 Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Sigh... Net Neutrality is NOT against prioritizing services. It's against prioritizing servicers'.
For the millionth time...
If they want to create an express lane for Voip, great! But all Voip servicers' must be able to sell their Voip service on the express lane. Otherwise it's an abuse of the government granted wireline monopoly. Obviously you can see how if they were allowed to restrict competitors in that service from using the express lane, that the outcome will be all services used over the internet will come from your incumbent wireline ISP. It's the logical conclusion. Great for the stock holders, but terrible for the communities which grant the wireline monopolies; which is why they get a say. | |
|
 | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh... Correct. Of course, these people are not interested in truth, only what will make the impression they want on the public or on legislators.
This report is FUD - an attempt to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in opposition to network neutrality. It is emitted by the so-called "New Millennium Research Council" which happens to be funded by the big incumbent ISPs. See for example this page about who it really represents (another exposé of its sources).
Keep your eye on the ball folks, pressure on capacity is not an argument against network neutrality. You are being lied to by big companies trying to sell out the public interest so they can make more profit. | |
|
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Thats moot point, thetelcos would love to have VOIP or any company use the express routing. There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices.
The isseu is Google and Ebay want the service but do no like the cost so they lobby for Net Nutrality which is nothing more tahn attemmpt to slap price controls on the backbone. | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
| Re: Sigh... said by Richard B  :There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices. It would make sense if it cost them a lot to offer QoS for VoIP, however, because nearly all of the routers that the providers use have QOS features built into them and because it costs nothing to turn them on, charging VoIP service providers extra for something that doesn't cost the access providers anything is asinine.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| | |
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Re: Sigh... said by bmn :said by Richard B :There is one hitchm the telcos will charge a premium wich makes sense if one going to order filet mignon one should expet filet mignon prices. It would make sense if it cost them a lot to offer QoS for VoIP, however, because nearly all of the routers that the providers use have QOS features built into them and because it costs nothing to turn them on, charging VoIP service providers extra for something that doesn't cost the access providers anything is asinine. no it called capitalism, they can pay up for premium tiers or shut up and stay with the lower tiers. | |
|
| | | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh... It's nothing to do with capitalism when the only reason the telephone and cable companies are in a position to extort double payments is that they are allowed to maintain monopolies on the "last mile" to customers' premises (on telephone or cable lines respectively).
This so-called "fast lane" is only the regular service that everyone has already paid for. The ISP's customers pay for their connections and the remote providers that they access pay for their own internet access at their end of the connection. "Premium" for some is just another word for degrading service for everyone who won't pay an additional fee to avoid throttling. This is an abuse of a monopoly, not a healthy market. | |
|
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| said by Richard B :no it called capitalism, they can pay up for premium tiers or shut up and stay with the lower tiers. Yes it is capitalism... It is also asinine. The two are not mutually exclusive.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| 
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Optimum Voice
| said by Ahrenl :If they want to create an express lane for Voip, great! But all Voip servicers' must be able to sell their Voip service on the express lane. Otherwise it's an abuse of the government granted wireline monopoly. Obviously you can see how if they were allowed to restrict competitors in that service from using the express lane, that the outcome will be all services used over the internet will come from your incumbent wireline ISP. FWIW: Cablevision (and I would assume other cable companies since CV can't be smarter on general principle), is already treating VOIP service (From Them) as an independent network with it's own set of IP addresses, and QOS priority. One quarter (I think) of all the homes they pass have VOIP from them. 80% of all home use some form of digital service from them (either VOIP/ISP/Digital Cable services) They can tell their VOIP since they control the boxes, etc. Now if they allow the prioritized packets from non-CV VOIP devices (and I believe that Vonage, et al, do at least mark their packets as priority) to pass undisturbed on their regular network (which is pretty fast since base service is 15/2), how does that work with or against in Net Neutral thinking?
