Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are right to a point. All traffic is marked for QOS and its nothing new, without it, VOIP would be awful and could take a network to its knees. I also think its fair for a company to pay more to a ISP to pay for a better AF value, and as we know this already happens. The big thing here is, the providor (ie hulu.com) pays for the better treatment, and the better dscp vaule will only come into play when there is congestion on a link. And dont forget, the dscp values will most likely be re-marked when they go from AS to AS, so really unless you are in the same ISP as the providor, the qos queing will only go so far.
I think what most supporters of NN are against is policing or shapping traffic by your PTT. My ISP have everyright to police my entire local loop to whatever I pay for. But my local loop should be first in first out, not my ISP policing youtube to 128k unless I pay a extra 10 dollars more a month.
That is a fair concern, yet do we really think the politicians can get to the specific cases of need without turning the entire thing upside down? Also, how many times has this occurred? There has been some "individual" cases here and there, but nothing significant and there has been some threats in heated exchanges from AT&T and Google, but nothing of such has been done or is even planned.
And as you touched on, do they really have a right anyway to demand such? The ISP's build the infrastructure, put all of the money into it and then the content providers just get a free ride to demand what they will from the ISP's to which there is no gain for? It doesn't make sense and is wreaks of political power games.
How much bandwidth are you using? I dont know anyone using a residentail line that pays the the usage.
BTW, I've had a TV on for 2 weeks straight last month, and the cable bill was the same as always. I guess there's some utilities you get where you dont pay by the quantity. My phone is the same way!
I have never paid for usage, nor is it in my contracts, nor have I seen such on a residential plan. What is even funny is that I am set for my plan as a 15/5, yet I get 26/18. I have used it pretty heavy too and the bill is always the same.
I don't know where people are paying past caps in residential, I have never seen such unless they were a very specific plan or it was a business plan with limitations.
There are companies that sell their service as unlimited internet, but then cap you and charge for overage.
Verizon did this for quite some time with their aircards.
Ahh wrong.. Verizon offered unlimited internet and then changed their contract when you RENEWED.. Thereby you signed a NEW contract that did not offer unlimited internet. Dont like it, dont sign the new contract..
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli
Again, research before discussing. Net Neutrality does not only pertain to restricted sites.
How much bandwidth are you using? I dont know anyone using a residentail line that pays the the usage.
BTW, I've had a TV on for 2 weeks straight last month, and the cable bill was the same as always. I guess there's some utilities you get where you dont pay by the quantity. My phone is the same way!
On ONE of my computers, I've sent 680,713,069,149 bytes and received 38,292,547,145 bytes in the last week.. and I have over a dozen computers here, and that doesnt include the phone and tv service which comes through the same line..
I pay a flat rate, I just pay more than most because I want/need the speeds to keep phone conversations clear while the pc's running all of their programs..
I don't believe the posters who say they want to pay $150/mo for internet access. I don't.
I pay MORE by CHOICE.. I could pay $25 a month but the speeds are so slow that the VOIP system doesnt work and my programs never finish running. Its a home based internet company using up the bandwith..
That is as silly as expecting to drive at 110mph on public highways without government interference. Seriously, did everyone only suddenly realize government was all up in their kool aid the nanosecond Obama was elected? Government is sooner or later going to be making the choice whether you like it or not. How far they go is the issue. I think the points about traffic priority are apples. There is also an issue about traffic content and those are oranges. No one is discussing the oranges because they are only interested in the apples aspect of things. The less technically minded (and bear in mind I am very close to a CCNA) among us are more interested in the oranges aspect of future management of the Internet. I don't believe the posters who say they want to pay $150/mo for internet access. I don't. I don't think you can truly have prioritizing by traffic content until IPv6 but I could be wrong. In any case. It's not the issue for most of us. Will we be able to find the Miley Cyrus photoshop. Nomander says that can't happen, that its what killed a local cable provider, and if that provider had it to do over again they would set things up the exact same way. Imagine being able to look at the boring city profiles on CD for the basic rate of $50/mo but only being able to get the state forums for and additional $10/mo and if you wan't P&Oc that will be an even $75/mo. Forget how much data you download the bucks will be made by allowing you to get to the content you want. It's how they think and its the only way they think. Extreme downloaders are being dealt with as we speak by 'limits'. Is that the end of it? Google is one thing but consumers are another. I'm betting consumers aren't completely forgotten in all this.
