination is imposed from on-high to service some special interest or another. Shall we optimize for speed of delivery, consistency, or throughput? The FCC shall decide for all of us! One size shall fit all! Which is impossible, since in the near future some of us will connect wirelessly, by wire, by fiber, etc. But at least the lawyers will get filthy rich litigating all this.

And, of course, as you point out, this will cut innovation. But not only by the people you seem to imply, since it has already been shown that NN cuts the other way, as I argued long ago and has since been demonstrated. You see, by looking at the cable television industry, I concluded that internet service should ultimately operate in a similar fashion: the network providers paying handsomely for reliable access to the content providers. Or, for example, Time Warner cable subscribers being blocked from accessing the web site ESPN360 because Time Warner refused to write them a check for (presumably) millions of dollars.

I have not bothered to check, but I suspect some very large corporations are strongly in favor of this rule change, you just have not bothered to figure out which ones and for what reasons. I will reiterate, that in this country laws are never passed without encouragement from deep pockets, which usually means cartellization and barriers to entry.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/21/2009 11:34:59 PM

I posted this somewhere else so instead of re-writting it im just gonna paste it here:

The idea that ISPs are going to start filtering stuff like web traffic is retarded. If they start blocking access to google or youtube they'd get no end of shit from average customers. And they dont even care about that shit anyways because the majority of it is either cached locally or direclty peered. The stuff they do care about is the top 10% who sit there with their bit torrent clients up 24/7 soaking the network for all its worth.

One common freetard argument is "HURRRR DUH HHUU THEY SHOULD JUST ADD MORE BANDWIDTH!!!!". This is clearly retarded as bit torrent expands to fill whatever pipe you throw at it. Bit torrent will saturate a 5 meg pipe the same as it saturates a 50meg pipe. Thats kind of the point of the protocol. The only way to stop it is traffic shaping. Its a completely fair solution too. Bit torrent is not real time. It doesn't matter if the traffic gets theire 5 seconds late. Whereas with something like RTP or gaming traffic you need it to get there on time every time. A few senarios. Lets say at peak times most users are doing simple web surfing maybe making a few phone calls via RTP. Most of that traffic is so small that the qos impact on bit torrent would probably be unnoticable to the user. Once peak hours subside bit torrent goes back to full speed since no one else is using their connections. Senario 2: People are doing heavy web traffic (lets say lots of direct streaming) and doing lots of phone calls. RTP calls get priority over all traffic. Bit torrent speeds drop until peak hours end. This is fair because calls are more important than everything else due to their nature. Streaming is second in importance because bandwidth is required to keep it seemless. Bit torrent, not being time sensitive, is the least important. Once peak hours subside, bit torrent goes back to full speed. 3rd senario: everyone is torrenting. everyone must fight through the slow shitfest. In the current world adding more bandwidth doesn't help. If you had packet shaping, increasing bandwidth would allow you to increase low priority traffic speed at peak hours.

The other argument is "hhhhhuuuuu duuhh huuud duuuu the internet is freeeeee". Its not free. Its a group of private companies who peer their networks for their own benefit. The idea that an ISP should allow whatever traffic you want accross their privately owned lines (or that they dont have the right to prioritize traffic for the health of their network) is ridiculous.

Clearly stated and generic protocol based packet shaping is the first step in solving network overuse problems. After you have good qos then you can go about adding bandwidth to improve low priority performance during peak hours. The idea that isps are going to start blocking popular websites is a stupid red herring and everyone should just shut the hell up about it because its never going to happen. All you're doing is preventing real fixes.

9/21/2009 11:43:39 PM

Im guessing that even if this passes next month, it will be months or years before ESPN360 actually becomes available to everyone regardless of provider? That (and similar situations) have been my biggest beef in this area. Unfortunately, my guess is that ESPN will still want its money and turn 360 into a pay service...at least everyone would have the ability to gain access...only now its $9.95/month.

