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 |
|
