Net Neutrality

[kalm]

So Obama appoints a former telecom lobbyist who's favoring allowing internet providers the ability to choose which content providers get the best and fastest service. Meanwhile, Republicans are charging that keeping the internet open and free to all amounts to socialism.

God what a country!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5276445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Net neutrality is vital to the economy.

When they fu* k this up (and they will) the only cog left comes out and we crash hard.

If they want to pay for better content and faster speed then they have the money to build an exclusive network of their own. It's not broke so don't fix it.

[kalm]

Net neutrality is vital to the economy.

When they fu* k this up (and they will) the only cog left comes out and we crash hard.

If they want to pay for better content and faster speed then they have the money to build an exclusive network of their own. It's not broke so don't fix it.

Yup.

[Chizzang]

Morality will come into play... some will decide for all

[Baldy]

So Obama appoints a former telecom lobbyist who's favoring allowing internet providers the ability to choose which content providers get the best and fastest service. Meanwhile, Republicans are charging that keeping the internet open and free to all amounts to socialism.

God what a country!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5276445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, kalm is in favor of even more government control and regulation. Shocking.

[kalm]

So Obama appoints a former telecom lobbyist who's favoring allowing internet providers the ability to choose which content providers get the best and fastest service. Meanwhile, Republicans are charging that keeping the internet open and free to all amounts to socialism.

God what a country!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5276445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, kalm is in favor of even more government control and regulation. Shocking.

You obviously don't understand the issue.

[Chizzang]

So, kalm is in favor of even more government control and regulation. Shocking.

You obviously don't understand the issue.

If it's not real estate swindling he gets confused...

[Baldy]

So, kalm is in favor of even more government control and regulation. Shocking.

You obviously don't understand the issue.

Since you think the internet is free , you certainly don't understand how the government works.

[kalm]

You obviously don't understand the issue.

Since you think the internet is free , you certainly don't understand how the government works.

Huh? You mean free as in no cost or free as in no regulation?

You really don't understand this topic do you?

[Baldy]

Since you think the internet is free , you certainly don't understand how the government works.

Huh? You mean free as in no cost or free as in no regulation?

You're asking me? You know, that's not the right question to be asking since you know the topic so well.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

So, kalm is in favor of even more government control and regulation. Shocking.

You obviously don't understand the issue.

I am pretty sure I don't and I do it for a living. Anyone can and does do this now so I really don't know what they are proposing to do. If you take the definition of net neutrality literally, they don't want to treat any traffic differently. I know 100% for sure, things will not work if we do that. You have to treat certain traffic differently. For example, you want voice traffic to be higher than video traffic and video to get a higher priority than say SSH traffic. What you don't want to do is treat the damn spam email that goes around with a 30MB attachment, clogging the internet, the same as our voip traffic or our netflix. This large bandwitch traffic that is not latency or jitter sensitive, you want to fend for itself and have TCP/IP throttle and control it. You also have a physical limitation of the bandwidth the customer has so there are lots that can and do control our internet traffic.

There are parts of the TCP/IP header that are used to control traffic and prioritize it now so this is something that can and is done now. If it wasn't there, we would all be in a world of hurt on our networks. What I am unsure of is where the political side of "net nuetrality" wants this to go yet. I really do see nothing stopping a provider from doing it right now from what I know about it but I only work on my company stuff and am not a provider.

[Chizzang]

I am pretty sure I don't and I do it for a living. Anyone can and does do this now so I really don't know what they are proposing to do. If you take the definition of net neutrality literally, they don't want to treat any traffic differently. I know 100% for sure, things will not work if we do that. You have to treat certain traffic differently. For example, you want voice traffic to be higher than video traffic and video to get a higher priority than say SSH traffic. What you don't want to do is treat the damn spam email that goes around with a 30MB attachment, clogging the internet, the same as our voip traffic or our netflix. This large bandwitch traffic that is not latency or jitter sensitive, you want to fend for itself and have TCP/IP throttle and control it. You also have a physical limitation of the bandwidth the customer has so there are lots that can and do control our internet traffic.

There are parts of the TCP/IP header that are used to control traffic and prioritize it now so this is something that can and is done now. If it wasn't there, we would all be in a world of hurt on our networks. What I am unsure of is where the political side of "net nuetrality" wants this to go yet. I really do see nothing stopping a provider from doing it right now from what I know about it but I only work on my company stuff and am not a provider.