9/22/2009 12:04:52 AM

^ Nope. the rules appear to be carefully crafted to only apply to ISPs. As such, as long as ESPN360 is being hosted by a non-ISP (safe bet), ESPN360 and all those that follow it are free to reject these rules. In effect, we see a negotiation table with content providers on one side and network providers on the other, and now the FCC has taken a seat firmly on one side of that table. I admit, it was probably never impartial before, but now it will be partial by statute.

9/22/2009 12:15:08 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps my reading of this policy is wrong, and QoS is not explicitly disclaimed, but it certainly seems to be so. Thus, it seems like you're going to inherently be giving up some benefits (which, in fairness, may be the ones the telco providers found to be the most profitable). Unless my reading of the policy is wrong, allowing for high-priority traffic for continuous operations like VoIP seems to be off the table, which means such services will inevitably suffer during times of network congestion. "

Ironically this will only affect 3rd party voip providers like vonage or packet8. Time warner can segment off a separate part of the analog channels on their cable lines specificly for their phone service (as they do with digital cable). Since its on a discrete network its immune from harmful protocols like bit torrent.

9/22/2009 12:37:38 AM

i never liked that TW provided cable TV and Internet once they started the streaming shows online so there is less need for cable TV.. i could definitely see TW screwing people on internet because they are losing money on cable.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 12:48:57 AM

Quote :

"The idea that ISPs are going to start filtering stuff like web traffic is retarded. If they start blocking access to google or youtube they'd get no end of shit from average customers."

There's no serious discussion of ISPs filtering out google or youtube. Rather, it's ISPs filtering out competitors and upstarts to these websites that is at issue.

Quote :

"The stuff they do care about is the top 10% who sit there with their bit torrent clients up 24/7 soaking the network for all its worth."

I don't think anyone seriously has a problem with an ISP filtering its own customers in this way. I certainly don't have a problem with that. What does bother me is an ISP asking non-customers to pay it "protection money" to ensure that their traffic gets through just as much as everyone else who payed the protection money.

9/22/2009 4:34:40 AM

Weird, so the internet has managed just fine for over a decade, the telcos decide they aren't getting rich enough off of it, and rules intended to keep the status quo the same are questioned for unintended consequences?

9/22/2009 8:02:35 AM

Quote :

"i never liked that TW provided cable TV and Internet once they started the streaming shows online so there is less need for cable TV.. i could definitely see TW screwing people on internet because they are losing money on cable."

Well TW did try to introduce a monthly internet cap in Greensboro. $29.99/month for the first 5 GB of downloads (basically a couple of days worth of streaming TV shows), and $1 per additional GB. I think they went back to the drawing board on the pricing/quotas, but it was something like that. Don't like it? You can always go with someone else... oh wait. Even if there was competition, the competition would probably move to that pricing model if enough customers stayed with TW.

In the end everyone gave TW hell and I believe they backed off, but I don't know what the current status is.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 9:02 AM. Reason : -]

9/22/2009 9:01:19 AM

at some point they have to do it, i'd think. so many ppl watch stuff online now

9/22/2009 9:02:27 AM

Yes. Because 'the same' is not necessarily 'the best' and there is nothing status-quo about making the FCC a major player in the negotiation of your service contract.

9/22/2009 9:02:57 AM

Quote :

"and there is nothing status-quo about making the FCC a major player in the negotiation of your service contract."

Good point. We see how well banking went when we took regulators out of the status quo.

Now, this is where you talk about all government and how they distort markets and blah blah blah blah.

Quote :

"Because 'the same' is not necessarily 'the best'"

And Americans are spending more time glued to media whether games, TV, or internet than anywhere else in the world. I'd say the same probably is the best until you can prove otherwise.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 9:09:19 AM

Quote :

"Weird, so the internet has managed just fine for over a decade, the telcos decide they aren't getting rich enough off of it, and rules intended to keep the status quo the same are questioned for unintended consequences?"