I'm just asking, how this plays or are you saying that they have to NAT the packets onto thier own VOIP network? | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: Sigh... They don't HAVE to do anything.
The point is, by being allowed to have a duopoly on the last mile wireline service, they are put in a position to leverage the duopoly to make cloned internet services look superior. You take away the wireline duopoly leverage and their service may even be rated sub-standard. When you have a government provided duopoly (as most are) you should be required to offer an even playing field for services you enter in competitive markets, or you should be restricted from entering those markets.
Otherwise the logical conclusion is the party with duopoly leverage will eventually control every related market as well.
I'm not sure what the difference is between a prioritized packet and a NAT mapped packet moving across the same network. A simple service registration process for VOIP service providers would make it a moot point anyway, I would think. | |
|
|
| 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Yes, mmm I see said by exocet_cm :I don't understand how VIDEO and IMAGES will cause the Interweb to fail as it is not everybody all the time. Maybe not everybody, thank god, but with P2P apps it is all the time. I have seen numerous posters here crow about how it is their right to download videos/music 24x7 and if the ISP doesn't like it - too bad. And it doesn't even matter if they couldn't possibly look at or listen to all they download in 2 lifetimes. And it is the growing number of people with that attitude that will lead ISP's to start throttling traffic. No matter what some say, the bandwidth resource is not unlimited and it is not free.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | AZinOH
join:2007-04-25
Swanton, OH
 ·Windstream
| Re: Yes, mmm I see What I find difficult to understand is this: On the one hand there are the ISPs complaining about how this flood of downloading is straining their networks and costing them money. On the other hand, there are all these groups just chomping at the bit and rubbing their hands in glee thinking about how they are going to make all this money by selling all this streaming video (baseball-football-basketball) not to mention movies and music. Doesn't the second group know that their business plan is at the mercy of a bandwith supply that the first group can limit at will? Don't these businesses talk to each other? If not they better start and the first thing they should iron out is that if you sell a service that consumes bandwidth, you better be willing to contribute resources necessary to help supply that bandwidth. The customer doesn't deserve to be caught in the middle wanting to pay for both an internet connect and a service he desires only to find that using said service runs him out of an allowed supply of usage. | |
|
| | | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: Yes, mmm I see said by AZinOH : Don't these businesses talk to each other? Oh, they'll talk, that's a given. When the goal is to part consumers from their money, it'll not take long for the purveyors of ancillary goods to work towards the common goal of enriching themselves and those they ultimately serve.
No worries there, eh? | |
|
| | | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: Yes, mmm I see said by Titus Pullo :said by AZinOH : Don't these businesses talk to each other? Oh, they'll talk, that's a given. When the goal is to part consumers from their money, it'll not take long for the purveyors of ancillary goods to work towards the common goal of enriching themselves and those they ultimately serve. No worries there, eh? And who wants most to get their hands on that bandwidth? The television broadcasters, who have been seeing their viewer numbers slip, every year, as High-Speed Internet service becomes more ubiquitous.
The perfect solution for them would be to make sure that the only content available is their content, and they are willing to throw money at that dream. It would turn the internet into The New Cable TV.
