 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Gimmie A Break The networks are not free as many people on this site know - especially those who make their living some way some how in IT etc.
This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced. In fact to think that it is now is naive. The networks are going to do everything possible to make the paying customers happy.
You got to pay to play or expect your play to suffer. | |
|  | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Gimmie A Break "This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced."
Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist.
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. Sure, I might need to go for a dedicated server with more bandwidth, but that's different. Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind.
What many in the "content" industry can't seem to grasp is that through technology, the tables have been turned. Some have used technology to their advantage, while others still sit back and cry about not being able to utilize it to its fullest potential.
Also, (the internet) was not built solely for commerce. Sure, it's a fantastic vehicle for it, but that's not the only thing it was designed for.
There is still more non-commercial material out there than commercial.......
Back on topic, bit torrent is a whole different can of worms.
I'm not sure about whether it's a neutrality issue or not due to the nature of how it operates... a swarm of users all maxing out their connections is much different than a traditional client/server relationship. | |
| | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by amungus  :Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user? I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. Thanks for voicing a great argument against "net neutrality". Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?
A truely neutral network would allow the network owner to provide access over the network based on any agreement they could reach with end users. Basic service at a basic price, and premium service at a premium price. It amazes me that people are so vehemently against an idea that is practiced in practically every single enterprise in a capitalist system. | |
| | | | 
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: Gimmie A Break I'm trying to address your question of the nature and limits of freedom so I am not trying to deal with the probable argument that companies should be free to do anything they want with their networks(to which I would only reply that, if true, the US should, as it did with public roads, build a public communications infrastructure that is open to all.
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
One of the principles of libertarian thought is that you don't have the right to use your freedom to violate others freedom. When we are talking about people entering a competition to see who will pay to get special privilege on the network, that works to the disadvantage of everyone else. Allowing the wealthiest network users absolute freedom to negotiate contracts that force everyone else into a slower lane is not an overall enhancement of liberty, though it may increase the liberty of the wealthiest negotiators(at a cost to everyone else).
| |
| | | | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by asdfdfdfdf :
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others. I don't believe that will be the case. Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?
Nope, and nope. It can be done. | |
| | | | | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: Gimmie A Break "Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others."
Yes, I am.
I think, in turn, you are making an erroneous assumption that QOS is being created simply to build a more efficient network.
Although you could make the technical argument that it is possible to enhance certain services without undermining others, since different services can be more or less sensitive to different network variables, we need to look at the real world intent of this within the context of human nature and the behavior of companies.
The telcos want quality of service as a way of extracting additional revenues as well as a way of protecting their services from competition.
They are going to extract additional revenues, from other companies, by having them compete for advantaged transport. No company is going to pay extra, while others don't, for a more efficient network. They are going to pay expecting to be given a performance edge over their competition that doesn't pay.
We can get into sophistries that granting advantage to one company in return for additional payment doesn't create a disadvantage for competing companies but is this true in any meaningful sense?
Furthermore I think it is very unlikely, given what we know about human nature, that the telcos will not use QOS to subtly undermine the performance of competitors in the broad range of services and content telcos want to provide. Once a QOS environment is fully developed it becomes very easy to do such a thing and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the intent is to stifle competition. | |
| | | | | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?"
The reason I don't feel this is an apt comparison is
1. These services are provided within the same company. They are not services owned and run by competitors with fedex facilitating transport/acting as a middleman. In the same sense net neutrality doesn't deny telcos the right to sell both a 1Mb service level and a 3Mb/s service level. There would be no net neutrality issue if ATT owned and controlled all of the services over the network, as well as the infrastructure, because they would simply build whatever network was required to meet the demands of all their services. Of course this wouldn't be the internet either, it would be an updated version of the old Ma Bell network.
2. Fedex doesn't own the highway and air transport infrastructure with all it's concomitant incentives to use control of that infrastructure to undermine competitor services.
This is a major difference. If the telcos didn't own the underlying wireline infrastructure, but were simply service competitors we wouldn't be dealing with these issues. In fact ATT would be an advocate of net neutrality if they didn't control the infrastructure but were simply another service competitor. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by amungus :"This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced." Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist. ..and I have to disagree with you. When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism. We have a capitalistic system here where equality in financial wealth or benefit doesn't exist. We still have the right to earn and have while others -may- not...
