Reply With Quote
Are you saying you think net neutrality would mean ISPs couldn't charge for internets access?
That didn't make much sense.
I haven't seen anything in writing on the subject that I trust, but doesn't the Net Neutrality prevent those who provide the internet structure from charging for the service?
Is it right to require they give it all to the government?
Who's going to maintain the internet infrastructure with no revenues?
Are you saying you think net neutrality would mean ISPs couldn't charge for internets access?
That didn't make much sense.
He'd have to actually read and understand what's being discussed before making sense.
No, I just misunderstood what was going on.
In reading the wiki writeup, I don't see how it's feasible to enact such a law. For example, Comcast gives me 25 megabit service, but if 100,000 people tried to use it at the same time to say, New York, then that would require a 2.5 terra-bit path to New York.
Now I agree that local users to local locations should be able to use unimpeded rates, but even that is technically impractical at times. Comcast gives me a cable internet connection across a cable that sweeps to 3 gigahertz. The same cable is split to at least three dozen other places. If everyone tried to use the 25 megabit at the same time, that's 900 megabit. The spectrum for the internet is just a tiny slice of that 3 gigahertz and probably wouldn't support more than 500 megabits under the best QAM encoding techniques because of the signal to noise ratios.
To require guaranteed rates would make the service go down to guaranteeable levels, or require a huge infrastructure project to support the greater rates, and end up costing us all more.
P.S.
I was a communication technician for 10 years.
You guys in SA do not realize how good TW is. I am here in Clarksville, TN and was previously near Killeen, TX. Both places have horrible server speeds.
No, no. no, no, no. That's not what net neutrality means.
Here's an example. Spurstalk.com pays an ISP for bandwidth. Net neutrality means that other ISPs can't demand money from Spurstalk.com to improve Spurstalk's connections to their customers. Each customer pays its own ISP, and the ISPs make agreements about how to handle internet traffic between each other.
Here's another example. I pay my ISP for bandwidth and access Spurstalk and Spursreport. Net neutrality means that my ISP can't favor Spursreport packets over Spurstalk packets, even though they own Spursreport or want to make some deal with Spursreport.
Net neutrality does not mean that if an ISP promises you bandwidth, that it must deliver that bandwidth no matter what; that is covered by truth-in-advertising.
If an ISP becomes saturated, then it has to make a decision about how to allocate bandwidth. Net neutrality does not prevent the ISP from limiting bandwidth of heavy users, but you can't favor one kind of packet over another; they all get slowed down equally.
Do you have a writeup of the actual directive or law? That's not how I read what I've seen.
Why don't you post what you've seen WC? That way, maybe we can figure out what you're talking about.
Too bad. That's exactly what net neutrality means. It prevents ISPs from favoring one type of packets or one connection over another.
No, I believe it just means that they can't throttle bandwidth on certain packets, like P2P filesharing.
It usually is against assigning 'tiers' of quality to bandwidth service as well.
Then how do they decide a priority when bandwidth is exceeded?
How would this work with time-sensitive packets like VOIP though? There are legitimate reasons for elevating the priority of some packets.
They wouldn't.
Proponents of net neutrality cite two things: one, in many cases ISPs were given money by the government to develop the infrastructure to handle larger loads. And two, ISPs shouldn't throttle some users bandwidth, or certain applications, in order to provide service to others. The assumption is if you pay for the service, you should receive a certain quality of service.
Opponents of net neutrality state that elevating some packets priority might make traffic flow faster. But even more so than that, most ISPs absolutely despise people who buy large pipes and then spend all day dloading movies/music/etc, because they're using more than their 'fair share' of the tubes. (They're a series of tubes! They're not a big truck!)
Of course, those same ISPs aren't refunding anyone who uses LESS than their fair share...
Another year and I'll have you beat.
Double post
EXACTLY. It isn't a true open market. If Joe's WWW Shack could come wire up to your house, that'd be different.
Net neutrality is basically a huge subsidy to companies like Google, Amazon or eBay, giving their customers the impression that their services are free.
This is the most hilarious argument that I hear from net neutrality proponents. They favour legislation that basically prevents the existence of an open market citing as a reason the fact that market isn't open. Truly orwelian.
