dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1736
share rss forum feed


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Defund It

The FCC should not be allowed to make its own arbitrary rules, especially when these rules have nothing to do with its mission of ensuring that radio frequency users do not conflict with one another. Even worse, it should not be allowed to act in such a secretive manner.

I sincerely hope the next Congress halts funding for the FCC, or at the very least fails to agree to fund it. No government agency run by unelected bureaucrats should be able to make up a new set of laws and rules, as that is the job of Congress.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

matrix3D

join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT
quote:
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
I find your signature to be a little amusing (and misleading) considering that Comcast has had a 250 GB monthly cap long before there was any "network neutrality."

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

comcast has that cap due to the bandwidth hogs that decided they need to download TBs worth of data each and every month and thought it was unfair that each Comcast market had a different cap. Want it equal- get one.

Now people bitch that they want an equal Internet and this is what's happening. Except the FCC is smart and Didn't completely over steam their guidelines. The next step is for an ISP to use them and Congress to smack them around a little bit when they come back from Winter Break and the new Congress takes over.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to pnh102
the FCC CAN make rules; but only for radio services really. Their limited pretty much on everything else and at best; their "rules" are only guidelines for the public as NOTHING they do is enforcable. We've already found that out with Comcast and the FCC. So what ever they wanna do let them due; we all know that the FCC's days are numbered and soon they'll be gone and a new one will take over. Maybe even Congress writing a new law that says the FCC has NO ruling power over the Internet, cable and telephone rules. Only radio; which they were created for back when private radio came around.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by hottboiinnc:

the FCC CAN make rules; but only for radio services really.

EXACTLY.

And those rules are merely operational details of the FCC's original congressional mandate. The FCC can't simply go make up the law as it pleases.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

reply to matrix3D
said by matrix3D:

I find your signature to be a little amusing (and misleading) considering that Comcast has had a 250 GB monthly cap long before there was any "network neutrality."

It is not misleading if it is true.

Comcast's 250GB was put in response to the "net neutrality" whiners who complained that Comcast should not be allowed to manage traffic on its privately owned network in a way it sees fit. There was no evidence whatsoever that Comcast was blocking anything outright even if it was significantly throttling certain protocols. To put it simply, why should one person's VOIP session, gaming session or web browsing experience be killed by someone else's BitTorrent session, which by definition is not time-sensitive.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

matrix3D

join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT
You are completely mixing apples and oranges. They instituted the cap long before net neutrality was even an argument to deal with bandwidth hogs. However, if we were to spin it the way you want to, you're still contradicting your own argument because you say:

quote:
...who complained that Comcast should not be allowed to manage traffic on its privately owned network in a way it sees fit.
The FCC "rules," in fact, allow for "reasonable" network management under which the caps would fit. So I don't see the problem there. Then, in the very next sentence, you say:

quote:
There was no evidence whatsoever that Comcast was blocking anything outright even if it was significantly throttling certain protocols.
Please explain to me how treating protocols differently does not amount to traffic discrimination? Also, if Comcast were to suddenly decide to throttle Vonage, would you also continue to say "there's nothing to see here?"


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

The FCC should not be allowed to make its own arbitrary rules, especially when these rules have nothing to do with its mission of ensuring that radio frequency users do not conflict with one another.

I don't know where you're coming up with this repeated falsehood, pray tell.

Yes, that's A mission of the FCC. That's not THE mission.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to pnh102
The good part is what they create isn't law at all. Except "rules" that are pretty much a waste of time. It would be like Karl making his own broadband rules for ISPs to create. Good luck enforcing something that they can't. The FCC has NO legal power and the people on here don't see it that way. They see the FCC as God and can regulate the Internet and all. Well they can't; and its time the FCC is put into their place and only has control over the public airwaves and that's it.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to funchords
No. Pnh102 is correct. There are several documentaries on the subject. the FCC was created and still is under the legal obligation to protect America's airwaves. the Internet does NOT fall under that guideline when the FCC was created. In actually the Internet was still new at that point. The FCC's job was to protect the radio stations and kill off the pirate stations. Nothing was ever written for Internet. In fact; the Internet is an unregulated INFORMATION service as defined by them.. Which means they can NOT control.

Maybe the public should step up and sue the FCC along with a few of the ISPs. We'll see how far they get after the general public issues suit.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to matrix3D
said by matrix3D:

You are completely mixing apples and oranges. They instituted the cap long before net neutrality was even an argument to deal with bandwidth hogs.

