 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Shamayim
Re: Way to go! yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you! |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Like Comast wouldn't have done it anyway. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you! The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there. He has taken the original idea of network neutrality (that an ISP should treat providers equally to their in house content providers) and extended it to the idea that an ISP has to treat all PROTOCOLS equally and as a practical matter not have any network mgt procedures that stop anyone from flooding the network. His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost. I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 jt7
@comcast.net
approval from:
MrSpock29 
thumbs down from:
MrSpock29
| reply to BF69
the cap were there before he said anything man. get our facts straight |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there. Yeah he's in like, crazy town, dude.His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost. Not true. I've talked with him a lot, and he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent.I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda. Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology. |
|
|
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by BF69:yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you! The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there. He has taken the original idea of network neutrality (that an ISP should treat providers equally to their in house content providers) and extended it to the idea that an ISP has to treat all PROTOCOLS equally and as a practical matter not have any network mgt procedures that stop anyone from flooding the network. His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost. I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda. for once, i have to agree with tk. the issus at hand (at least with cox's hsi product) is that they are using some form of packet prioritization for voip and streaming video. many users are up in arms that they are paying for preferred or premier service and they should have *all* packets treated as such. the problem arises when someone is saturating the node (more than likely from some sort of p2p, especially bt) and that doesn't leave room for *anyones* packets because the node has been monopolized. with the popularity of products like vonage, et al, and on demand video services (netflix, hulu, youtube, etc) these services are negatively impacted in a noticeable way when there isn't enough bandwidth. otoh, bulk file transfers such as http/ftp downloads, email, etc. experience no adverse effect when delayed several passes (in fact, this is the whole concept of *packet switched networks*).
as i have said the entire time during the announcement of cox's network management system, it is nearly impossible to identify/determine root cause of/upgrade node saturation at such a fine level, especially when such bouts of utilization are so intermittent (as when p2p file transfers are running). add the cost factor to such an equation and we are looking at a lot of money spent simply so that a few people on p2p don't screw up a neighborhoods internet experience. it simply doesn't make business-sense, especially when we are all experiencing a recession (and most of us are dropping unneeded services to boot). if cox uses this to provide node remediation in the interim while d3 is being rolled out - great. where i *do* have an issue is if this is used in lieu of upgrades and d3 is pushed back even after we have pulled out of the recession and spending is back up to normal levels.
it is simply a pipe dream that we will have unlimited bandwidth to every user. we all want faster connections at lower prices, but (as everyone who has taken an economic class) wants are unlimited but resources are limited - and at a time when bandwidth is limited, i don't want someone who is too inconsiderate to throttle his up and downstream speeds to normal levels (or doesn't queue his downloads for late night) affecting my voip calls (or anyone's in the neighboorhood) or slowing down everyone else's internet to a crawl.
my two bits.
q. |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I don't think he's completely over the top concerning basic neutrality ideas -
From: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
-----
"A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3] -----
...As for adding more capacity to handle traffic?
-----Internet2----- that's what they decided was best. They are not inept or technologically challenged people...
......Also, why have most ISPs been upgrading their speeds? If it's going to result in "caps" that hinder what one should reasonably be able to do, that's kind of pointless... I'd rather stay with a set speed until capacity can handle greater speeds for more customers. |
|
 BeachieStranded in paradise
join:2001-07-12
St. Pete, FL
kudos:2
 ·Bright House
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Yeah he's in like, crazy town, dude. Game.... Not true. I've talked with him a lot, and he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent. Set.... Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology. Match! |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent. i would like to add that transparency does not always quell speculation or "armchair quarterbacking", as any frequent visitor to our teksavvy forums will be quick to recognize. sure there are people who are very knowledgeable on the topic at hand, but more often than not, their message is silenced by those who yell the loudest, or by those who *appear* to know but are only pushing the agenda of those who are paying them the most...
q. |
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to Karl Bode
"Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology."
Looking At Rob's resume, I don't think I would describe him as a Network Engineer. Intelligent, yes....Maybe an intelligent Software tester and QA Specialist.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I agree with Rob on the the "Upgrade Capacity" theory
For those who disagree with that,(TK Junk Mail)
I would have to respond with the statement ....
"That's Free Market Capitalism, Baby"
If One ISP cannot meet the bandwidth demands of customers, then let those customers flow to an ISP that CAN supply the demand for bandwidth.
Such is the rule of capitalism. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | reply to BF69
Oh ya, as if ISP's had never thought about employing caps until Rob came along and exposed comcrap's lies. |
|
| reply to Pv8man
Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism. He is in favor of Internet regulation, which is the antithesis of capitalism (regulation drives capital away) and free competition. |
|
| reply to BF69
Re: Way to go! said by BF69:yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you! That is not true. The hard caps were always there, except they would refuse to tell what they were.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | reply to SuperWISP
Re: Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism. There is a difference between Capitalism,
and F***ing consumers in the A**.
You don't think we need any internet regulations?
Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
The large ISP's would run a muck, and be doing ANYTHING that they deem profitable. |
|
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:He is in favor of Internet regulation, which is the antithesis of capitalism (regulation drives capital away) and free competition. He is in favor of LAWS to prevent abusive ISP's for not delivering the services they are PAID for.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
| reply to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:There is a difference between Capitalism, and F***ing consumers in the A**. You don't think we need any internet regulations? Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation. The large ISP's would run a muck, and be doing ANYTHING that they deem profitable. The guy you responded to is a small wireless ISP, I believe. He is all for the abusive tactics that were unraveled by Robb's hard work, so he is trying to throw mud.
And there is a difference between capitalism and uncontrolled monopolies.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
| reply to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:You don't think we need any internet regulations? Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation. Lest we forget, the Internet exists in the first place thanks to the fact that it was able to grow without regulation. Regulation kills innovation and plays right into the hands of the largest corporations. Regulate, and you'll drive all competitors out of the business -- leaving only the monopoly cable and telephone companies behind.
So, yes, I'm imagining what the Internet is like without regulation. It's great that way -- and should stay that way. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to hobgoblin
Re: Way to go! said by hobgoblin:"Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology." Looking At Rob's resume, I don't think I would describe him as a Network Engineer. Intelligent, yes....Maybe an intelligent Software tester and QA Specialist. Hob qft! my thoughts exactly.
you can read and discuss until you are blue in the face, but unless you have lived it, breathed it, done it...you don't really understand the little idiosyncracies etc...
its exactly the argument that many people make between academia and the workforce...
q. |
|
| reply to sturmvogel
Re: Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism. said by sturmvogel:He is in favor of LAWS to prevent abusive ISP's for not delivering the services they are PAID for. Not so. The laws Topolski favors would in fact prevent ISPs from managing their networks. They would therefore prevent ISPs from being able to ensure that you get what you pay for. |
|
