 amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs: | good for him at least someone finally had the cojones to up and say this.
the 'net is about open and unrestricted access to information. what that information is, is up to you. what ever happened to calling it the 'information superhighway'? | |
|
 | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: good for him said by amungus  :what ever happened to calling it the 'information superhighway'? It's now the "Information Transportation System". Within that system, you have super highways, city streets and gravel paths. The "super highways" will all be toll roads. Everything else will be gravel paths.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
| Re: good for him said by nixen :said by amungus :what ever happened to calling it the 'information superhighway'? It's now the "Information Transportation System". Within that system, you have super highways, city streets and gravel paths. The "super highways" will all be toll roads. Everything else will be gravel paths. -tom I LOVE THAT ANALOGY. | |
|
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: good for him ...and to correct that analogy, the superhighways will be subsidized by the ISPs.
The ISP's will provide various forms of access between your parking space and the superhighway. With a "net neutrality" approach, you will get to choose (and pay for) they type of city streets and driveways you use.
With the whining Baby Bells' approach of "charging the content provider under the table", you may get gravel or you may get concrete, but the choice will be out of your hands--it will be determined by which stores you chose to do business with today, and you won't have any idea or control over whether you'll drive out into a mudhole or a wide open expressway when you leave your parking space.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | I see your point however I bet the truth is more like google or someone is paying him more to champion their cause. He may actually believe what he is saying however I doubt he would say it with out the corp backing. | |
|
| | ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN | Re: good for him I agree that there must be something else behind his motives. If we are wrong then I will be first to say so. | |
|
| | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| Re: good for him said by ossito16 :I agree that there must be something else behind his motives. If we are wrong then I will be first to say so. I'll call you out on this.
Whereas it's possible he has supporters, as long as he acts by his own convictions and only accepts help from other sources, I have no problem with it. And currently we have zero indication that he's acting on behalf of somebody else. | |
|
| | | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: good for him We hope he wins the battle, but we just have little faith in the political system that seems to go to the highest bidder.
Again he may believe in what he is fighting for, however I am sure the corp backing pushes him along a little futher. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| said by kamm :said by ossito16 :I agree that there must be something else behind his motives. If we are wrong then I will be first to say so. I'll call you out on this. Whereas it's possible he has supporters, as long as he acts by his own convictions and only accepts help from other sources, I have no problem with it. And currently we have zero indication that he's acting on behalf of somebody else. Are you kidding? He's a US Senator/Congressmen. OF COURSE he's doing this on behalf of someone else, they don't have time for their own agendas..
Indication to the contrary is what is required in this case. 
Either way, I think we all agree it's a good thing. | |
|
| Scuba2
join:2004-01-13
Under da sea
| It's still the Information Superhighway ...... just some companies want to make it into a toll road ...... don't worry though they will eventually come up with an Easy Pass system and charge extra  | |
|
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: good for him ...huh? It's ALREADY a toll road, unless you're mooching off of your neighbor's unsecured WiFi and you're terrified that "pay-as-you-go" pricing might cause him to secure it....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX
clubs:
| Oregon Senator Ron Wyden "The Net has been about access and equal treatment and giving everyone a fair shake," says Wyden. "People who own these fat pipes, these cable and telecommunications people - - want to undermine that."
I LIKE this guy and have no idea of what political party he belongs to! | |
|
| footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said by Gwailo :Wyden: "People who own these fat pipes, these cable and telecommunications people - - want to undermine that." At least he admits that these pipes are OWNED by someone. Now he just needs to push through a socialist government takeover..... | |
|
statecop
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Albertville, AL
·Vonage
·Charter Pipeline
| Contact your senators »senate.gov/general/contact_infor···_cfm.cfm
I think this is and issue for concern by both parties and it seems they are working together well to fix the problem but we all need to send our senators emails to let them know we wish they would support the Non-Discrimination Act of 2006.
I just sent my two senators and email. They usually respond to all the ones I have in the past and even get an update in the normal mail from time to time.
--
»www.SRTunderground.us | |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | That settles it I am moving to Oregon.;) | |
|
ddddddd
@170.135.x.x
| Wyden's an independant Dem I haven't heard anything about Wyden being bought by google, but Portland and Oregon in general have some pretty progressive ideas about this stuff. Portland tried to force Comcast (it was tci at the time) to open their pipes to any ISP (a federal court stopped that). They also have talk a lot lately about setting up a city-wide wireless network. They also tried to force Enron to sell the local electric utility to the city (this one wasn't such a good idea).
Oregon has a tradition of independant senators. Wyden(D) and Smith(R) both tweak the party's noses now and then. | |
|
|
| 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
edit:
March 2nd, @04:02PM
| Re: Good Ol' Wyden said by KeepOnRockin :Thumbs up to him for having the guts to stand up for the people. What does this have to do with "standing up for the people?" How will "the people" suffer if this happens?
Despite the hysteria of those who know nothing about this topic, there may be some benefit for the end-user if this happens.