Incorrect. The cap was instituted when people were complaining about certain protocols being throttled. Comcast's response was the hard cap because said cap is "neutral" as the net neutrality crowd wished.
said by matrix3D:

The FCC "rules," in fact, allow for "reasonable" network management under which the caps would fit.

Which law grants to the FCC the power to tell an ISP to do this. If there is no law, and the FCC is just making things up, then the FCC deserves to be punished for it.
said by matrix3D:

Please explain to me how treating protocols differently does not amount to traffic discrimination?

Of course it is traffic discrimination, but since when did packets on a network get civil rights? Are you seriously arguing that packets that are used for VOIP, gaming or web services are not more time sensitive than those used for things like file transfers and BitTorrent? If Comcast doesn't feel the need to upgrade its network to allow all traffic to flow unimpeded, then what business does the government have to force it to do so?
said by matrix3D:

Also, if Comcast were to suddenly decide to throttle Vonage, would you also continue to say "there's nothing to see here?"

Ironically enough the FCC has used existing authority granted to it by the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to punish an ISP for blocking access to (not throttling) Vonage.

»FCC Identifies, Fines VoIP Blocker
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by pnh102:

said by matrix3D:

You are completely mixing apples and oranges. They instituted the cap long before net neutrality was even an argument to deal with bandwidth hogs.

Incorrect. The cap was instituted when people were complaining about certain protocols being throttled. Comcast's response was the hard cap because said cap is "neutral" as the net neutrality crowd wished.

Absolutely incorrect. You're making this up.

This had to do with a Florida Attorney General's investigation about disclosure and had nothing to do with NN.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by funchords:

Absolutely incorrect. You're making this up.

In order for me to make this up, I'd have to be a very good time traveler.

Go read the link and try again.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
I don't see a link that supports your position, but it doesn't matter since I have clear memory of the matter.

Since you do not, here is my link: »Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading Consumers
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

fastmc

join:2010-12-22
Eight Mile, AL
reply to pnh102
I can see you sitting behind you desk at at&t comcast etc.. Who's side you on? We need net Neutrality for a fair and open internet. Don't need gatekeepers on the internet. Just a way for service providers to make more money .. Net Neutrality been here since the internet started. Isp's get there way no more innovation. They would be like the mafia. you pay this price here and we can do a little something for you. Say goodbye to startups like google,,skype ,you tube etc...There goes the average Joe trying to make a business on the internet.
Either your a uninformed person or like I stated in my first sentence your a boss at one of the big ISP'S.

ISP'S he people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
said by fastmc:

I can see you sitting behind you desk at at&t comcast etc.. Who's side you on? We need net Neutrality for a fair and open internet. Don't need gatekeepers on the internet. Just a way for service providers to make more money .. Net Neutrality been here since the internet started. Isp's get there way no more innovation. They would be like the mafia. you pay this price here and we can do a little something for you. Say goodbye to startups like google,,skype ,you tube etc...There goes the average Joe trying to make a business on the internet.
Either your a uninformed person or like I stated in my first sentence your a boss at one of the big ISP'S.

ISP'S he people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

If you are serious, you are the uninformed person, or someone working at the FCC. You think you need net neutrality for a fair and open internet, but you don't realize the consequences of doing so. Taking the gatekeepers off the internet is the same as taking the cops off the road.

Because of the unregulated chaos, it will lower the efficiency of the internet, which will cause prices to go up, or caps to come down. Sure, lets get NN, but it will come at a price.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by jcremin:

You think you need net neutrality for a fair and open internet, but you don't realize the consequences of doing so. Taking the gatekeepers off the internet is the same as taking the cops off the road.

Because of the unregulated chaos, it will lower the efficiency of the internet, which will cause prices to go up, or caps to come down. Sure, lets get NN, but it will come at a price.

Oh goodness, please buy a clue.

The kind of gatekeepers you're talking about (those that would keep the system from falling down in the face of an attack) have always been there, and they do a good job. That's not what anybody is talking about changing.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
said by funchords:

Oh goodness, please buy a clue.

The kind of gatekeepers you're talking about (those that would keep the system from falling down in the face of an attack) have always been there, and they do a good job. That's not what anybody is talking about changing.

Ok, for reference I own an operate a small ISP, so I have a pretty good clue about how things work. No need to "buy a clue" as you say insultingly.

