LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
|  Finally, someone understands QoS
quote:
[Incumbents] say they will not block or degrade service otherwise, but that is not possible if they are prioritizing some content,"
There, you have it. That's QoS 101.
You take bandwidth to give to application X, that means everyone else shares less bandwidth.
To the shills that say that incumbents will lay new pipes for "premium" customers I'll say:
- get real, this is incumbents you're talking about. if they lay a new pipe, it's because they're already oversubscribing by 10 on a trunk.
- if you are to lay more pipes anyway, what's the point in QoS? QoS is only useful in a congested network. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Welcome to America
This article only details the fears that have been voiced here for years. Until we get nationwide wireless providers, we're not going to get broadband diversity, and without more than a choice of 2 broadband providers, consumers lose out. Broadband is as necessary of a technology as roads and telephone lines are, yet the FCC sees the internet as just another commodity to be monopolized.
--
|-In a fascist government, National Security ALWAYS overrides Personal Freedoms.-| |- »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -| |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
1 edit | Amazon telling us the obvious
I haven't seen the cable companies advocate QOS yet so don't start with the duopoly bullshit. Amazon coming out and saying this does nothing. If they were smart they would have come out and said they will block any service provider, which practices these extortionary tactics. It would be better for them in the long run than fighting a long battle over legislation. |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
1 edit | aMEN TO THAT Tiger...
go run for congress bro, the country desperatly needs you.
True, in this facade we call a free market, theres no such thing as a "second choice". Half the country's stuck with only one provider, who under-provides to keep up profits and keep down the price of laying pipe. Afterall, a few feet of pipe is gonna cost you an arm an a leg! |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Google could solve this whole "neutrality" issue
Hear me out here.
Google's got plenty of cash, and seems willing to burn a bit now and then. Turning away some viewers might not hurt them much.
So - the first ISP that violates the neutrality concept could get just sandboxed by Google. First, maybe you just can't find the ISP when searching, then next, all users visiting Google would be told to switch providers as theirs won't carry traffic in a neutral way. Heck, they could yield results for other service providers in the area. 
Let the xxxxing match begin!
-Dane |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to grandpinaple
Re: Amazon telling us the obvious
said by grandpinaple  :I haven't seen the cable companies advocate QOS yet so don't start with the duopoly bullshit. Cable, for once, is being smart and letting the telcos run through money for lobbying Congress. If it flops, they haven't spent a lot. If the telcos win, then cable jumps on the bandwagon. |
|
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| an idea
Turning away customers may be a bad idea especially for folks like ebay.
Here is a better idea. Ebay, google, M$ etc etc get together and do a web page all the same week.
The page loads before the main site page. It says something like this.
This is what your connection may be like if Net neutrality is not maintained.
Then a link for more information, articles etc. After so many seconds go to the site and have a skip option for revisits.
I think this would be a fast way to make most people aware of whats going on. I believe it will bring a media fury to the issue. Most people I know know nothing of this issue.
This is cheap and easy to do to.
Do this now and then again every few months especially just before elections.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 |
|
SanJoseNerd
Premium
join:2002-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Politically Motivated Blocking
quote:
A carrier could block access to a labor union site during a dispute. It could block access to a Web site after a special interest group makes a lot of noise about it. It could even block a political site to curry favor with the current administration. All that sounds far fetched, but the whole point is that there is nothing in place to stop carriers from doing it," Amazon VP Paul Misener told the E-Commerce Times.
There is nothing far-fetched about it. Just last month, Bush's Housing Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, bragged about killing government contracts that would have gone to critics of Bush. Here is what he said, according to CNN:
quote:
"Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?" Jackson was quoted as saying. "Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
It's very easy to imagine some FCC commissioner or other government official saying, "why should I let Verizon expand their network, if they allow Democrats to use that network to campaign against us?". (Of course, if Democrats were in power, they would do exactly the same thing in reverse.) Verizon and others will quickly figure out that it's in their interest to block any content critical of the government, on which they are highly dependent. |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA
| I really don't care
Let the bells block and rape.
I say let it be a consumer issue/in the long run it will only hurt them (the bells). It might hurt in the short run.
But remeber nature abhors a vacuum. And it will actually spur more faculty based competition in the long run.
Love & bullets
Flushls |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by flushls :Let the bells block and rape. I say let it be a consumer issue/in the long run it will only hurt them (the bells). It might hurt in the short run. But remeber nature abhors a vacuum. And it will actually spur more faculty based competition in the long run. Love & bullets Flushls Finally, someone who's figured it out. People in this thread talk about money here, money there. Why not spend that money on BUILDING FACILITIES TO PROVIDE SERVICE? I never see anyone talk about another provider. Why isn't anyone installing fiber, instead of crying about lack of choice? |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Because noone has pockets deep enough to compete with telcos and cablecos.
Because the last mile infrastructure of the telcos was installed and paid for by your tax dollars, and that anyone wanting to do this on his own would be bankrupt before even starting.
Because whenever a city tries to do so with its taxpayers money (and after said taxpayers vote that they are wanting their tax dollars to be spent like that), they are being sued into oblivion by the telcos (See Lafayette, LA)
Today, I think noone except WISPs in very rural areas can think about competing against the duopoly. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Because noone has pockets deep enough to compete with telcos and cablecos. Oh, there's plenty of money out there: private investment groups, Microsoft, etc. If there was money to be made, they would do it.
Because the last mile infrastructure of the telcos was installed and paid for by your tax dollars, and that anyone wanting to do this on his own would be bankrupt before even starting. While some of it could have been considered SUBSIDIZED, not 'paid for' (mostly just in the form of granting rights of way, not direct cash payments, AT&T actually 'paid' to install all nationwide infrastructure.
Because whenever a city tries to do so with its taxpayers money (and after said taxpayers vote that they are wanting their tax dollars to be spent like that), they are being sued into oblivion by the telcos (See Lafayette, LA) This is an issue of government competing with the private sector in an area that has been, and should continue to be in the realm of private enterprise.
Today, I think noone except WISPs in very rural areas can think about competing against the duopoly.
I can think of 2, satellite and bpl. But again, if there were money to be made, someone would do it. The Bell System spent over a century installing the current copper telecom network. Have some patience. Someone else may do the same. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to grandpinaple
Re: Amazon telling us the obvious
Amazon doesn't have the luxury to turn away customers, as they aren't a monopoly (or duopoly, no bullshit).
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to viperlmw
Re: I really don't care
1.The problem with competing with a mon/duopoly is that they price you out of the market wherever you start. Ask RCN all about it.
2.Subsidized becomes the same thing when your talking about billions and billion of tax breaks. If they collected all that money and then handed it right back to them it would amount to the same thing.
3.Not if done like the Utopia project, where the muni only builds the network and allows the private sector to compete on it on an even playing field. This actually works MUCH better.
4.BPL? laugh. (there's an article on the front page making fun of BPL progress just today 5/12) Satelite competes with dial-up, not broadband. |
|