Your ideas about economic fairness are a good approximation to our supposed system of capitalism/lemon socialism in America. They almost mirror the whole situation we got into with the banking industry. The public took all the risk by being there to rescue the banks when they screwed up and dug their own graves with the CDS fiasco. Yet the profits were all privatized. Same thing with the internet. Our tax dollars go to DARPA, go to researchers at UCLA and Stanford where the early protocols were invented, to Cal Berkeley where the universally used sockets API was created, etc. The public takes all the risk and then here comes AT&T wanting to use OUR technology under their rules so they can charge us extra to use google instead of bing, after Microsoft offers a huge bribe to them to get their search engine some market share. Then Microsoft controls information and only returns horror stories about Linux and Mac on the default search engine, pushing them even closer to monopoly on the desktop market because people aren't going to pay the extra $10 a month just to use the alternative search. Why don't you just come out and say your preferred form of government is oligarchy?
No they are not.
Correct. Although I don't understand how my ideas mirror that whole situation. I thought that the bailouts were a disgrace.
Admitting your reasoning is correct, why do you want to give huge subsidies to Google and Microsoft then? That's what net neutrality is, that's what Genachowski proposal comes down to (plus giving the federal government the power to exercise censorship). You're against private profits and public costs unless it's Google et all making the profits?
(Your reasoning is wrong though; unless the net neutrality was only applied to networks owned by the government. The technology used in the internet was developed by thousands of governments, companies and individuals. And there was lots of technology created before the "invention of the internet").
Because it's not (I usually don't answer to ad hominem arguments, so take this as an unique exception).Why don't you just come out and say your preferred form of government is oligarchy?
Last edited by mogrovejo; 09-25-2009 at 08:24 PM.
Net Neutrality is what we have right now. Packets flow freely, and you also have temporal priority for certain packets. Most modern Operating Systems, routers and high end switches include Quality Of Service (QOS) modules that will temporarily prioritize things like VOIP packets while a call is taking place, throttling other connections in the process.
What ISPs that oppose the current system really want is to double-dip.
They want to throttle service providers like Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, etc unless they pony up money to move to the 'fast lane'.
Unfortunately this tiered system also screws up the little guy. Sites like You Tube would simply not have been possible in a tiered system like these companies propose.
Last, most of these companies that want a tiered system claim that they need that revenue in order to improve their infrastructure based on the ever increasing bandwidth demand. This obviously flies in the face of a company like Verizon that is laying out fiber to everyone's home right now and are still turning a more than healthy profit.
By the way, there are lots of misinformation about this issue (I guess it should be expected, being those that control the information - googles, microsofts, media, etc - a very interested party on it).
The Genachowski and the current usage of the net neutrality term isn't about non-discrimination (something that already exists and can be assured by using existing laws, like the threat of eminent domain). The problem is the intent to prohibit ISPs from offering different tiers of service, basically making the internet a eat all you want service, basically giving a huge subsidy in the form of a free-ride to the big internet service providers like Google or Amazon at the cost of the little guy who simply writes his mails, reads the sports forum and downloads a couple of musics and to give the government the power to regulate network management disagreements (the law vaguely excludes "reasonable network management", but it will obviously be the bureacrates to decide what is reasonable or note).
And of course, Microsoft is one of the biggest proponents of net neutrality legislation, unlike one would think by reading baseline bum's post.
I can't believe you guys are debating this. You might as well argue that most of the cons ution needs to be repealed. Net neutrality exists for a variety of strong reasons.
A good explanation with visuals.
Cable companies use fiber for their networks. Only the end run to the homes is actually coax. DOCSIS 3.0 is the latest standard that defines how the coax bandwidth is split up. The limits are 160 Mbit/s downstream and 120 Mbit/s upstream (They use QAM-64).
That's why Verizon is laying out Fiber To Home (FTH) everywhere.
Some Cable Co's have started to do that too.
Verizon uses a GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) layout that shares 2.4 Gbit/s downstream and 1.2 Gbit/s upstream, up to 32 homes.
I don't disagree with you on that assessment, however, my personal view on net neutrality is not about guaranteeing equal bandwidth, but guaranteeing equal access opportunity to the available bandwidth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