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
In a government run system, sure! In a privately run network, no. The very fact of trying to have government intervene in a privately run network in the name of "fairness" is in fact climbing on socialism.
Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property. If there is such a need for non-smokers to have a smoke free environment, the capitalist society would take advantage of the supply and demand and rake in a fortune. Since the cry from non-smokers can't get their own places, government takes the route to ban smoking which in my opinion intrudes on property rights of land and business owners.
So.. force policy on to business? No. Does it happen? Yes... is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested.
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. And this I would COMPLETELY agree with you if the network being operated was run by the government where the constitution would protect the free speech.. To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do. However, businesses, last time I checked, are still allowed to sell to the highest bidder. We may not like it, but it's not illegal.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. The only reason I want to respond to this comment is because you used the word 'fair'. This is commonly used as a reason for why many times. As much as I agree it's not "fair" we have NOTHING in the constitution that grants us the rights to all be fair among others. Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. To want to accept the government's version of fair, I hate to tell you, IS socialism. This is allowing the government to spread their idea of fairness... which also is discrimination in reverse. Those that have worked hard and built their empires or businesses forced to be on the same level as a small guy in his one bedroom apartment is in itself discrimination to the big guy. Or, someone like me who has put his time in, struggled, starved, worked hard to get to a mid level,.. say I have the money to buy more than, say, you.. a very little guy. I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)
When you create this false idea of fair, you also do what people here on BBR are against - they want people to innovate. Many people that are where they are (say the google boys) they worked hard, and build themselves to where they are. Just as you may want to do.. you may want to build to be something big. Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?
Naa... fair isn't the law. It's a dream.
Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind. What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. What they are talking about are large sites that throw a gob of bandwidth rich data. Ultimately, if the nets start selling premium services, this is a battle to the millionaires anyway.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Gimmie A Break The problem is, the government created the mess in the first place, allowing private companies to build networks on public ROWs. You can't have a free market when one competitor owns the marketplace, unless that competitor is forced to share the marketplace distribution that is un-reproducible. If every competitor were allowed to build their own network, then we could have a "free" market system in communications. Of course we also wouldn't be able to see the sky anymore through the tangle of network wires.
So there are two solutions. Either network owners aren't allowed to compete with content providers. Or network owners are required to give fair access to all service providers, especially those they compete with. Currently this is enforced through public interest, and the threat of government intervention; public interest in communications is pretty fickle though, and won't maintain the current status quo.
Imagine if one retail company bought all the commercial space (including internet access) in your state. Then decided to only sell their products. "Sorry we don't make Cheerios or light bulbs, you won't be able to buy those from now on." Of course a black market would be created selling Cheerios and light bulbs at huge mark-ups. A black market in communication networks is just not possible. | |
| | | | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Wow. Ok fiberguy, settle down. I'm not a turbo pro net neutrality advocate, I'm just a regular joe who's claiming to be no expert here...... just voicing some thoughts...
"When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism."
Ok, point taken. Perhaps I'm taking a more "academic" or less strict viewpoint of the whole thing. I'm no socialist either, but your remarks in a comment further down that "most people here" are, is just dumb. Go watch some foxnews' or something, maybe read some fairy tales, come back when you're happier...
"The internet" is not simply "private" networks. Granted, it has become largely just that, and granted, lots of traffic does go through 'ma-bell'... but the whole of the internet is not simply private, commercial interests. Access to it, and services rendered of course are of a commercial (capitalist) nature. I'm not against that at all. Sure, most communications upon the internet are facilitated by commercial contracts. When, why, and how exactly does that describe, or allude to describing limitations on one's freedom to utilize their contracted, agreed upon connection?
Let me say it one more time and HOPE that this fact soaks in a little bit -
There is still more non-commercial material out there (on the internet) than commercial.......
"Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. "
oohkay... point taken. Perhaps it would not be detrimental to me, and it would be for others. Why should it have to be argued in that direction though?
Perhaps it could be more detrimental to the freedom to thrive in such a capitalistic society where there would be no chance of a smaller business being able to compete on any playing field (unless they could already afford to buy into it).