And if you think that the present democratized internet and a Broadcast TV internet can co-exist, especially in the eyes of the broadcasters and the infrastructure providers, who have a knee-jerk aversion to infratructure investment, you got another thing coming. | |
|
| | st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA
| said by LiamJunket :said by exocet_cm :I don't understand how VIDEO and IMAGES will cause the Interweb to fail as it is not everybody all the time. Maybe not everybody, thank god, but with P2P apps it is all the time. I have seen numerous posters here crow about how it is their right to download videos/music 24x7 and if the ISP doesn't like it - too bad. thats right, if the ISP doesn't like it, too bad. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Yes, mmm I see said by st7860 :thats right, if the ISP doesn't like it, too bad. Well, considering it's the ISPs' networks, it really isn't too bad. It is their right, and necessity, to manage and control their networks. So, if you as a consumer don't like it, too bad...move on to another network. | |
|
| | | | st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | Re: Yes, mmm I see no i will not move onto the another network. thats the ISPs problem. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Yes, mmm I see Not if they throttle your connection or terminate your service. | |
|
| st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | you must be the guy that gave sprint the idea to cancel a persons contract just because he/she called customer service a few times | |
|
| | |
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Lets just call it what it is Telco Spam! | |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | E-mail Just block e-mail no one uses it anymore. Mostly people use instant messaging now. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | Re: E-mail said by brianiscool :Just block e-mail no one uses it anymore. Mostly people use instant messaging now. Ha! That's the funniest thing I've read today. Not to mention that e-mail has fairly low bandwidth requirements and has minimal impact on a network's core routers. | |
|
Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA | Good thing it's only the `Web' Phew! I was worried there for a moment but I see that they're only talking about "The Web" collapse. I'll still be able to use P2P, NNTP, and FTP.  | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Good thing it's only the `Web' Not to mention any other IP service that doesn't have a www in front of it  | |
|
| | Alliancenet
join:2005-04-30
Canada eh?
1 edit | Re: Good thing it's only the `Web' I don't see how there will ever be a 'bandwidth shortage' on the internet.
When consumers and businesses create a demand for bandwidth, telecom providers are more than willing to provide internet service at a given price. The more competition there is in a given market the lower the cost will be to the end-user.
Content providers purchase bandwidth just like everyone else, the more bandwidth they purchase, the more capacity they have to allocate for customer use.
The increased demand for bandwidth combined with technological advancement has led to a decrease in the cost of bandwidth on the wholesale market.
DSL and Cable providers are raping and pillaging with caps because they don't want customers to make use of the connections they have paid a fair market price for. However as the capacity of consumer connections increase, the cost of the bandwidth itself does not decrease proportionally. Broadband providers still have to make the price-tag appealing, thus caps are sometimes instituted. In reality the cost of the bandwidth *usually* represents an extremely small percentage of monies paid to the telco. | |
|
| | | 
X_Digit
Binary Enhanced
Premium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX | Re: Good thing it's only the `Web' omg... the sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING! When will articles like this ever stop?
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Create a Crisis And you can get congress to let you create laws. Nobody in congress bothers with fact checking anymore they just go along with whomever is putting money into their next election fund.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net | |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Unless... backbone providers and ISP's stop increasing bandwidth to their peers and stop increasing backbone bandwidth, then this is just patently false.
Most providers are upgrading to keep up with usage. If a provider doesn't, everyone with that provider is going to notice right away.
Unless there is some new service that everyone starts using overnight that backbones just can't keep up with fast enough, this just isn't going to happen.
Most competent providers run at a maximum of 50-60% of a link, so as to have enough bandwidth in a failover situation.
So for something to collapse the Internet, it would need to make all traffic jump up in a matter of weeks or months by over 40%. This is just not a realistic expectation. | |
|
mpelle4456
Say What?
join:2001-07-21
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
2 edits | Millennium Research Council = Paid to Lie and cheat If we're about to suffer all these calamities, then why the hell is wholesale bandwidth so cheap?
»www.vonmag-digital.com/vonmag/200704/?pg=34
Here's another article which, for example, suggests that there may soon be a glut of excess trans-Pacific capacity due to potential overbuilding in progress right now.
»www.telecomseurope.net/article.p···7&page=4
And another good article square on point that directly refutes the Millenium report: »www.networkworld.com/news/2007/0···deo.html
The Millennium Research Council is nothing more than a PR tool of the telecoms - who are trying to generate more revenue, pure and simple.
They're a bunch of greedy bastards trying to scare people - "The sky is falling, the sky is falling! - making it possible to drive the prices up.
--
He who hesitates is lost.
My Blog
| |
|
|
|
|
Report Rejuvenates Web Capacity Rumors