Like most instances, I somehow doubt you read the whole argument, and therefore it's probably a mistake to even address your argument. However - things do not just "stay the same." The rules have changed because the technology has changed. QoS didn't exist when the internet was formed. Neither did real-time services like VoIP. You know this, and thus I am left to believe you are being intentionally obtuse. Or you just didn't bother actually reading the whole argument.

Technology allows for new ways of ISPs managing traffic. Some of these ways may be bad for consumers, which is the argument for the rule change. However, by doing this, we may be making a trade-off for other gains.

Gee, it's almost like the world wasn't static.

9/22/2009 9:23:03 AM

^^Which, as I said, I could not do, because you will have made it illegal for me to experiment with anything else.

The burden of proof should be upon those that wish to curtail liberty. Or should we revoke your rights until you can prove you will use them wisely?

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ^]

9/22/2009 9:24:11 AM

Oh yeah, we totally don't need net neutrality at all. I mean, think about all the new revenue streams the telecoms can get from this! They can charge the domain hoster for every visitor who comes to the site. I mean, it's the ISPs bandwidth they're using right? Sounds fair to me.

Hey, y'know what? If you give up enough of your power, you can probably get internet service 100% for free. Then we can have the internet just like the TV. Every byte of content you get will be trying to sell you something, but hey, this is America right?

And I'll be even happier as i'll have a choice of ideological preference in shopping for ISPs, as they'll filter the content out specifically to match what they believe in. All I need to do is pick an ISP that believes the same things as me and then I'll be great. I won't ever have to listen to the other side of issues again.

This should be a godsend for DMA protected content too. Imagine how fast all of my legally paid for iTunes will download! And all we had to do for that was to allow big brother into our computers and sacrifice the ability to pirate data and listen to bands that don't have a big label.

9/22/2009 9:45:13 AM

Quote :

"We see how well banking went when we took regulators out of the status quo."

Odd, studies show that financial regulation increased every year for at least the last 20 years. So, yes, we see how the imposition of regulations upon finance resulted: huge bubble and collapse. You want to do the same to the internet?

9/22/2009 10:36:44 AM

Quote :

"Odd, studies show that financial regulation increased every year for at least the last 20 years. "

Which studies? Because the removal of leverage limits, repeal of Glass-Steagal, and non enforcement of regulations (effectively no regulation) says the exact opposite.

Quote :

"Like most instances, I somehow doubt you read the whole argument, and therefore it's probably a mistake to even address your argument."

I'm an engineer seeking the path of least resistance. Rather than studying every topic that comes across this forum, it's way easier to just assume others that are smarter than me (and you, for certain) have done the legwork of an argument for me. As such, all we have to do is look at Google and see which side of the fence they fall on for the argument. Then, I think of explanations for why they fall on that side. One that immediately comes to mind is to consider how google is purchasing up all the dark fiber they can find. Contrast to the cable companies, who are offering nearly the same data speeds as they were 10 years ago...only now they are charging more. QoS wasn't a problem years ago because the services to saturate the pipe didn't exist. What should we do now that they can? Oh, I dunno, widen the pipe? Google is leverage itself to do just that. The cable companies, not so much. It's WAAAAYYYY cheaper to pay some lawyers a few 10 million than it is to invest billions (eating into profit, and thus, exec bonuses) to stay up with the trends.

It seems like to me if we keep the status quo then the telcos will be forced to innovate to keep customers.



[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 11:09:46 AM

Quote :

"non enforcement of regulations (effectively no regulation)"

These two things cannot be equated in any reasonable argument. Seriously. No one should even respond to that post until you go back and fix this.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : for the record, I'm generally in support of NN, but what you just said was too retarded to ignore]

9/22/2009 11:12:47 AM

Quote :

"These two things cannot be equated in any reasonable argument."

They certainly can. I can tell you I'm going to smack your pretty face for shit talking, but if I never actually go through with my threat, will you stop shit talking?