Still doesn't mean that if you have more speed, more connections, more servers, that I shouldn't be able to utilize the same exact resources available to me, in whatever fashion I so choose. I'm not clear on where this line in the sand is, so to speak. I don't care if someone else has an entire server farm and a billion lines of fiber all crossing over to everyone else's connections. If I have a server, a dedicated connection, and that connection is then partnered with other peering agreements, then my data should travel to its destination in as timely (best effort) a manner as yours - minus the volume of the contents (payload) and the number of concurrent destinations. Sure, if a million people hit a shared server, it'll choke. I understand that.
"I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)"
No offense taken. I don't want a handout just to be on your level either.
"Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?"
That doesn't seem like the issue to me here. I think it's exactly the reverse as I tried explaining in the bolded text above. Perhaps you are correct, and it's the other way around, either way, it's a matter of perspective here; and, I don't think anyone deserves to be hampered by gov't meddling in the affairs of one's business, be that yours, mine, or some guy across the world with something to say.
"What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. "
It's this part that I'm concerned about. How do we know that with certainty? How do we know that by the time "premium" whatever comes along, that these "millionaires" haven't AOL'd the entire internet to the point where nobody even has a clue anymore? Sure, there might still be a little guy out there, but how is he heard? If a tree falls on the side of a lonely dirt road, does anybody hear it? Nope, too busy checking their bread and circuses.
"Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property."
I tend to side on the rights of private businesses as well
...but they usually don't pay for gobs of connectivity until two requirements are met: 1) they can afford it. 2) they need to afford it to stay in business...
...Also, yes, I concur with your analogy about smoking and the conclusion, overall:
"is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested."
And, finally, the last thing that I'll quote from your post:
"To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do."
Exactly why communication agreements should remain neutral.. You sum it up perfectly  | |
| | | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: Gimmie A Break Wanna 'splain how the FCC is socialist? | |
| | | | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by RadioDoc :Wanna 'splain how the FCC is socialist? It's a government entity that regulates business, quite heavily at that.
Capitalism = free market
Socialism = Controlled market (to varying degrees)
I am not applying the socialist tag to any of these groups to put them down. I am registered to vote with the socialist party. I also agree to existence of all the things I listed, though not necessarily to the implementation.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Gimmie A Break True socialism would have no need for the FCC since the state would own the means of production, which in this case would be state-owned and operated telecommunications systems.
The FCC instead is the ultimate capitalist tool: It is used to restrict access and entry to markets, props up incumbents, and generally is about as consumer-friendly as OPEC. The modern FCC looks more like a trade organization than a regulator.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
For "Pompous Windbag", see 419381 | |
| | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by RadioDoc :True socialism would have no need for the FCC since the state would own the means of production, which in this case would be state-owned and operated telecommunications systems. Well, the exact definition of socialism is the thesis of many long arguments that have taken place. The way I see it, based on my knowledge of history, and from the various socialists I know, socialism deals with controlled economics with the goal of serving the public interested. To that extreme there is Communism which takes most (or all) of industry, turns it into a government entity, and controls it. Usually the stated idea is public interest, but almost always becomes a bloated mess of greed and corruption.
The FCC would be the ultimate capitalist tool if capitalism only dealt with making money, but it doesn't. It deals with a free market economy where goods and services are sold without restriction. While the FCC works as a tool to ensure the wealthy have their way (which is close to communism), it does nothing (or little at best) to promote competition and ensure companies compete based off of offering the better service.
In the communication industry there is very little competition. There is also no way for companies without the big bucks to compete. You can't just start your own radio station and compete on quality with the big guys. It's too damn expensive. Not just buying the equipment but dealing with the licensing and other governmental fees.
You know better about these things than I do though. We can either give up the FCC, and those with wealth can really squash any kind of competition, or deal with the bowlegged FCC that nobody in Congress will steer on track.
Oh, now you got me digressing. Oh well. 
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by kyramilan :No because 99.999% of bittorrents are illegal. Got proof of that???
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Gimmie A Break said by ropeguru :said by kyramilan :No because 99.999% of bittorrents are illegal. Got proof of that??? It's probably left in the orifice that fact was manufactured from. Do you really want to see that?  | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Most SPAM originates in the US. It's been measured and reported a bazillion times.. China produces some, but so does the phillipines, and Taiwan, and X number of other developing network enabled countries. | |
| | 
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·1and1
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by TechieZero :The networks are not free as many people on this site know - especially those who make their living some way some how in IT etc. This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced. In fact to think that it is now is naive. The networks are going to do everything possible to make the paying customers happy. You got to pay to play or expect your play to suffer. I'll take socialism then if it means a company like Verizon can't purposely interfere with the service I PAY (yes, I pay to play) FOR to the advantage of their products (like Verizon Voicewing) over their competitors (like Vonage).
