The Network Neutrality Circus Roars April showers bring fresh half-truths and rhetoric PBS's Bob Cringely can't get his fax machine working with his Vonage VoIP and 8Mbps Comcast cable connection, therefore he concludes that Comcast is violating network neutrality, despite the lack of any evidence. In the process of ranting, he discovers the non-news that yes, many ISPs do offer various levels of prioritization in order to give preference to their own business or VoIP services: "I used to work at Time-Warner Cable's Road Runner High Speed HQ," wrote one reader, "and as of 2005, TWC marked all VoIP packets with the TOS bit turned to 1. TWC has 5 levels of priority, VoIP having the highest, router tables second, commercial services 3rd, Road Runner consumer 4th and everything else is classified as 'best effort.'" After a brief hiatus, the network neutrality debate has flared up again today. While Cringely is wrongly blaming Comcast for his own misunderstanding of fax technology, Comcast execs are busy wrongly blaming Google for trying to stop them from making a living: "Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said that although net-neutrality proponents claim that Internet regulation is needed to assist 'the next Google,' they really intend to stop high-speed-data-network owners like cable and phone companies from making reasonable returns on their heavy capital investments." This new Comcast attack runs parallel to a new offensive being launched by incumbents via paid spokespeople such as Sonia Arrison. The PR push is apparently in response to a pro-neutrality campaign launched by a selection of rock and rollers (and Democrats) several weeks ago, which worried incumbents or PR gurus like Arrison wouldn't reference it. Somewhere amidst all this noise there's the occasional nugget of truth to be found, but by and large the network neutrality debate at this point has devolved into a white noise wash of screeching, distortion and finger pointing.
|
  Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | . In short, retardation all over the place, just the same with global warming and the morons who say no more "CO2".
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
|  |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: . Right up there with the plate tectonocrats. | |
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | troll | |
| |  RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Pundits know no political, religious or sociological affiliation--they're only in it for the publicity and therefore the money. This is no different. Evidently neither are you. What the hell did you mean other than do drop some irrelevant tasty flavor nugget in your haste to make the first post in this topic?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: . You tell me what is so special about first post, hell does not matter who posts he is no leader in the term on how the discussion goes.
The point I was trying to make is simple, that the global warming and the net neutrality debates are both stupid debates. That there are simply no facts presented at the table and you are just listening to some individual who says there "is" a problem when there never really isn't.
CO2 has nothing to do with global warming and during the post war era when industry was in full swing there was actually a drop in overall temperatures according to records. Where there was a rise with CO2.
Just like Greenland was actually green at some point in time in the past, hence its name. Everyone jokes about how greenland is full of ice, but thats not how it was before.
So when we refer to net neutrality and this conspiracy theorist who cry wolf of "high video demand will slow down the internet". To me, the math is simple, if we need more capacity we increase prices in order to pay for such capacity by a mere percent.
Why is this an issue now? It's like saying too many people live in California causing traffic on highways. The common sense is there, companies already have been doing prioritization for their own products and one of them is Speakeasy for example.
AT&T has hundreds of new customers now, if they are selling DSL for under what they can actually afford to get any profit from that is actually their problem not the consumers.
Benefits without no gains is what these companies think, because they know if they can freeload the question on every CEOs head will be "why innovative?".
P.S You as a human being release CO2 so if you want to ban it just stop breathing and do the rest of us a favor by not polluting already.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
| | | |  jamez818please hold during the silence
join:2000-09-18
Sunland, CA
1 edit | Re: . and Comcast plays into global warming just how??
I bet if we start a global warming story everybody will talk about net neutrality because both go hand and hand.
--
just whiners and complainers... | |
| | | | RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2 Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
| You are so in the wrong place, and that doesn't even make sense.
But hey, I'll take your word on Greenland, since I was not around when it was "green". I suppose Iceland used to be covered in ice, too.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: . How amusing one things Comcast plays into global warming when thats not even what I meant or said and actually I was arguing over global warming and net neutrality and how both subjects are too stupid to even discuss them due to lack of evidence and all the clues we have are actually against the current assumptions.
Greenland was "once" green and there is data to prove that, but alright you want to crack jokes about me being in Greenland when it was green. Knock yourself out.
If you guys want to continue arguing over these stupid debates which IMHO are simply common sense things with a twist do as you please. But I am through talking about these subjects on BBR almost every single week.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
| | | | | | RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2 Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: . said by Michieru2:But I am through talking about these subjects on BBR almost every single week. Can we hold you to that?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by Michieru2:The point I was trying to make is simple, that the global warming and the net neutrality debates are both stupid debates. If you mean they are "Stupid" as in so many "Stupid People" participate in them then you could be right. If you say they are stupid debates because they are meaningless or non-existent, then you're dead wrong.
Just like Greenland was actually green at some point in time in the past,hence its name. Everyone jokes about how greenland is full of ice, but thats not how it was before. OMG Now that's FUNNY LOL Who can stand against logic like that!... lol
From Wiki:
There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in the The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), an historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiriks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Eric the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."
Although there has been minor climate changes in Greenland over the centuries, the land has primarily always been covered in ice, but the warmer coastal regions and fjords have greenbelts and ice-free areas. As long as man has been there, it's always been this way.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by Michieru2:In short, retardation all over the place, just the same with global warming and the morons who say no more "CO2". That's a good one... April Fools day was a couple of days ago.