9/22/2009 11:17:27 AM

Routers and switches cost a lot of money. The content providers don't have to pay for the increases in bandwidth provided to consumers, based on Net Neutrality. So that means 3 players pay for it - Service Providers, Equipment Makers, and Consumers. The first two paying for it means layoffs and less innovation. Consumers paying for it means higher cost of living, or lower standard of living. Meanwhile Google stays fat and happy.

I'm not really against NN though, if it is done intelligently.

9/22/2009 11:25:59 AM

^^Wow, what a terrible analogy. I have a hard time believing you're not just trolling with that. Well, here I go taking that bait.


Let's say a sports league changes rule X (for example, makes something new a penalty) and for at least a little while, the referees call it when they see it. Then eventually they stop calling it. Or they forget. Or, even worse, they stop calling it most of the time but still do occasionally. You can't honestly think that every team is going to take equal advantage of these no-calls, can you? Some are going to push the boundaries, and some are going to play it safe. Not all corporations/coaches are ruthlessly seeking to break the law/rules whenever they can, there's going to be some teams that end up at a disadvantage because they're using caution.

As opposed to what would happen if the rule were never introduced in the first place... it would not be a risk to do thing X because thing X hasn't been made illegal.

9/22/2009 11:45:55 AM

Quote :

"Routers and switches cost a lot of money."

I could be wrong, I get the impression this stuff is pennies compared to having to dig up the ground which Verizon has invested in doing.

Quote :

"The content providers don't have to pay for the increases in bandwidth provided to consumers"

And why should they? They make content.

Quote :

"So that means 3 players pay for it - Service Providers, Equipment Makers, and Consumers. The first two paying for it means layoffs and less innovation"

Excuse me? Equipment makers pay the cost of increased bandwidth?

9/22/2009 11:50:34 AM

Quote :

"I'm an engineer seeking the path of least resistance. Rather than studying every topic that comes across this forum, it's way easier to just assume others that are smarter than me (and you, for certain) have done the legwork of an argument for me."

If others are doing your thinking for you, then why not follow it to the logical conclusion and let others do you talking for you as well, since you basically have nothing more to contribute to the argument, were this true?

Quote :

"QoS wasn't a problem years ago because the services to saturate the pipe didn't exist. What should we do now that they can? Oh, I dunno, widen the pipe? Google is leverage itself to do just that. The cable companies, not so much. It's WAAAAYYYY cheaper to pay some lawyers a few 10 million than it is to invest billions (eating into profit, and thus, exec bonuses) to stay up with the trends."

Inevitably, no matter how big your pipe is, you will get network congestion, especially as demand outstrips supply. The question is how you handle network congestion. One way is QoS, where we prioritize packets for real-time services like VoIP. We rule out QoS, and eventually these services will suffer whenever the network is congested. How much is a function of how big the pipe is, but congestion is a fact of life. Incidentally, QoS is also way cheaper than widening the pipe.

So, why exactly are you arguing with me, here? It doesn't even seem like you're arguing that the trade-off exists, but rather that telcos can simply do something else, e.g., "widen the pipe." Of course they can - this was never the argument. The argument is that we're giving up the ability to prioritize traffic - which was never exclusive with widening the pipe.

Meanwhile, you argued that the status quo was working fine wrt the internet, and this rule change was intended to preserve that. But the very reason for the rule becoming relevant was in the development of new technologies allowing for problems like content discrimination to begin with, which also affords the ability to prioritize real-time services. Do you somehow disagree?

9/22/2009 11:52:25 AM

Quote :

"Let's say a sports league changes rule X (for example, makes something new a penalty) and for at least a little while, the referees call it when they see it. Then eventually they stop calling it. Or they forget. Or, even worse, they stop calling it most of the time but still do occasionally. You can't honestly think that every team is going to take equal advantage of these no-calls, can you? Some are going to push the boundaries, and some are going to play it safe. Not all corporations/coaches are ruthlessly seeking to break the law/rules whenever they can, there's going to be some teams that end up at a disadvantage because they're using caution."