Pay to play is B.S.
ISP subscribers are already paying monthly to play...not have priority access to the ISP's crap services while their competitors are hobbled. | |
|
John T
@northgrum.com
| People disagree on what "net neutrality" means I think that under some definitions of net neutrality, it would be a violation, but not others. Having a conversation about it is useful.
I've even heard a handful of people claim that net neutrality would prohibit any type of traffic shaping, including speed limitations and selling different speed tiers on, say, a fiber connection for different prices.
Hasn't Bram Cohen himself claimed that certain things that the BitTorrent clients themselves do could be considered net neutrality violations? | |
| devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
February 7th, @01:34PM
| Sharing your bandwidth w/ a commercial entity to profit from P2P is technically running a server or file sharing service which is a violation of most all residential broadband terms of service. Most providers have a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach to this unless someone becomes the top file server in their network.
Offering for concessions (e.g. you can download if you let me use your bandwidth) ones residential network as part of a fee based content delivery environment really makes this issue interesting. | |
| |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Sharing your bandwidth w/ a commercial entity to profit from said by devnuller :P2P is technically running a server or file sharing service which is a violation of most all cable broadband terms of service. There, fixed that for you. My DSL TOS/AUP specifically allows and even encourages servers. On a 6016/768 residential account, no less. Gasp!
Restricting specific traffic is a de facto "net neutrality" violation. How could it not be? BitTorrent clients can do whatever they want since they are not a service provider don't violate the concept of a neutral network. However, ISPs who throttle, block or otherwise impede BT traffic while not doing the same for, say, NNTP or FTP or even high-volume HTTP do.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
For "Pompous Windbag", see 419381 | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation? YES. | |
| | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation? WHY? | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by pokesph :YES. Agreed, modifying any behaviour of the network or connection based on use/type of use is NN violation, only difference from the popular view of NN is that there is nothing being put "above" the "degraded" content (unless you consider that everything else on the internet). | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation? NN doesn't exist. People like to invent things that don't exist.
Networks most certainly have the right to require their users to use THEIR service in a way in which THEY are allowing you/granting you use of.
Why do end users believe that they have rights that exceed that of the owner's rights? I'd normally say that the world is getting out of hand because of what I read here, but I have to remember that this site is largely made up of socialists.
ISPs can ban the user from running porn sites.. why do they do it? 1) because you are leasing/renting THEIR network for one. 2) Because porn sites tend to degrade the performance of other customer's sites because they are well known resource hogs (we're a horny country) and 3) because they may not agree with porn to begin with. WOW! The owners have rights to choose what content they are willing to host. People still try to challenge that one, but always loose.
Also, p2p traffic, as stated, is to serve to others which is the activity of a sever. Just because your O/S isn't Windows Server or Linux or what ever doesn't matter. The fact that your computer answers the call of someone outside to then deliver content to them IS serving, thus, you're running a server. ISPs know that this traffic is abusive to the system for which they built and intended it for. Please don't tell me about "if they built a better network".. that's irrelevant. They didn't build a residential network for the purpose of serving. They designed their networks to operate in a way of typical residential use in their eyes, NOT the customers. Remember, you're a guest on their network. Your monthly fees don't give you rights other than granted to you in a TOS agreement - no matter how much you may or may not like it.
So, is BitTorrent a violation of the fantasy NN? No.. most certainly not.
You have the right to offer these services to people.. you have the right to file serve if you want. Look for a provider out there that will allow you to host the data, purchase your bandwidth like every other provider of servers on the net and enjoy the same rights that they do.
By your thinking, I should be able to buy a buffet meal and turn around and share off my plate too.. even though they tell me I can't.. hell, I purchased the plate, right? I mean, how dare they tell me I can't let my son have a bite from my plate - I purchased it. No.. I purchased a right to have that plate and eat from it myself. Same with internet. You purchased something with stipulations but as usual, a small group of people feel they are higher than the terms they agreed to because it's "fair use"..