I'm not referring to the "gatekeepers" as the ones who step in during an emergency. I'm talking about the everyday enforcing the speed limit, making sure people aren't passing illegally, types management.

Ensuring that your VoIP call (which very well could be a 911 emergency call) is clear and understandable requires giving it priority over things that aren't time sensitive, such as streaming something from NetFlix. Critical communication is much more important and deserves priority over any entertainment. However even entertainment such as online gaming is time sensitive and should be put somewhere between VoIP traffic and Netflix.

A very big part of net neutrality is about treating every type of digital 1 and 0 the same. Being able to keep traffic flowing on the internet efficiently is a very critical part of maintaining a system that works, and quite often the net neutrality fans don't understand that.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to matrix3D
said by matrix3D:

quote:
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
I find your signature to be a little amusing (and misleading) considering that Comcast has had a 250 GB monthly cap long before there was any "network neutrality."

... "before there was any "network neutrality"" you say huh? I wasn't aware that there WAS or even IS any network neutrality as of today.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to hottboiinnc
It's nice to see that there are people here that realize that FCC just makes it up as they go and makes, no, INVENTS their own rules as they go.

First they couldn't do anything with the internet because the courts said it was an information service. So, the FCCs answer to that was to arbitrarily reclassify it and THEN try to push it's weight back in.

The courts made it clear to the FCC that they couldn't make the rules they did. The FCC simply changed a word and and are now trying to make an end run around the judicial branch. Hell, even congress can't do this. The old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Only, when it comes to the internet, the FCC decided the the duck now moo's and pushed ahead again.

You said "and the people on here don't see it that way." The problem with a lot of the people here is that they want what they want and don't care what anyone else wants. They also don't care about things like "the law" and how society has to kinda play by those laws. They will just simply see it they want they want and don't care.. why? .. because they know what's best for the rest of us. Many of these would be the same group of people that like using BBR buzz words like "myopic view" and the sort and they don't realize that they, themselves, are myopic in their thinking because they're only looking at one single issue at a time and not the greater picture. It's frustrating, to say the least.

But yea.. the FCC is there for radio spectrum. They're not there to make rules about satellite dish placement rules/rights, or if a building owner can engage in a legal contract between themselves and a provider for entry, or how the internet will be used, or any other BS rules they've decided to make up as they go along. These would all be issues for congress.

matrix3D

join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT
reply to fiberguy
That's why I put it in quotes -- the "rules" the FCC came out with the other day (enforceable or not) are being referred to by people as "network neutrality rules."
Expand your moderator at work

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to fiberguy

Re: Defund It

So in the end the Courts need either to slap the FCC and start making them paying fines as well, or Congress needs to just shit-can them and start over.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to jcremin
said by jcremin:

Ensuring that your VoIP call (which very well could be a 911 emergency call) is clear and understandable requires giving it priority over things that aren't time sensitive, such as streaming something from NetFlix.

It does not and if you have the background you claim to have, you know that it doesn't. VOIP blossomed before ISPs could affordable prioritize by type. VOIP's network behaviors are designed for the general-purpose Internet because they can't count on ISPs to prioritize them. And you have no idea what kind of VOIP that I have, so how could you possibly be prioritizing it?

Quit making things up.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

The courts made it clear to the FCC that they couldn't make the rules they did. The FCC simply changed a word and and are now trying to make an end run around the judicial branch. Hell, even congress can't do this. The old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Only, when it comes to the internet, the FCC decided the the duck now moo's and pushed ahead again.

Pretty much true. It's 2005 all over again.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to funchords
said by funchords:

said by jcremin:

Ensuring that your VoIP call (which very well could be a 911 emergency call) is clear and understandable requires giving it priority over things that aren't time sensitive, such as streaming something from NetFlix.

It does not and if you have the background you claim to have, you know that it doesn't. VOIP blossomed before ISPs could affordable prioritize by type. VOIP's network behaviors are designed for the general-purpose Internet because they can't count on ISPs to prioritize them. And you have no idea what kind of VOIP that I have, so how could you possibly be prioritizing it?

Quit making things up.

If you had the background that I had you would know that you can prioritize based on the type of data, regardless of which provider you are using. For the most part, it doesn't matter what kind of VoIP you have because I can say (and this is the simple version) that small UDP packets get priority over large TCP packets on port 80, for example. Yes, I can't get it all with one rule, but it is pretty easy to get 95% of VoIP with one or two rules.

