dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
11
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to fg8578

Member

to fg8578

Re: Internet has never been "neutral"

LOL, are you honestly going to try to pull out RFC's and use them out of context to justify the blatant attempt of human actions to monetize the internet? Well played!

Unfortunately for you, you did no look far enough past your nose. Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network. Which is the ONLY time any modification to the delivery of a packet is/would need to be done. If the network is not congested then the packet will be received and sent within milliseconds and absolutely no prioritization will occur. Are you going to dispute this?

There has always been neutrality on the Internet. That neutrality that you refuse to admit to is that every packet is received and sent as fast as it can be with no regard to it's content, source or destination. If a node is congested, then sure some management could be be implemented per the RFC's whether it is at my computer, on my router, on my ISP network, at their gateway, the gateway to any peers and the very service I am requesting packets from. That is how the protocol was designed and it was designed that way for reliability. Nobody would ever dispute that if they know anything about networking. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

I think I will take the opinion of the person(s) that designed the protocol and considered to be the father of the internet over the corporations who's only interest is money to say what they think is neutral and what is not.

Vint Cerf: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.
»googleblog.blogspot.com/ ··· ity.html

Try again....

fiosultimate
join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

fiosultimate

Member

Internet has never been neutral, just like all people are racist, people are selfish and self centered, that's how we are built, we wanttl succeed and our relatives or friends or race to be successful, so we favor them, stop trying to fight nature and accept it

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

There has always been neutrality on the Internet.

UDP and RBL have nothing to do with congestion, and they certainly are not "neutral".
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

That is honestly the only thing you are going to rebut of my entire statement? I understand, I guess when I hit you with such hard facts along with such a strong statement by the very father of the internet and co-designer of the very protocol it would be tough to come back from. Take your time, I am here all week.

BTW, I guess you missed the sentence:
said by Skippy25:

Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network.


fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

said by Skippy25:

BTW, I guess you missed the sentence:

said by Skippy25:

Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network.

No I didn't miss it, which is why I asked my question -- you completely ignored UDP and RBL exactly because you cannot square those common practices with Net Neutrality.

RFC 2474, 2475 and 2638 describe differentiated services. Differentiated services exist whether or not a network is congested. The very concept of a "differentiated service" by definition means that some packets are treated differently.
coryw
join:2013-12-22
Flagstaff, AZ

coryw

Member

Except that they do have to deal with congested networks, particularly the RFC from 1981, when "the Internet" was still heavily influenced by its history as a defense and research network, where the backhaul was truly measured in some number of single or tens of megabits, and certain types of messages were considered more critical.

None of that was designed with the notion that one day we might consider the packets of a new YouTube competitor as "droppable" simply because they haven't paid Comcast for priority carriage, or a service provider being able to charge more or less.

And, QoS is reasonable anyway. I think it's already well known that things like VoIP are going to carry a higher priority than, say, web traffic.

The real issue here is things going from network to network, and the idea of free peering, etc, has been at the core of the idea of the "Internet" (inter-connected set of networks) since the start, and that is the thing that people are worried most about.. (And by extension, what the idea of charging web sites to have priority at the network gateways means for the Internet as a whole.)
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to fg8578

Member

to fg8578
If the network is not congested then not a single packet will be delayed, sent faster or slower, before or after another. They will simply be sent as fast at the equipment can possibly send them so nothing else matters. Keep in mind that just because TCP/IP is made to do those things that does not make it necessary nor preferred and sometimes that changes when you go from a private network (your home) to a public one (your ISP).

Regardless, I still stand by the co-author of the protocol and the what the father of the internet says over some Salem, OR individual trying to use RFC's to defend the unneeded creation of tolls booths for data.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

said by Skippy25:

Regardless, I still stand by the co-author of the protocol and the what the father of the internet says over some Salem, OR individual trying to use RFC's to defend the unneeded creation of tolls booths for data.

The standard speaks for itself. And the only one talking sabout toll booths is you. To the extent I mentioned payments at all, I was quoting directly from the standards. So if you have an issue with them, you should take it up with the IETF.
Expand your moderator at work