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
 ·LINGO
edit:
February 7th, @02:41PM
| The the question that should be asked is:
Is using BitTorrent a violation of the ISP's TOS/AUP?
Personally I think it is. And if I am on firm TOS/AUP interpretation ground, then the answer to "is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?" really doesn't matter anymore.
Either accept the throttling as a byproduct of enforcing the ISPs TOS/AUP, or obtain service from an ISP that has a less restrictive (or more BitTorrent friendly) TOS/AUP.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
typeorsource
@cpugenie.com
| this is silly Net neutrality should be about preventing favoritism on sources of content, not types of data flow.
Yahoo should not be given priority over Google. Vonage should not be given priority over Sipphone.
On the other hand, in a well run network I would expect RTP packets for VOIP to have priority over bittorrent traffic.
I would expect SSH traffic to be prioritized over FTP.
Where is the confusion in this? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: this is silly said by typeorsource :
Net neutrality should be about preventing favoritism on sources of content, not types of data flow. I say let he with the most money win. This is the U.S.A.
Yahoo should not be given priority over Google. Vonage should not be given priority over Sipphone. Why? The internet is a privately owned system. It's not public domain. Let's remind people.. the INTER-NETwork is a bunch of privately owned and operated networks that are inter-connected. So, why should google not be able to buy priority?
If I own a car lot and can afford a HUGE piece of land and you own a car lot and can only afford an acre of land, I'm likely to sell more cars, right? Exposure is a large part of success. Since I'm larger, I can afford more land than you. The same thing is on the internet. If the providers want to give priority to those businesses willing to pay more, then so be it.
On the other hand, in a well run network I would expect RTP packets for VOIP to have priority over bittorrent traffic.
I would expect SSH traffic to be prioritized over FTP. Why? Why would VOIP telephone have more priority over bittorrent? Hell, in your own argument, YOU yourself are playing into why NN doesn't work. The internet was never intended to be a phone company. So, sorry to say, I'm glad people like their public voip service, but I don't care to use the internet for phone. I believe in the three major systems we have in the nation for phone already. So, say I'm a bittorrent user.. why should I care or give priority to someone's voip call over my bittorrent? Why should SSH take priority over FTP... You can't get away from it. What if a company is selling service and uses FTP as the means of delivery for their products and vonage sells voip packets. You are now telling one that their service is more important than the other.
The bottom line is if you are offering a service for profit and you want to survive, then invest into the business you sell and ensure survival. Don't sit back and expect the givernment to dictate how these private networks should be running.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | |
typeorsource
@cpugenie.com
| Re: this is silly
I say let he with the most money win. This is the U.S.A.
So you'll be happy when the accessible sites from your home net connection are dictated by the business partnerships of the one or two providers you can purchase from?
Why? The internet is a privately owned system. It's not public domain. Let's remind people.. the INTER-NETwork is a bunch of privately owned and operated networks that are inter-connected. So, why should google not be able to buy priority?
Yeah, a privately owned system with last mile run over wires owned by municipality granted monopolies.
Google can buy better network access by buying bigger and more pipes into the net at large. What they should not have to do is pay my provider extra for the connection I already pay for in order for me to receive their traffic.
If I own a car lot and can afford a HUGE piece of land and you own a car lot and can only afford an acre of land, I'm likely to sell more cars, right? Exposure is a large part of success. Since I'm larger, I can afford more land than you. The same thing is on the internet. If the providers want to give priority to those businesses willing to pay more, then so be it.
It is the same on the internet. Google can afford bigger pipes and better peering, which means they have more exposure. What net neutrality addresses is more akin to toll rodes wanting to charge Toyota a surcharge to allow their cars to pass because they have larger market share.
Why? Why would VOIP telephone have more priority over bittorrent? Hell, in your own argument, YOU yourself are playing into why NN doesn't work.
Because for a particular endpoint, the VOIP traffic is fairly small. It also benefits from low latency. Neither of these things is true for bittorrent traffic.
And no, I'm not playing into why NN doesn't work. I'm consistently saying that traffic shaping by type of data is different than shaping by source of content.
The internet was never intended to be a phone company.
Neither was it intended to carry audio, or video, or serve as the distribution source for illegal sharing of copyrighted content. So?