I have major issues with a few of your points
and agree with a few - Sure the service provider caps your bandwidth download speeds - and I completely agree there should be charges for faster pipe access etc.

But what we don't want (ever) is the service provider assessing the importance of the data moving down the pipe to your modem / and I don't care if it's netflix or an advertisement or VOIP

That is NOT the service providers job, they are NOT traffic police or morality police or determination of importance police / they are a service provider who was basically HANDED the internet by our federal government and it's tax payers

I'll go deeper if you want a full on debate... but this should be simple enough to understand
Sure there are speed limits - but - nobody tells you where to drive

[Baldy]

I am pretty sure I don't and I do it for a living. Anyone can and does do this now so I really don't know what they are proposing to do. If you take the definition of net neutrality literally, they don't want to treat any traffic differently. I know 100% for sure, things will not work if we do that. You have to treat certain traffic differently. For example, you want voice traffic to be higher than video traffic and video to get a higher priority than say SSH traffic. What you don't want to do is treat the damn spam email that goes around with a 30MB attachment, clogging the internet, the same as our voip traffic or our netflix. This large bandwitch traffic that is not latency or jitter sensitive, you want to fend for itself and have TCP/IP throttle and control it. You also have a physical limitation of the bandwidth the customer has so there are lots that can and do control our internet traffic.

There are parts of the TCP/IP header that are used to control traffic and prioritize it now so this is something that can and is done now. If it wasn't there, we would all be in a world of hurt on our networks. What I am unsure of is where the political side of "net nuetrality" wants this to go yet. I really do see nothing stopping a provider from doing it right now from what I know about it but I only work on my company stuff and am not a provider.

I have major issues with a few of your points
and agree with a few - Sure the service provider caps your bandwidth download speeds - and I completely agree there should be charges for faster pipe access etc.

But what we don't want (ever) is the service provider assessing the importance of the data moving down the pipe to your modem / and I don't care if it's netflix or an advertisement or VOIP

That is NOT the service providers job, they are NOT traffic police or morality police or determination of importance police / they are a service provider who was basically HANDED the internet by our federal government and it's tax payers

I'll go deeper if you want a full on debate... but this should be simple enough to understand
Sure there are speed limits - but - nobody tells you where to drive

That's all fine and good, but I would much rather my service provider make those decisions than the federal government.

[kalm]

I am pretty sure I don't and I do it for a living. Anyone can and does do this now so I really don't know what they are proposing to do. If you take the definition of net neutrality literally, they don't want to treat any traffic differently. I know 100% for sure, things will not work if we do that. You have to treat certain traffic differently. For example, you want voice traffic to be higher than video traffic and video to get a higher priority than say SSH traffic. What you don't want to do is treat the damn spam email that goes around with a 30MB attachment, clogging the internet, the same as our voip traffic or our netflix. This large bandwitch traffic that is not latency or jitter sensitive, you want to fend for itself and have TCP/IP throttle and control it. You also have a physical limitation of the bandwidth the customer has so there are lots that can and do control our internet traffic.

There are parts of the TCP/IP header that are used to control traffic and prioritize it now so this is something that can and is done now. If it wasn't there, we would all be in a world of hurt on our networks. What I am unsure of is where the political side of "net nuetrality" wants this to go yet. I really do see nothing stopping a provider from doing it right now from what I know about it but I only work on my company stuff and am not a provider.

I have major issues with a few of your points
and agree with a few - Sure the service provider caps your bandwidth download speeds - and I completely agree there should be charges for faster pipe access etc.

But what we don't want (ever) is the service provider assessing the importance of the data moving down the pipe to your modem / and I don't care if it's netflix or an advertisement or VOIP

That is NOT the service providers job, they are NOT traffic police or morality police or determination of importance police / they are a service provider who was basically HANDED the internet by our federal government and it's tax payers

I'll go deeper if you want a full on debate... but this should be simple enough to understand
Sure there are speed limits - but - nobody tells you where to drive

I'm not in the field but this seems to make a whole bunch of sense. It would be a shame for content to be based on the highest bidder...and the providers already have quite the monopoly going.

[kalm]

Huh? You mean free as in no cost or free as in no regulation?