That's kind of a good analogy, right? So long as you tailor it to your argument? Let's keep going with your analogy anyway

Quote :

"As opposed to what would happen if the rule were never introduced in the first place... it would not be a risk to do thing X because thing X hasn't been made illegal."

Ultimately, like cowboy collaring in football, a rule will be made when the actors get out of hand.

9/22/2009 11:55:27 AM

^Yes, rule X will eventually be made if a problem with thing X becomes flagrant enough. What's your point? That doesn't support your argument (that non-regulation <=> regulation without enforcement) at all, just states what will eventually happen.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for de-regulation or anything related to NN and the government here, just trying to impress upon you the fact that non-regulation and unenforced laws are two very different things.

(possibly double-post? getting OH SHIT errors everywhere...)

9/22/2009 12:12:12 PM

chance you should read the first post i made concerning QoS. Stuff like bit torrent will rape a 1 meg pipe the same as it will rape a 100 meg pipe. Widening the pipe has no effect. You can prioritize important traffic, and then throttle unimportant traffic (bit torrent). This would alleviate congestion on existing pipes during peak hours. Then more bandwidth can be added to increase the speeds of low priority traffic during those times.

And the more important part of this i want to make sure you get is this:

Content based filtering is a fucking red herring

9/22/2009 1:01:27 PM

Quote :

"ust trying to impress upon you the fact that non-regulation and unenforced laws are two very different things"

You haven't shown how they are different. Technically and legally, maybe they are. But practically, no they aren't.

For an example of this, have a look at the FDIC, this is a federal law

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/1000-4000.html

And yet, the FDIC is going to have to go to the banks because their reserves are depleted

http://chattahbox.com/business/2009/09/22/fdic-may-ask-banks-to-bailout-insurance-fund/

Had the FDIC been prompt and corrective, which is law, the first purpose of the Sec 38 wouldn't be violated.

The SEC completely ignoring Bernie Madoff despite a private citizen doing their hard work for them is another example.

I'm not really sure what tangent you're trying to get off on.

9/22/2009 1:25:48 PM

Madoff should get a nobel prize and get to keep all his money. He is a fucking american hero.

9/22/2009 1:35:24 PM

Quote :

"hance you should read the first post i made concerning QoS. Stuff like bit torrent will rape a 1 meg pipe the same as it will rape a 100 meg pipe. Widening the pipe has no effect."

Huh? I pay AT&T for 5mbps and that's they give me. Back when it was just telephone, I (well, my folks) paid Bellsouth a monthly fee for telephone service. We could dial in to BBSs, and later the internet, or we could make phone calls, not both. They paid Time Warner for television service. We got television.

Now, Time Warner (and other telcos) wants both (and more) but they don't want to build out their infrastructure (because it's expensive as hell) to meet the new demands of customers. They didn't plan for consumers and technologies that could saturate their pipes for hours on end. After accessing the situation, they figured it would be maximally profitable if they could just throttle usage, even with the cost of lawyers. So that is the route they are taking.

9/22/2009 2:15:35 PM

what are you talking about? The ONLY plan for technologies that saturate a pipe is QoS. Larger pipes will not fix it. Either you're not reading my posts or you dont undeerstand how bit torrent works and why its a problem that can only be fixed by qos.

Once harmful stuff is throttled stuff like voice traffic (which is very very low bandwidth intensive but extremely latency dependent) can be prioritized and standard traffic (web streaming) will be easilty doable on current pipes. High def streaming content can be done at 5 megs a second no problem. The issue is that if someone is doing bit torrent at the same time bit torrent traffic will win (assuming no QoS) every single time.

9/22/2009 2:20:38 PM

I mean heres one way to think about bit torrents effect on networks.

lets imagine your local network as a conference. In a normal environment people take turns talking. RTP traffic gets sent, then http gets to go, then smtp, etc... in no particular order. Adding bit torrent is like adding a group of people will bullhorns who jump up on the table and yell at each other. Expanding the size of the conference room doesn't work because the bit torrent guys just get louder bullhorns.

