| reply to funchords
Re: Not news said by funchords: Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want. Which isn't being done. And some of the proposed net neutrality proposals go way beyond prohibiting such activity. They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. You'll have to show me which proposal does that. |
|
|
|
| said by Karl Bode:They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. You'll have to show me which proposal does that. Here is 1 example. The key was prohibition of QOS and admission control of data to the network.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_F···_of_2006
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···islation
quote:
prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Oh. I thought you meant current proposals. Not ones defeated in 2006. Yes, I don't think restricting intelligent network management makes sense, and I think most of the newer proposals have evolved to reflect the kind of things Sandvine is doing with real time node congestion detection. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs. If someone is proposing that in the name of NN, then they're co-opting the principle.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking. If you're trying to say that NN proponents want all broadband modems to be wide open, then you're mistaken. What they're saying is that prioritization isn't allowed. ISPs can still limit the admission rate, they just generally can't prioritize/degrade among the traffic.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by funchords: Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want. Which isn't being done. Madison River blocking VOIP?
Comcast and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox's prioritization trial in Arkansas and Kansas?
Thanks to this debate and the creation of federal Net Neutrality policies, there are only a few examples if ISPs blocking or degrading VOIP and user uploads. But even those examples are huge when you consider that Comcast and Cox together were involved in the Sandvine RST thing. Together that's a large fraction of the USA Internet populace, not to mention the peers outside of the ISPs what those RSTs also went to.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: quote:
prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
I think you are being deliberately hyperbolic.
The issue is not traffic priority per se, it is who gets to set priority levels, the ISP or customer. Concern is ISP will enter into business relationships with preferred vendors and provide enhanced service level to them and lower service level to competitors. This is at odds with the end-to-end paradigm of the Internet as a transparent bit delivery mechanism.
Neither the PSTN nor the Internet is non-blocking. Both utilize different mechanisms to manage overload conditions. Even commercial accounts with Service Level Agreement's (SLA) count on the statistical nature of traffic.
The problem for ISP's is the initial model of bursty Internet access is giving way to media streaming. This results in higher average traffic per unit of time then originally expected. In addition residential accounts were expected to be primarily data sinks. As new services are created upload is becoming more important.
/tom |
|