I'm in the industry and this is how it was explained to us by a person very high up in one of the incumbents:
He put it in terms of POTS service. POTS service, like Internet pipes, isn't designed for every subscriber to use it to capacity at exactly the same time. They call it the "Mother's Day" syndrome. Even though POTS is rock-solid in most cases, you'll get lots of busy signals (or some other kind of "error") if every person in the country picks up a phone to call Mom at the same time.
In the same manner, video and other high-bandwidth applications are taking over the Internet. While all providers are upgrading their networks pretty much constantly, the spread of high-bandwidth apps is increasing far faster than network upgrades can happen. This will result in more "busy signals" for the Internet - choppy or interrupted video, VOIP issues, etc.
With this multi-tiered plan, the ISPs are going to provide a separate pipe where video streams, etc, are guaranteed to get through to the users without a "busy signal" of any kind. The "regular" Internet will not be affected in any way, regardless of what the tin-foil hat crowd thinks. There just won't be the guarantee of uninterrupted throughput - which is -exactly- how the Internet works today for most end-users. Those content providers that wish to have complete assurance that their data will get to their customers with no interruption with get it, while those that don't pay will have business as usual.
All of that said, I want to see how this would be implemented before I can say that it's acceptable. It may end up being horrible, though it's definitely not going to be anything near what the hysterical freaks would have you believe. There will be no blocking of non-participating sites or any of that other FUD that has been doing around. I'm just hoping to bring a little perspective back to the debate over this issue. There's always quite the group-think around here and it rarely bears any resemblance to reality.
Adam | |
|
| | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: Good Ol' Wyden That is an aweful analogy. POTS doesn't bring different types of services to your house. The pipes don't just carry web pages anymore they also carry Voip, media, etc... This is nothing, but an extortion scheme if you think for a second the telco's have your well being in mind you are sadly mistaken. Just listening to the way the CEOs speak tells me everything I need to know about this two teired bullshit. I feel like I am listening to good ol Scrooge whenever one of these CEOs opens their mouth. | |
|
| |
RyanTh3D0g
@ashlandfiber.net
| I see what you say Adam, and there is a minor similarity between POTS schema and "internet pipes."
But there is a noticeable difference that you neglected to mention.
Unless these enhanced (high-end) channels DO NOT use the hardware and transmission medium (whole new physical networks implemented) the rest of the bandwidth users will experience the overhead that it takes to dedicate these high-end packets around the net.
If these are static settings in routers, switches, tel-net gear and similar network, they will consume overhead that will absolutely be felt by all.
There is no way around that. Transmission Control Protocol was setup in such a fashion as to push packets through to IP's via hops, which routers handle. There is a limit to bandwidth, and it doesn't just magically appear.
Another point is maybe of interest as well. If, in the perfect (NON TCP-IP) world a (web-based) server would have dedicated CPU cycles set aside to handle this enhanced bandwidth, this would be viable without detriment to the current system. Until that happens, you are still pulling from 'the little guys' to push this through. Liken it to standing in line at Disneyland. If someone walks up to the front of the ride line, it delays everyone in the queue!
Bottom line:
There has to be a lot of enhanced, upgraded, updated, and redundant hardware (and to some extent software) to handle this without taxing the current Internet landscape.
More simply - you don't get something from nothing. LOL. It will exact a toll, albeit the degree of which IS decidedly difficult to calculate.
Don't be fooled by the POTS argument. It's only partially applicable here. The resources have to come from somewhere, for both the transmission medium AND the various servers that handle client (public) requests.
Hope this helps clarify. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Good Ol' Wyden I agree that there may be a toll for increased bandwidth usage.
If it's assessed on and collected from the heavy users directly, they will be able to control their usage and correlate their usage to their willingness to pay. Additionally, those ISPs best able to handle heavy users will seek them out through lower rates, and those least able to handle heavy users will discourage them through higher rates.
If the "toll" is assessed on content providers, we will begin a process as clouded and invisible as the current USF and "access charge" situations in the phone industry, where charges imposed decades ago continue even though they have lost all meaning and purpose. Additionally, we will discourage new competition, because unless you're part of the "pay under the table to play" game, you won't be able to start up as an ISP (no subsidy funding) or as a content provider (no "priority" on user's pipes.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | tiering is bad who wants IPTV and VOIP anyways? Bah! Give me nice framed ISDN and T-1s anyday. | |
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: tiering is bad said by bogey780 :who wants IPTV and VOIP anyways? Bah! Give me nice framed ISDN and T-1s anyday. ...which is, of course, the scenario all Bellheads wanted to force the world into, because ISDN is/was "pay per call" and T-1 was/is still horribly overpriced.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
SuperDave1685
@dsl-w.verizon | I wrote my senator- how about you? I just emailed my Senator- Mr. Allen from Va asking him to support the bill. Now come on people! We have to let our senators/congressmen know about these things, if we don't, then who will? | |
|
|
|
|
Senator Attacks Two-Tier Plan
