pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Easy to Fix
Members of such groups who are bothered by such activities can immediately resign their memberships.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
guardfrog
join:2004-08-27
Dallas, TX | BBR would have more credibility...
...if it didn't constantly try to stick this solely to the telcos.
Has Karl not noticed that Google, MSFT, and other tech companies fund similar groups (savetheInternet, among others)? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Easy to Fix
It is funny how those who don't follow what BBR says is good are called sell-outs, but many so-called consumer activist groups who tow the line from their contributors are hailed as being on the side of the angels. I guess it all depends on who's ox is being gored - doesn't it?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
2 edits |  See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil?
Does anyone really pay attention to these groups? This is such a non-sequitur it's hilarious, yet irritating at the same time. Someone needs to clue these groups into a little story called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" ... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Easy to Fix
I'd wear the "sellout" label as a badge of honor. But unfortunately for me, no one is buying! 
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Bologna!
"Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination," the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and ought to be resoundingly rejected." What a bunch of bologna! Back of the bus? If all traffic were to get passed equally there is no back of the bus. That makes no sense. If your going to argue a point, don't sound like a monkey banging on a drum. Use your brain and think before you speak. Free speech? What free speech? It is data traffic! Computers don't get free speech! They are not human!
I can see using QOS on P2P traffic. That is just good network management. VoIP and some other protocols are more important and are latency dependent. Ever try a VoIP call with a 400ms ping? P2P traffic uses all bandwidth possible unless there are caps set by the users themselves. And you can't expect Joe Smith down the street to shape his own traffic when he can't even program the time on his VCR. ISPs have to be able to shape their traffic, but they should openly release what they shape and how.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net
|
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | Bologna?? LOL - More thinking "Rocky Mountain Oysters" |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to wruckman
said by wruckman  :If all traffic were to get passed equally there is no back of the bus. I can see using QOS on P2P traffic. That is just good network management. VoIP and some other protocols are more important and are latency dependent. Ever try a VoIP call with a 400ms ping? P2P traffic uses all bandwidth possible unless there are caps set by the users themselves. And you can't expect Joe Smith down the street to shape his own traffic when he can even program the time on his VCR. ISPs have to be able to shape their traffic, but they should openly release what they shape and how. QOS is putting some protocols at the "back of the bus". Rightly, of course, since P2P is a protocol that does not play well with other traffic.
So, for you at least, I guess the argument is more about how QOS is enabled and not if or why. Much of those screaming for "network neutrality" are not of like mind. They don't want any QOS and they don't want P2P slowed down at all - no matter how it is done. And they are demanding that "theory" be put in to law.
The civil rights groups arguing against "network neutrality" are just arguing against the idea that P2P should NEVER be throttled. They see P2P screwing up the internet to such a degree that other internet protocols are getting de-facto lowered in priority because the FLOOD of P2P traffic is slowing other protocols down. So, in fact, they are arguing for the same thing that you support - a managed network with QOS used to keep P2P from harming all other traffic.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Easy to Fix
said by pnh102 :Members of such groups who are bothered by such activities can immediately resign their memberships. some people don't mind being tools and whores. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
Re: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil?
I'd point out that certain civil rights groups carry an enormous amount of influence with some legislators, and can be pretty much guaranteed a hearing.
That being said, I didn't recognize any of the groups listed in the article. That doesn't mean they aren't legit, but if I were a particularly devious PR flak, I might consider astroturfing "civil rights" groups in much the same way I astroturf more obvious interest groups.
Here's the list from the article, if anyone knows anything about any of them:
National Black Chamber of Commerce, Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, League of Rural Voters, and National Council of Women's Organizations |
|
URWRONG
@verizon.net
| reply to guardfrog
Re: BBR would have more credibility...
You are 100 percent wrong. STI takes ZERO industry money. Free Press' foots the bill for all activities related to STI, and they take ZERO industry money. Free Press and STI have not received one thin dime from Google, Microsoft, or any other corporation or private business. It's a point of pride for them.
Get your facts right pal. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to guardfrog
said by guardfrog :...if it didn't constantly try to stick this solely to the telcos. Has Karl not noticed that Google, MSFT, and other tech companies fund similar groups (savetheInternet, among others)? You've missed the point.
Doesn't it make sense to you that technology companies would fund technology advocacy groups?
No, the strange shilling that BBR is discussing here would happen when BigTechCompany donated money to the National Federation for the ThreeLegged, and then later you saw the National Federation of the ThreeLegged speak in support of adding H1B Visas for technology companies.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
VariableARK
join:2003-03-17
USA
| vote with your money
P2P crap should be throttled, I don't care if file sharing gets 500ms of latency, but I DO care if my VoIP call gets 500ms of latency. Network neutrality basically outlaws QOS. Or if you gamers out there want your games not to constantly lag while you hit the network with P2P traffic, you better think hard about this.
If an ISP is blocking your traffic, well then switch ISPs, vote with your dollars, and stop giving up freedoms to the heavy handed government. |
|
jonnyz
Premium
join:2003-03-20
Canfield, OH
clubs:
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| What ISP are you using? I get 20ms pings with P2P completely inactive, and "huge" 50ms pings with P2P running at full blast. Long live independent cable providers that run a robust network and have no need for QoS.
--
Join the RC5 team. |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Easy to Fix
Augh! I just tripped over a garden rake and fell face first into the astroturf. Damn that shit is nasty!
--
»www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Bible.jpg |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :It is funny how those who don't follow what BBR says is good are called sell-outs, but many so-called consumer activist groups who tow the line from their contributors are hailed as being on the side of the angels. Uh, I don't think BBR is describing these groups as angels. Luckily Karl is spot on on tech issues. Which annoys the mega-corp defender squadron to no end.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to guardfrog
Re: BBR would have more credibility...
said by guardfrog :...if it didn't constantly try to stick this solely to the telcos. Ummm.... BBR. BroadBand Reports.... Not "OS Opinions" or "Website Galleria" or something else... Who provides Broadband?  And Karl isn't above skewering the Cable Companies for their anti-consumer moves, as well.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to VariableARK
Re: vote with your money
Network Neutrality doesn't outlaw QOS. (unless you're listening to people who truly don't understand it) It simply requires network managers to treat all protocol type's the same, REGARDLESS of their creator. So all VOIP is treated equally, regardless if you're selling it, or someone else is. All P2P can be throttled, but you can't sell uber P2P service that isn't throttled. etc. |
|
VariableARK
join:2003-03-17
USA | The problem is that do you think the government(aka the ones who are actually enforcing this) understand that? I think not. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | There's nothing to enforce. There's no law outlining how networks using public resources are required to run. Except that they get certain immunities if they don't do things. But it's all very broad. |
|