--
Prove it... | |
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | I think we should debate abortion in this thread too, I'm pretty sure we can solve all three issues once and for all. | |
|
| | network neutral? it is doubtful that the onslaught of money into the pockets of decision makers will keep the internet neutral (although it seems it isn't neutral now anyway). So I can only hope that some isp will emerge as the "neutral" isp, and that will be the isp that gets my $$$$$ | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Heh They should remove priority on router protocols and see how everyone likes network neutrality then ;p Hopefully the network neutrality bill that passes just stops providers from selling priority. The current system lets them assign priority based on technical merit, instead of what the market will pay. | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Heh Exactly as the debate started. They can do whatever they want with their networks. As long as they're not using the barriers to entry (domination of public ROW space) granted from their network ownership as a competitive advantage in the services providing sector. They want to prioritize VOIP, great, but prioritize all VOIP. Want to prioritize hospital communication? Great, but not just for inter hospital communication that YOU sell.
Unfortunately enough people don't understand it, so others are able to tack on piles of nonsense... | |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | What's new? "Somewhere amidst all this noise there's the occasional nugget of truth to be found, but by and large the network neutrality debate at this point has devolved into a white noise wash of screeching, distortion and finger pointing."
Can't this be said of pretty much every public/political policy question?
That said, I don't know why the incumbents are griping; they started this 'debate'. | |
| |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | It's Payola all over again.... The radio industry has had several "Payola" scandals where content producers (record companies) paid distribution intermediaries (radio stations) for preferential treatment of their content (more numerous play slots) to both increase exposure and to affect ratings.
This practice has been outlawed because it perverts and denies customer choice and distorts the proper signals from a competitive market.
What are these proposed "priority fees" from the ISPs other than a new form of "Payola" extorted by ISPs instead of radio station owners?
Net Neutrality is only the application of an established anti-extortion, anti-favoritism concept to a new technology. Nothing more. Of course, those companies in line for the "kickbacks" don't like being told they won't get to act like thugs and collect extortion payments.
calvoiper | |
| | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: It's Payola all over again.... Part of the Payola scandal was that the radio stations were using licensed "public" spectrum, and as such should be held to a standard. It's a different argument when it comes to net neutrality, though one might assert that much of the infrastructure was put into place (or at least capitalized) during the regulated monopoly period of recent history. | |
|
 sirwoogieBlahPremium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI | QoS is one thing, policing and shaping is another This is what happens when less network-savvy people start talking about QoS and getting it confused with traffic policing and shaping.
Let me start by saying I'm for Network Neutrality where a provider does not provide priority to the highest bidder.
What TWC is doing with QoS is appropriate in my opinion. I'm not contradicting my previous statement. Remember, QoS is only really useful when you have a fully saturated pipe. If it's not at 100%, the QoS is not going to make a difference. They put their VOIP first... no biggie. VOIP is most sensitive to latency and jitter; customers pay for the reliability of the Voice service they purchased from TWC. They put their network support components second. Business customers (who pay more for higher level service ALL AROUND) on the third tier. Residential customers get 4th. Anything left gets the bottom rung. Most networks doing QoS use similar QoS queues.
Now, where the real debate gets into is when they start using policing and trafficing on the packets DURING normal operation. For example, if they took the residential tier and then said that unless you use Viacom streaming video servers vs Google/YouTube, then traffic shape the YouTube traffic into 128kbit/sec and increase the latency 4 fold. That is the no-no these carriers should be prevented from doing. Another example is that they police VOIP packets in that they bit-bucket one of every 10 packets on any VOIP traffic not destined for SunRocket, since they paid and Vonage didn't. Keep in mind they didn't block the ports, they made the packet go into the ether, which is even worse as you don't readily see the issue.
Nobody seems to be getting this point, thus the noise gets louder and louder. | |
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: QoS is one thing, policing and shaping is another said by sirwoogie:Another example is that they police VOIP packets in that they bit-bucket one of every 10 packets on any VOIP traffic not destined for SunRocket, since they paid and Vonage didn't. Keep in mind they didn't block the ports, they made the packet go into the ether, which is even worse as you don't readily see the issue. that is just evil.
to me the issue people are spouting is "corporate rule vs. public good rule". is anyone really for corporate rule besides those with a vested interest? screw everyone except those decisions consumers make that we can profit off of. that is the problem.
evil. | |
| | | sirwoogieBlahPremium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI | Re: QoS is one thing, policing and shaping is another said by morbo:that is just evil. Evil and extreme. I find it highly unlikely that a carrier would actually do this. If someone discovered this type of behavior, the carrier would have its a$$ handed to it. But, it highlights what you could potentially have an issue with. | |
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: QoS is one thing, policing and shaping is another agreed. it's best to address the issue now, before the carriers f things up, due to their greed. | |
|
 NyQuil Kid8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ
1 edit | The career of Journalism... ....is quickly becoming one where the possession of a three digit IQ is no longer a prerequisite for employment.
He should check into using internet faxing:
»www.faxprices.com/
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
|  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | hmmmmmmm had the same problem with my voip. hey Bob if you're reading this thread try dialing into the voip and then hit the star ( * ) button 8 times. it works for me. I fax like crazy with no problems. | |
|
| |
|
|