You're asking me? You know, that's not the right question to be asking since you know the topic so well.

You've passed the point where you can bow out gracefully so yeah... Double down on your nonsense.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I am pretty sure I don't and I do it for a living. Anyone can and does do this now so I really don't know what they are proposing to do. If you take the definition of net neutrality literally, they don't want to treat any traffic differently. I know 100% for sure, things will not work if we do that. You have to treat certain traffic differently. For example, you want voice traffic to be higher than video traffic and video to get a higher priority than say SSH traffic. What you don't want to do is treat the damn spam email that goes around with a 30MB attachment, clogging the internet, the same as our voip traffic or our netflix. This large bandwitch traffic that is not latency or jitter sensitive, you want to fend for itself and have TCP/IP throttle and control it. You also have a physical limitation of the bandwidth the customer has so there are lots that can and do control our internet traffic.

There are parts of the TCP/IP header that are used to control traffic and prioritize it now so this is something that can and is done now. If it wasn't there, we would all be in a world of hurt on our networks. What I am unsure of is where the political side of "net nuetrality" wants this to go yet. I really do see nothing stopping a provider from doing it right now from what I know about it but I only work on my company stuff and am not a provider.

I have major issues with a few of your points
and agree with a few - Sure the service provider caps your bandwidth download speeds - and I completely agree there should be charges for faster pipe access etc.

But what we don't want (ever) is the service provider assessing the importance of the data moving down the pipe to your modem / and I don't care if it's netflix or an advertisement or VOIP

That is NOT the service providers job, they are NOT traffic police or morality police or determination of importance police / they are a service provider who was basically HANDED the internet by our federal government and it's tax payers

I'll go deeper if you want a full on debate... but this should be simple enough to understand
Sure there are speed limits - but - nobody tells you where to drive

Utah is right, to a degree priority is already happening on a small scale level.

You are right that this needs to stop, especially when the Big Telecom Dicks want things their way. It a lot of ways its very similar to the BLM cutting off access to public lands.

[Baldy]

You're asking me? You know, that's not the right question to be asking since you know the topic so well.

You've passed the point where you can bow out gracefully so yeah... Double down on your nonsense.

Nonsense.

Says the guy who thinks the government will keep anything "open and free".

[Chizzang]

Another point that the Service providers really don't want anybody knowing is how much available bandwidth their really is.... I think the technical term for the amount of available bandwidth is "a metric-sh!tload"

WDM technology (Wave division multiplexing) has exponentially exploded fiber capacity

Because:
a) Light is really fast and
b) is infinitely divisible by spectrum

as a result of those ^ two things

c) Bandwidth is a word used to create value
d) and scare people

BUT:
Laser transmission speeds are now up to 26 terabytes
Let me explain how much bandwidth that is:
That would be enough bandwidth for 26 million people to have 10 mb a second high speed internet access
on effectively ONE FIBER OPTIC BUNDLE

Of course there are a myriad of intermediate devices in between "you and that fiber cable" that would dramatically slow the service - but - suffice to know: Bandwidth is a word used to scare people and increase service charges and monthly usage rates...

Note:
Paul Allen was so frustrated by this ^ that he used his investment company "Vulcan" to purchased Charter Communications so he could by-pass all the bandwidth bush!t on the Microsoft Campus

[travelinman67]

Phase 2

Create perception of shortage. Deliver less product. Increase end user price.

Rinse and repeat.



Phase 4...

Stifle development.







There once was a law known as the Sherman Antitrust Act...

[kalm]

Phase 2

Create perception of shortage. Deliver less product. Increase end user price.

Rinse and repeat.



Phase 4...

Stifle development.

On this, you and I agree completely.

(Hint to Baldy, there are instances where the right government regulation like breaking up monopolies, Glass Steagal, and defining ISP's as common carriers can actually help capitalism by increasing competition and providing stability…in other words, keep your internet free while keeping your costs down)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;






There once was a law known as the Sherman Antitrust Act...

[kalm]

Phase 2

Create perception of shortage. Deliver less product. Increase end user price.

Rinse and repeat.



Phase 4...

Stifle development.







There once was a law known as the Sherman Antitrust Act...

On this, you and I agree completely.