9/22/2009 2:23:27 PM

I guess the real problem here is that the cable/phone companies have been abusing their customers for so long that they've lost any credibility whatsoever when it comes to this type of thing.

You play with fire, you get burned. They've proven that they can't be trusted and so they're paying for it. Cue the crybaby pictures.

9/22/2009 2:45:25 PM

Quote :

"what are you talking about? The ONLY plan for technologies that saturate a pipe is QoS. Larger pipes will not fix it. Either you're not reading my posts or you dont undeerstand how bit torrent works and why its a problem that can only be fixed by qos."

Are you joking? You only give the users that with which they are willing to pay for and that you can provide. You don't say

Quote :

"oh, well, before bitorrent, we could 'give' 100 users 5mb of our 100mb pipe because our stats showed that we could handle this. But now we can't, so uh, rather than build out our infrastructure, or put caps in place, we'd rather just throttle back on the most pesky of users, to get our overall statistic back to where it was before they started sucking up that full 5mb we 'gave' them. "

You apparently missed my earlier example. On the old POTS network, we weren't physically capable of needing something like QoS because it was inherent in the system. QoS arises when we have a more open architecture like IP. Its a viable solution, but make no mistake about it will be abused in the name of money. It's a lot simpler to tell the telcos, nope, we're not giving you that power, go figure out some other way to continue being ridiculously profitable.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 2:52:24 PM

idk, i guess i've just never had alot of these problems others seem to have. When I first had rr in maine I was pulling down 900KB/s. Then the FCC forced them to standardize their network when they merged with aol and they dropped speeds down to like 400. Its slowly crept back up and no i get 1MB/s pretty regularly.

I've only recently started to have problems in my new place and the tech i talked to was quick to point to an issue with high usage on the local node. I guess I give them the benefit of the doubt because in my experience the service has been good almost all the time. More people are moving to where I'm at so increased load is expected, but im not some dumb gay baby whos going to whine and whine because they dont increase capacity tommorrow.

9/22/2009 2:58:58 PM

Quote :

"You apparently missed my earlier example. On the old POTS network, we weren't physically capable of needing something like QoS because it was inherent in the system. QoS arises when we have a more open architecture like IP. Its a viable solution, but make no mistake about it will be abused in the name of money. It's a lot simpler to tell the telcos, nope, we're not giving you that power, go figure out some other way to continue being ridiculously profitable."

So instead your plan is to tell the telcos they cant to anything to fix the network and all their consumers will have to slug it out for themselves? QoS is neccissary for the continued stability of the internet. As long as the means of QoS are openly discussed by the ISP and they remain per protocol instead of by content (which they wont ever do anyway) there wont be a problem. If we end up in some bizzaro world where ISPs decide they dont want customers anymore and start blocking google then maybe the FCC should step in. Right now the FCCs plan will hurt consumers for no possible benefit.

9/22/2009 3:02:12 PM

Quote :

"So instead your plan is to tell the telcos they cant to anything to fix the network and all their consumers will have to slug it out for themselves?"

Did you not read anything I posted? If Time Warner can't support 100 users with 5mb connections on their 100mb pipe, they need to stop selling it as such. I fully appreciate load management is a helluva problem with various solutions, QoS, bandwidth caps, and fatter pipes. I'm simply not happy with giving profit hungry companies the capability to hold hostage either content providers or consumers in the absence of real competition.

Quote :

"As long as the means of QoS are openly discussed by the ISP and they remain per protocol instead of by conten"

Weird, you aren't happy with government intervention in the network but you are happy to interfere to the point that a private company has to reveal algorithms for maintaining order?

9/22/2009 4:20:08 PM

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/

The GOP is now on the offensive.

I wonder if they'll use their "demonize the opposition and blame them for all social woes possible" tactic or if they'll use their "make everyone think that regulation = socialism now that we've made socialism a buzzword instead of a political belief" tactic.

