how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
998 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
3 edits | Go Ahead, Verizon, Make My Day (seriously) "Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice." Then do it!
There is no harm to the neutral nature of the network if Verizon offers a true consumer choice between the "wild, wild West of the Internet" or a "different experience." By true choice, I mean that the consumer is not prevented from nor charged more by choosing the neutral Internet.
It's today's Internet that is such demand, not any "different experience" brought about by giving preference to one service over another. I also remind you and everyone else that Verizon has prospered by offering access to the Internet at a premium market price. Make no mistake -- people want the Internet, THIS Internet, at the faster speeds and more capable capacities that Verizon provides. That's why VZ can charge more, and delivering fast Internet is why VZ is one of the most successful companies on the planet.
As long as the Internet unadulterated is the default, then I don't care whether Verizon offers parental control, web or VOIP acceleration, or any other kind of DPI goodness as a value-added or free modification. This keeps the end users in control, where the IETF has repeatedly indicated control should be. In fact, there probably are net benefits to Verizon in offering such options as power users, by and large, and network admins would likely choose the same types of services to accelerate or put in the background. In other words, provide the capability, encourage interested users to use it, and get out of the way.
VZ would, however, have to organize this in such a way that users who use standard "best-effort" aren't unduly harmed by users who are prioritizing very large transfers -- this common issue is easily handled by putting a low quota on very high-priority traffic and if the quota is exceeded, handling it as normal best-effort traffic. These quotas help promote the idea that freight should flow but shouldn't take up all lanes of traffic.
Your own statement recognizes that it's a false choice to preference someone's content or a particular service over another without an option out. Welcome to the Net Neutrality team. Can I point you to the right people to add Verizon to the list of supporters?
Robb Topolski
(views are my own)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| Rob, we have had this view for some time. I don't know if you saw the presentations from Dick Lynch, our CTO, at Silicon Flatirons earlier this year but he laid out much the same vision. Cheers. | |
 luster
join:2009-03-28
Berlin, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I don't believe you or Lynch, pal. Not for the briefest of moments!
For, if Verizon or any of the other carriers, who virtually removed an entire protocol from their networks, now claim they have such a view, it's no more then a bald face lie. No one rips an entire segment of the "wild, wild" internet out of their network then turns around says something stupid, like you just did. Who in the world do you think you're talking to?
Cheers back at ya.
--
"Homeland Security: A warm fuzzy way of saying Police State." | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | What protocol or incident are you talking about, luster  ?
Thanks | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Link Hoewing
Verizon's Tauke is painting the fearsome picture that Net Neutrality means that such preference services cannot be offered as an option.
That's just not true.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
luster
join:2009-03-28
Berlin, MD Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to funchords
Sprint & Time-Warner both completely eliminated NNTP protocol from their ISP offering. Verizon merely castrated it leaving 8 varieties of newsgroups.
This incident took place in June/July of 2008 after NY's atty gen'l said his taskforce had found, what they considered, childporn in 88 of the over 85,000 newsgroups on Usenet. The ISPs chose to deal with this by totally removing the NNTP protocol or, as Vz did, removing 95% of it, good and bad alike.
My monthly bill did not go down one cent after this, even though Vz cut what amounts to, 30% of my service. The FCC has yet to reply to my complaint.., guess they agree with the ISPs. The providers were able to get away with this because most people didn't know they were paying for Usenet service in their ISP bundle.
That's what protocol and incident, funchords.
»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
edited to add url | | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Okay. To be clear, they didn't eliminate the NNTP protocol on their services, they removed their own hosted NNTP servers. You can still reach services managed by others and the ISP does not interfere with that. That is, at least, my understanding.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
luster
join:2009-03-28
Berlin, MD Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Robb,
Your understanding is correct but, the two points that I'd hoped to make seem to have flown clearly over most heads.
First, Vz swats a gnat w/a 10lb sledge and in the process blatantly pares a huge chunk of their bundled internet service package from all 8+meg of their customers. And, no one, not even the FCC or MD PSC, seems to be alarmed at losing it! Well, I sure as hell am! Not only do I lose but, Vz also gains back that much network bandwidth and reduces costs in the data center to boot... Touche` Mr. businessman in bed with the lawman!
Second point is this Vz clown spouting off the likes of, "We like the wild, wild net. And, embrace every opportunity for bringing it to our customers who want it." Say what..fool? After you've just cut the "wild, wild" out of your service offering? You expect me to believe that horseshit, pal?
Anyway, Robb, this sums up what my original post was driving at.
--
Ken
--
"Homeland Security: A warm fuzzy way of saying Police State." | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by luster:First, Vz swats a gnat w/a 10lb sledge and in the process blatantly pares a huge chunk of their bundled internet service package from all 8+meg of their customers. And, no one, not even the FCC or MD PSC, seems to be alarmed at losing it! Well, I sure as hell am! Not only do I lose but, Vz also gains back that much network bandwidth and reduces costs in the data center to boot... Touche` Mr. businessman in bed with the lawman! Hi Ken,
I feel your pain, but there are a couple of realities here that make it impossible for the FCC or a PSC to care:
1. Running a usenet server is a non-essential, value-added service. VZ's network must support NNTP (or any other IP-based protocol), but Verizon doesn't need to run a server.
2. FCC's regulatory claim on broadband is weaker based on its status as an "Information Service" rather than "Common Carrier." When Verizon shuts down or trims back one of the components that make it an "Information Service" (examples: usenet server, email server, even DNS server falls here), it creates this situation where the matter at hand has nothing to do with carriage.
But as a consumer, I do wish that our ISPs would continue the age-old tradition of representing the Internet ecosystem to external pressures like the NY AG. Stand up to them, please! What Verizon did here was wrong -- there's just nothing we can do about it because it's this non-essential, value-added part and not the primary communication service.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