So, sorry to say, I'm glad people like their public voip service, but I don't care to use the internet for phone. I believe in the three major systems we have in the nation for phone already. So, say I'm a bittorrent user.. why should I care or give priority to someone's voip call over my bittorrent? Why should SSH take priority over FTP... You can't get away from it. What if a company is selling service and uses FTP as the means of delivery for their products and vonage sells voip packets. You are now telling one that their service is more important than the other.
I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between tuning a network for optimal use and efficiency (as in allowing lower bandwidth, latency sensitive traffic priority over bulk data transfers) and tuning it for maximal profit. Prioritizing VOIP traffic over FTP traffic will have very little impact on the FTP traffic. However, prioritizing FTP provider A over FTP provider B will without question degrade provider B's traffic.
The bottom line is if you are offering a service for profit and you want to survive, then invest into the business you sell and ensure survival. Don't sit back and expect the givernment to dictate how these private networks should be
running.
The bottom line is that both Google and I pay for our network connections now. It is tantamount to a protection racket to allow last mile providers to double-charge certain companies in order to carry their traffic ("nice packets you got there, it'd be a shame to see anything happen to them"). | |
| | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| It's amusing to note that those who worship at the altar of capitalism the most loudly always turn out to be the biggest crybabies when the "free" market turns against them. Fiberguy would complain the loudest if he had a blog for his fan boy fellation of the telcos and suddenly his ISP decided to charge him double for his existing connection just to ensure traffic wasn't hobbled to his site. | |
|
W0Wgamer
@pacbell.net | ... some things are legal stop blocking my wow update patches | |
| | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: ... some things are legal said by W0Wgamer :
stop blocking my wow update patches
Why is a service I pay $14.95 a month for, then $39.99 to buy their expansion online rather than in a store, delivering the product I paid THEM for on the backs of other people?
That's a whole other can of worms though.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
| | | 
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| Re: ... some things are legal becouse the patchs are HUGE some are as big as 700MB
its FASTER to use BT to do this
look at FFXI i uses its its own directdownload patcher
and when thousands of people try to get there patch at the same time it chokes the servers there are times when FFXI updates I CANT EVEN CONNECT to the patch server
i have never had the issue with WoWs patcher | |
| | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: ... some things are legal said by elios :becouse the patchs are HUGE some are as big as 700MB its FASTER to use BT to do this look at FFXI i uses its its own directdownload patcher and when thousands of people try to get there patch at the same time it chokes the servers there are times when FFXI updates I CANT EVEN CONNECT to the patch server i have never had the issue with WoWs patcher It's faster to use BT to do this?
Why is it I had to go to TPB to download a CD image for Burning Crusade because I only had a couple hundred MB downloaded after TWO DAYS using their method?
BT is faster if you have lots of people sharing the same file. The initial 150MB patch to BC came down in a few minutes, but it's not the answer for everything.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
| | | | |
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: ... some things are legal sounds like your firewall isnt setup right | |
| | | | | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | yes
any throttling of internet connection that you have paid for is a violation of net neutrality. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
tumble
join:2005-03-31
Vancouver, BC | Yes Other utility services like water, electricity, snail mail, phone, cable tv, etc. will not degrade in quality unless absolutely necessary, and when they do its non-discriminatory, therefore bandwidth shouldn't be any different. | |
| | davisx
join:2005-01-06 | Re: Yes Since when is bandwidth or internet service a utility? | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| depends on what has to be neutral If all bits are equal, then yes its a violation. If all bits in a category are equal, then it depends on how they throttle. If they give preferential treatment to their own or business partners' traffic, it's violating neutrality. If they treat ALL bit-torrent traffic equally, then its neutral to the category. I'm of the opinion that treating all bit-torrent traffic the same is legal, but I'll certainly go for the provider that gives me a better service. They are only worth the quality of service they are providing. | |
| | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Re: depends on what has to be neutral BT was not designed to be network efficient. If left unchecked, torrent traffic will bring many ISPs and the internet to its knees which is an issue far beyond NN. There are probably two choices here. Continue to allow the throttling of torrent traffic to maintain network performance. Un-throttle torrents, which will force the ISPs to upgrade networks. Of course the second choice will bring a corresponding increase in service rates.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | |
|
|
Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