9/22/2009 5:05:43 PM

Im saying QoS goes over better if everyone knows what they're doing. Most of the shit comcast got was because they were filtering bit torrent traffic and then when asked they lied about it. I dont think the FCC always needs to get involved, but seeing as these telcos operate as local monopolies its probably not a bad idea to check in now and then to make sure QoS is being used fairly and as advertised. Which is quite different from saying they cant do anything at all.


Oversubscription, on the other hand, has nothing to do with net neutrality and in almost every case is overblown by retards. The local backbones for most ISPs are underutilized and are suited to handle all the traffic from their customers at current rates. By this i mean the backbone can handle 100 users at 5mbps.

The problem time warner has is that cable systems suffer from congestion at the local node because there are only so many analog channels available and if everyone starts using them at once everyone must wait. Im not too familiar with the QoS features of DOCSIS at that level so i cant really comment on how effective it would be. There are two fixes for this. Add another headend an split the users between the old node and the new node. Or move to docsis 3.

They're never going to provide 1 to 1 bandwidth to each user because its completely cost prohibative. No telco has ever done that. And for the most part no one is hurt and everyone saves money. Most people aren't at home all day fully saturating their connections so it would be stupid to provision your network as such. And if you're whining about some symantics bullshit about "Wahh wahhh time warner PROMISED ME 10 megs!!!" They never promised you 10 megs they promised you up to 10 megs. If you're getting shit speeds call them up and let them know. My experience has been that they'll do what they can to fix the issue and if it does turn out to be an overburdened node, they'll fix it. And if you get tired of waiting for them to fix it you can get a credit. Or if you really get fed up with them then cancel your service. Switch to dsl.

Quote :

"I'm simply not happy with giving profit hungry companies the capability to hold hostage either content providers or consumers in the absence of real competition."

Thats such a load of bullshit. OOOOOOO THE PPOOOOOOOOOR CONTENT PROVIDERSSSS!!!!! They aren't being held hostage in any way. For sure customers get screwed by the lack of competition due to the huge barrier to entry into the market for ISPs. However, nothing the FCC is planning to do will fix the lack of competition. All they're doing is making sure customers end up with poor service and that both customers and isps will be at the mercy of content providers.

9/22/2009 5:22:28 PM

AT&T was the top donor to Sam Brownback in the most recent campaign, the number 3 to Demint, number 8 for Ensign, and number 5 for Vitter. And these aren't huge donations, but they still rank at the top of an overall profile.

Like I said before, its a fuck ton cheaper to buy legislation than it is to deploy capital and innovate.

Quote :

"but seeing as these telcos operate as local monopolies its probably not a bad idea to check in now and then to make sure QoS is being used fairly and as advertised."

I see, so as long as the flavor and level of government intervention fits into what you deem acceptable, it's cool, but not what I deem acceptable. Gotcha!

Quote :

"The problem time warner has is that cable systems suffer from congestion at the local node because there are only so many analog channels available and if everyone starts using them at once everyone must wait. Im not too familiar with the QoS features of DOCSIS at that level so i cant really comment on how effective it would be. There are two fixes for this. Add another headend an split the users between the old node and the new node. Or move to docsis 3."

Ok, so there is a solution without resorting to throttling of certain content.

Quote :

"They're never going to provide 1 to 1 bandwidth to each user because its completely cost prohibative. No telco has ever done that."

Are you kidding? The first PSTN was exactly that and I guess now that I think about it, it was a form of QoS, it was just that it was built into the system on a per channel basis.

Quote :

"Most people aren't at home all day fully saturating their connections so it would be stupid to provision your network as such."

So? I can't help that Time Warner isn't smart enough to figure out how to handle the bandwidth hogs without having to resort to punishing everyone.

Quote :

"And if you're whining about some symantics bullshit about "Wahh wahhh time warner PROMISED ME 10 megs!!!" They never promised you 10 megs they promised you up to 10 megs. If you're getting shit speeds call them up and let them know."

I'm not whining and if VOIP users are, there are systems available that will guarantee whatever level of service they need.



[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2009 5:24:18 PM