How long before government tells us who can and can't post on this forum? (party, elect)
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.
It's somewhat complex, technically, but let me start with the important thing: Net Neutrality is the status quo. It is the MO the Internet has run under so far. It keeps the entry requirements for new players in the markets low, in effect making the Internet a very, very easy marketplace to enter.
OK, try this on: The Internet transports user data in discrete chunks called packets, each packet marked with a destination and source. The dedicated hardware (routers) that handle the traffic look at the destination address of each packet and forwards the traffic in the right direction. Your local provider (ISP) will typically not have its own network extend all the way to whatever host you're communicating with, so they set up peer agreements with other ISPs they can reach - in effect agreeing to handle data for each others customers and exchanging routing information. For those addresses outside any peering agreement, your ISP will purchase upstream capacity from a backbone provider. The backbone providers, in turn, have peering agreements with other backbone providers.
This interconnected nature makes the Internet somewhat resilient to outages, but it also means that you don't get to decide who handles your traffic. Your only choice as consumer is the ISP, and for many areas, ISPs have de facto monopolies.
What does all that have to do with NN? Traffic prioritization. Under NN, routers aren't supposed to prioritize packets due their IP addresses or, probably worse, content. Simple as that.
It is like the common carrier law in that respect, and this is a good thing.
Verizon is not allowed to make a deal with Amazon to see to it that traffic to Amazon's webpage takes priority over traffic to Barnes & Noble - or to any new players on the field. Cable TV companies acting as ISPs can't downgrade access to NetFlix - and they'd love to, because NetFlix eats into their PPV revenue. Likewise, the telcos would undoubtedly love to throw a wrench in the works of Skype.
It's maintaining equal access to the marketplace - any libertarian should cheer on NN.
Net Neutrality is the status quo, and I think it's led us to something pretty durn good.
You do not understand the debate. NN has nothing to do with content.
Ehm - the telcos own a good chunk of Internet backbone and access infrastructure, and they hate 3rdparty VOIP. It's costing them money hand over fist. They'd love to downgrade VOIP traffic on the spot. Since the availability of VOIP for business purposes became widespread, the price of international tielines have plummeted.
There's ample precedence under common carrier law. It's not good for the marketplace that established players enjoy advantages not accessible to all comers.
I have a pretty good clue. I am also 100% in favor.
I know, everybody on the Internet drives a Ferrari and dates a supermodel, but in real life, I am actually the senior network engineer in an entertainment company big enough that you'd recognize it. I've also worked for European telcos and ISPs, as a network engineer. I've set up hundreds BGP peerings on defaultless routers - this is my field.
Thank you so much for all that information!
"Light bulbs" went on in my head as I read your post.
Sorry but this is the Fox News "Lies, Rumors, Hearsay and Other Made-up Sh_t Forum". Relevant content posted by people who actually know what they're talking about will not be tolerated.
************************************************** **********
Ain't that the truth? And thank you, Dane_in_LA for providing the forum with an easily-understood post on the subject. It put an end to the old "the sky is falling" routine when it comes to President Obama...well done!
HappyTexan, that's really irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really. The US gave up some power over the internet in favor of a more "global" governance. Based on that, how much can our government exert control over it ?
************************************************** ********
More than I trusted Bush and Cheney? H**l yes...ten times over. Now that you've awakened from your 8 year nap, you're concerned that President Obama might shut down the Internet? The Bush 43 admin monitored your
snail-mail, e-mail and telephone calls, and it flew right by you. Bush signed a bill that, under certain conditions, the president could declare martial law and disband Congress...but what Obama could do gets your panties in a bunch? To paraphrase Jesus, you'd swallow a camel but choke on a gnat.
But, but Bush....
Who cares now?
Bush is retired.
Anyway, has what to do with the Rockefeller bill?
You are familiar with the Rockefeller bill right?
"the president could declare martial law and disband Congress"
What does all that have to do with NN? Traffic prioritization. Under NN, routers aren't supposed to prioritize packets due their IP addresses or, probably worse, content. Simple as that.