VoIP by nature is very time sensitive and there is nothing that can really be done in the protocol itself to change that. VoIP sucked on many networks before ISPs started prioritizing traffic. And it may not be a huge problem for many ISP's right now, but as things like NetFlix start consuming exponentially more bandwidth, it will actually become more and more important.

If there is no other traffic, prioritizing isn't necessary. But if you have 1 meg service, for example, and you are on a VoIP call but not doing anything else, it should work just fine. But if you then open up YouTube and it tries to hog all of your bandwidth, the VoIP call will suck assuming nothing is getting prioritized. Now if you have a router (Vonage router's do it out of the box) it may be automatically prioritizing VoIP traffic.

What I was trying to say in the message you quoted me is that prioritizing is the only way we can ENSURE that your VoIP call will be clear and understandable. It may or may not be necessary depending on how much traffic the customer is using or how much traffic is being transferred on the backhaul network, but especially during peak times. No prioritizing means that time sensitive things may or may not work, but by prioritizing, we can guarantee that NetFlix won't get priority over VoIP traffic.

Did I explain myself enough?


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
It sucks if I now have to ask your involvement to use or market my VOIP because you prioritize other forms of VOIP but maybe not mine. Stop doing that, you're breaking the interoperability we're supposed to be able to count on with the Internet. Just send everything best-effort unless is it marked otherwise.

Let me worry about making my codec robust. If I have to send instructions or routers to end users to help them, that's my business. You just admit the bits at the rate purchased by the user. If you truly want to help using queuing in the middle of the network, then obey the handling instructions placed by the user in the header.

said by jcremin:

Now if you have a router (Vonage router's do it out of the box) it may be automatically prioritizing VoIP traffic.

And that's pretty much okay, because that's how prioritization is supposed to be done -- at the end points.

You and I both know that we're talking about prioritization BETWEEN the end points and without the choices being made by the end users. That's what is prohibited.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
said by funchords:

It sucks if I now have to ask your involvement to use or market my VOIP because you prioritize other forms of VOIP but maybe not mine. Stop doing that, you're breaking the interoperability we're supposed to be able to count on with the Internet. Just send everything best-effort unless is it marked otherwise.

Let me worry about making my codec robust. If I have to send instructions or routers to end users to help them, that's my business. You just admit the bits at the rate purchased by the user. If you truly want to help using queuing in the middle of the network, then obey the handling instructions placed by the user in the header.

said by jcremin:

Now if you have a router (Vonage router's do it out of the box) it may be automatically prioritizing VoIP traffic.

And that's pretty much okay, because that's how prioritization is supposed to be done -- at the end points.

You and I both know that we're talking about prioritization BETWEEN the end points and without the choices being made by the end users. That's what is prohibited.

I understand what you are saying.. Let the VoIP codec set its own priority. In a perfect world, that would be the best option. But we both know that as soon as that system were fully implemented, EVERYONE would prioritize EVERYTHING, so the system would be useless.

Yes, prioritization is important on the "last mile" where you would expect the highest point of saturation, because that is where the bandwidth constraint for the speed you purchased right? Well, not exactly. Many ISPs set your speed limit at their core routers, or somewhere else upstream from the "endpoint". To let an end-user's router do the prioritization, you now have to sacrifice some of your speed for it to work. For instance, if you do have a 1024k connection, the router has to limit you overall speed to somewhere around 768k to keep latency low and let the prioritization work.

But that's fine, if you care more about things being equal, than efficient, NN is for you. But you also have to realize that sometimes there are traffic jams on more than the last mile, and there's nothing a prioritizing endpoint router could do to help you out there.

NN sounds good in theory, but it creates just as many problems as it solves. And most of the problems it solves weren't really problems in the first place.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by jcremin:

But you also have to realize that sometimes there are traffic jams on more than the last mile, and there's nothing a prioritizing endpoint router could do to help you out there.

Then take the problem to the IETF and do it in an interoperable way. Following approved standards is undeniably reasonable network management.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
said by funchords:

said by jcremin:

But you also have to realize that sometimes there are traffic jams on more than the last mile, and there's nothing a prioritizing endpoint router could do to help you out there.

Then take the problem to the IETF and do it in an interoperable way. Following approved standards is undeniably reasonable network management.

Oh how simple life would be if that were all there is to it. Many carriers simply don't have the backhaul capacity, and that really has nothing to do with following standards or the IETF.