(Hint to Baldy, there are instances where the right government regulation like breaking up monopolies, Glass Steagal, and defining ISP's as common carriers can actually help capitalism by increasing competition and providing stability…in other words, keep your internet free while keeping your costs down)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I am terrible at trying to take a technical issue and explain it so that it makes sense sometimes. I will try and break it down better to explain myself better from above.

QOS and prioritization of packets in a network (the internet being a HUGE one) has to happen. I will try and give you an example. Up until about 3 years ago, many of our stores ran on a single link. We would run our phone system, video conferencing, ssh/telnet sessions and any internet bound traffic on a single connection. We would have anywhere from 5-10 PC's browsing the internet, 2-6 phone calls and 40-50 telnet/ssh sessions going constantly through out the day. Any guesses as to how fast/bandwidth that link was? A single T1, 1.5Mbps. If the traffic is not prioritized, the first time one of the idiot users starts downloading his porn, he is going to make your phone call sound like crap or even drop because the router is going to start pitching packets because of congestion. You have to prioritize traffic if you want things to work right, there is only so many bits that can get pushed down a physical link.

But what we do with it politically and the technical side are really 2 seperate issues. Companies and providers are doing what I describe above right now on what you would call a private link and are saying they will honor your markings going to the internet from you. Where we go from here is all political and I really don't see how the government is going to stop them. I also know how competitive this market is and the providers are all beating themselves up to get your business. You can get a 100Mbps circuit today on fiber that is the smae price a T1(1.5Mbps) was 4 years ago and there are 3-4 people that will kick/scratch/under cut their competitors to get your business. If there is competition, I don't see a problem. If we get Walmart as the internet provider, we would have an issue.

[CID1990]

But what we don't want (ever) is the service provider assessing the importance of the data moving down the pipe to your modem / and I don't care if it's netflix or an advertisement or VOIP

You know damn well it is going to happen. We are already so far down that road in our collective groupthink (although not as far as Europe but we're working on it)....

Think about it- in most of western Europe you can go to jail for saying the Holocaust didn't happen. It is a repugnant thing to say and therefore it is illegal. If Germany was in charge of the Internet, do you think it would be possible to say repugnant things there? Then it is only a short hop to the censure of other positions considered to be repugnant by some-

I dont think gays should marry

I do think gays should marry

I dont think abortion should be legal

I do think abortion should be legal

I don't think climate change is caused by humans

I do think climate change is caused by humans



I'll bet you a paycheck it is going to happen I am that sure of it.

I'm less worried about the lack of bandwidth scam. Once the truth of it becomes viral and somebody figures out a way to make money while putting everybody else out of business with slightly faster internetz we'll see a bandwidth war. The government just needs to stay out of the way

[Baldy]

Phase 2

Create perception of shortage. Deliver less product. Increase end user price.

Rinse and repeat.



Phase 4...

Stifle development.







There once was a law known as the Sherman Antitrust Act...

On this, you and I agree completely.

(Hint to Baldy, there are instances where the right government regulation like breaking up monopolies, Glass Steagal, and defining ISP's as common carriers can actually help capitalism by increasing competition and providing stability…in other words, keep your internet free while keeping your costs down)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Breaking up monopolies.

Monopolies are created by government. Other than DeBeers and the NYSE, name me one monopoly that lasted any significant time and didn't crumble under the pressure of increased competition.

Classifying the most technologically advanced and sophisticated network as a "common carrier" and submit it to the rules and regulations of an antiquated piece of legislation will do to the internet what "common carrier" status did to the electrical grid, public water systems, and landline phone systems...destroy innovation and investment.

[kalm]

On this, you and I agree completely.

(Hint to Baldy, there are instances where the right government regulation like breaking up monopolies, Glass Steagal, and defining ISP's as common carriers can actually help capitalism by increasing competition and providing stability…in other words, keep your internet free while keeping your costs down)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Breaking up monopolies.

Monopolies are created by government. Other than DeBeers and the NYSE, name me one monopoly that lasted any significant time and didn't crumble under the pressure of increased competition.

Classifying the most technologically advanced and sophisticated network as a "common carrier" and submit it to the rules and regulations of an antiquated piece of legislation will do to the internet what "common carrier" status did to the electrical grid, public water systems, and landline phone systems...destroy innovation and investment.

Here's a nice, succinct summary of the issue. Read it and get back to me….

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/4543059/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;