As long as they stick with that and allow them to offer tiered but neutral service it's fair to everyone. Some proposals I've read want to make it a flat bandwidth for all consumers though which would be detrimental. You 'd have the P2P crowd sucking up all the bandwidth and we'd all be paying for it. As long as the ISP's can regulate the bandwidth the end consumer gets and offer different plans at different rates I'm all for it.
As long as they stick with that and allow them to offer tiered but neutral service it's fair to everyone. Some proposals I've read want to make it a flat bandwidth for all consumers though which would be detrimental. You 'd have the P2P crowd sucking up all the bandwidth and we'd all be paying for it. As long as the ISP's can regulate the bandwidth the end consumer gets and offer different plans at different rates I'm all for it.
That might be the better model. The P2Pers will hate it, but it's probably the best way to make everybody play nice on the access leg.
It's somewhat complex, technically, but let me start with the important thing: Net Neutrality is the status quo. It is the MO the Internet has run under so far. It keeps the entry requirements for new players in the markets low, in effect making the Internet a very, very easy marketplace to enter.
OK, try this on: The Internet transports user data in discrete chunks called packets, each packet marked with a destination and source. The dedicated hardware (routers) that handle the traffic look at the destination address of each packet and forwards the traffic in the right direction. Your local provider (ISP) will typically not have its own network extend all the way to whatever host you're communicating with, so they set up peer agreements with other ISPs they can reach - in effect agreeing to handle data for each others customers and exchanging routing information. For those addresses outside any peering agreement, your ISP will purchase upstream capacity from a backbone provider. The backbone providers, in turn, have peering agreements with other backbone providers.
This interconnected nature makes the Internet somewhat resilient to outages, but it also means that you don't get to decide who handles your traffic. Your only choice as consumer is the ISP, and for many areas, ISPs have de facto monopolies.
What does all that have to do with NN? Traffic prioritization. Under NN, routers aren't supposed to prioritize packets due their IP addresses or, probably worse, content. Simple as that.
It is like the common carrier law in that respect, and this is a good thing.
Verizon is not allowed to make a deal with Amazon to see to it that traffic to Amazon's webpage takes priority over traffic to Barnes & Noble - or to any new players on the field. Cable TV companies acting as ISPs can't downgrade access to NetFlix - and they'd love to, because NetFlix eats into their PPV revenue. Likewise, the telcos would undoubtedly love to throw a wrench in the works of Skype.
It's maintaining equal access to the marketplace - any libertarian should cheer on NN.
Net Neutrality is the status quo, and I think it's led us to something pretty durn good.
You do not understand the debate. NN has nothing to do with content.
Ehm - the telcos own a good chunk of Internet backbone and access infrastructure, and they hate 3rdparty VOIP. It's costing them money hand over fist. They'd love to downgrade VOIP traffic on the spot. Since the availability of VOIP for business purposes became widespread, the price of international tielines have plummeted.
There's ample precedence under common carrier law. It's not good for the marketplace that established players enjoy advantages not accessible to all comers.
I have a pretty good clue. I am also 100% in favor.
I know, everybody on the Internet drives a Ferrari and dates a supermodel, but in real life, I am actually the senior network engineer in an entertainment company big enough that you'd recognize it. I've also worked for European telcos and ISPs, as a network engineer. I've set up hundreds BGP peerings on defaultless routers - this is my field.
Thanks for an excellent post - lots of info, simply put. However, you are making the mistake of confusing the issue with actual facts, a big 'no no' for some on this board....
As I see it it's the only solution that would be feasible. You don't want them to be running over the little guys because they have monopoly but they still need to be compensated and allowed to make sure a few people aren't running up the costs for everyone. The downside is broadband services that use a lot of bandwidth will cost more and it may be unaffordable to lower income people.
As I see it it's the only solution that would be feasible. You don't want them to be running over the little guys because they have monopoly but they still need to be compensated and allowed to make sure a few people aren't running up the costs for everyone. The downside is broadband services that use a lot of bandwidth will cost more and it may be unaffordable to lower income people.
Then you subsidize the cost to lower income as with everything else.
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.