H
Access has gotten cheaper because of the competition and consumer demand. The cable companies lost a large amount of the market because of their practices and it is due to the "need" by consumers. When there is a "need" in the market, there is a opportunity for profit and this is what drives innovation and competition.
Look at DSL, it was nothing new. It had been around for years before it was brought to market, but there was no demand for it. Cable was providing the broadband and already had the infrastructure to provide it at reasonable costs compared to ISDN. When the broadband became more prevalent and the cable companies began to play their games, there was a "need" created that was actually profitable. Now it was worth to add the infrastructure to support DSL and compete. When they did, cable started losing the market. Look at Verizon, they were spending enormous amounts of money on infrastructure to pick up business with FIOS and the wireless services also began to boom allowing for even more competition even in towns that used to only have a single provider, now they had 2-3 or more.
If government steps in, it will destroy this process, a process which allows for connections at dirt cheap rates and the option to choose who you will do business with. The government will simply remove the need for competition by regulating it, making it less profitable to start up and compete with new technologies. There will be little benefit to dump a bunch of money into your infrastructure to gain more of the market because the government bureaucracy will see to everything being their perception of "fair". The end result will then be a market in a strangle hold and at the whims of government regulation, essentially placing the power right back into the hands of the ISP's who already have the infrastructure. Those who will benefit the most will be those who have the closest relations to the politicians and it will be them who decide what is best, not the consumer. In the end, what was feared will be the result, but there will be no free market to balance it as the government will dictate the market.
Read up on California and the energy companies, specifically PG&E and the energy crisis to see exactly how government regulation played the market right into their hands and it was all made possible because of government regulation.
Absolutely it is critical and I would even assert that the free flow of information is probably one of the greatest single contributions to free societies in our human history.
Ok, how are you going to regulate it? Does every service get equal rights? How is this going to be achieved? Are we going to have special government approved policies to insure that all traffic is equally given priority? Is all content equal in both technical and content base? You do realize that just the concept of applying equal flow of traffic will be a nightmare to implement and it will fundamentally change the concept of networks and their design? You can not apply a "one size fits all" method to the issue which means that the government will have to get more involved to insure this happens. This means new standards developed, standards which will have "equal priority" as its focus, not speed and flow. It is too big for them to manage on this basis. then there is the ethical and constitutional aspect of them having the right to demand how a private company provides its service with respect to those they choose to service and those they do not.
I know what I'm talking about. Do you have any trouble getting to any sites? Are you being charged more for your bandwidth usage? NO YOU'RE NOT! How about we wait and see what happens before some knee-jerk legislation is put in place. That makes more sense doesn't it? Whatever stupidness the ISP's do, it can be over turned with some type of policy in the future when it happens. As of right now, there is nothing going on, so no legislation is needed.
So then are you implying that despite the fact that you have no idea what ISP's are and do as you post above :"whatever stupidness the ISP's do".
Yet you somehow you just KNOW that legislation could be easily overturned as well?
Any you would know that how exactly? Please do elaborate.
The ISP's build the infrastructure, put all of the money into it and then the content providers just get a free ride to demand what they will from the ISP's to which there is no gain for?.
The content provider does not get a free ride, typical host might offer a dedicated server starting at $100 per month and that includes about 2TB of data transfer. The ISP is the middle man between the content provider and the consumer. The gain for the ISP is as it has always been, they are getting paid for the service connecting consumers to the internet.
Yet you somehow you just KNOW that legislation could be easily overturned as well?
Any you would know that how exactly? Please do elaborate.
Um, the same way Obama changed the credit card practices.. YOU WRITE A BILL TO OUTLAW X, Y, Z..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My phone is the same way!
