how-to block ads
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Sigh... Net Neutrality is NOT against prioritizing services. It's against prioritizing servicers'.
For the millionth time...
If they want to create an express lane for Voip, great! But all Voip servicers' must be able to sell their Voip service on the express lane. Otherwise it's an abuse of the government granted wireline monopoly. Obviously you can see how if they were allowed to restrict competitors in that service from using the express lane, that the outcome will be all services used over the internet will come from your incumbent wireline ISP. It's the logical conclusion. Great for the stock holders, but terrible for the communities which grant the wireline monopolies; which is why they get a say. | |
|  
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh... Correct. Of course, these people are not interested in truth, only what will make the impression they want on the public or on legislators.
This report is FUD - an attempt to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in opposition to network neutrality. It is emitted by the so-called "New Millennium Research Council" which happens to be funded by the big incumbent ISPs. See for example this page about who it really represents (another exposé of its sources).
Keep your eye on the ball folks, pressure on capacity is not an argument against network neutrality. You are being lied to by big companies trying to sell out the public interest so they can make more profit. | |
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Thats moot point, thetelcos would love to have VOIP or any company use the express routing. There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices.
The isseu is Google and Ebay want the service but do no like the cost so they lobby for Net Nutrality which is nothing more tahn attemmpt to slap price controls on the backbone. | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Sigh... said by Richard B  :There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices. It would make sense if it cost them a lot to offer QoS for VoIP, however, because nearly all of the routers that the providers use have QOS features built into them and because it costs nothing to turn them on, charging VoIP service providers extra for something that doesn't cost the access providers anything is asinine.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | |
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Re: Sigh... said by bmn :said by Richard B :There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices. It would make sense if it cost them a lot to offer QoS for VoIP, however, because nearly all of the routers that the providers use have QOS features built into them and because it costs nothing to turn them on, charging VoIP service providers extra for something that doesn't cost the access providers anything is asinine. no it called capitalism, they can pay up for premium tiers or shut up and stay with the lower tiers. | |
| | | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh... It's nothing to do with capitalism when the only reason the telephone and cable companies are in a position to extort double payments is that they are allowed to maintain monopolies on the "last mile" to customers' premises (on telephone or cable lines respectively).
This so-called "fast lane" is only the regular service that everyone has already paid for. The ISP's customers pay for their connections and the remote providers that they access pay for their own internet access at their end of the connection. "Premium" for some is just another word for degrading service for everyone who won't pay an additional fee to avoid throttling. This is an abuse of a monopoly, not a healthy market. | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by Richard B :no it called capitalism, they can pay up for premium tiers or shut up and stay with the lower tiers. Yes it is capitalism... It is also asinine. The two are not mutually exclusive.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| 
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
 ·Cingular Wireless
| said by Ahrenl :If they want to create an express lane for Voip, great! But all Voip servicers' must be able to sell their Voip service on the express lane. Otherwise it's an abuse of the government granted wireline monopoly. Obviously you can see how if they were allowed to restrict competitors in that service from using the express lane, that the outcome will be all services used over the internet will come from your incumbent wireline ISP. FWIW: Cablevision (and I would assume other cable companies since CV can't be smarter on general principle), is already treating VOIP service (From Them) as an independent network with it's own set of IP addresses, and QOS priority. One quarter (I think) of all the homes they pass have VOIP from them. 80% of all home use some form of digital service from them (either VOIP/ISP/Digital Cable services) They can tell their VOIP since they control the boxes, etc. Now if they allow the prioritized packets from non-CV VOIP devices (and I believe that Vonage, et al, do at least mark their packets as priority) to pass undisturbed on their regular network (which is pretty fast since base service is 15/2), how does that work with or against in Net Neutral thinking?
I'm just asking, how this plays or are you saying that they have to NAT the packets onto thier own VOIP network? | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: Sigh... They don't HAVE to do anything.
The point is, by being allowed to have a duopoly on the last mile wireline service, they are put in a position to leverage the duopoly to make cloned internet services look superior. You take away the wireline duopoly leverage and their service may even be rated sub-standard. When you have a government provided duopoly (as most are) you should be required to offer an even playing field for services you enter in competitive markets, or you should be restricted from entering those markets.
Otherwise the logical conclusion is the party with duopoly leverage will eventually control every related market as well.
I'm not sure what the difference is between a prioritized packet and a NAT mapped packet moving across the same network. A simple service registration process for VOIP service providers would make it a moot point anyway, I would think. | |
| | | |
|
