how-to block ads
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| I give Up
After attempts in failing to put what I am thinking on paper I am just going to say Net Neutrality is wrong. What the telecoms are just trying to offer is a premium guarantee service. What the difference between Telecom offering a premium service and a gas station offering premium fuel.
Don’t tell me you paid for the bandwidth to the content provider. You cannot on the internet because by nature the internet is a decentralized network. If one wants a point to point network, buy a T1 line.
Net Neutrality is a bad idea; either you get a multi billion dollar company like Google hogging the bandwidth and no chance for a start-up to get on the same network or everybody gets the same crappy service. In other words everybody at the lowest common denominator which is often the effect of imposing the tired failed liberal ideas of Egalitarianism. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| The REASON you can't put it to paper, is you are getting conflicting information about what net neutrality is. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH QOS. Period. The Telcos want you to think it's to provide a 'better quality' connection, but that's their smokescreen. Their objective is to charge you based on WHAT'S in the package, and WHO the package is from.
The better analogy would be you can get regular or premium gas, but depending on what kind of car you drive, it's how much you pay. You drive an AT&T approved car, where GM gave AT&T a kickback of 100.00/car, then you pay $2.50 a gallon for premium fuel. If you drive a FORD, who didn't pay AT&T, you pay $2.50 a gallon for regular fuel. You are paying the same amount, but getting discriminated against because FORD didn't pay AT&T. And god forbid you drive up in a Nissan, and try and get gas. In that case, your going to pay $4.00 a gallon for sub regular gas. But all of those cars provide you with transportation, it's just that AT&T is penalizing anyone who doesn't drive a GM.
The issue that arises is this. What is AT&T selling? If they are selling GAS, then what gives them the right to charge MORE if you are driving a ford or a Nissan? That's what the whole debate is all about. They sell GAS, they don't sell GM GAS, and FORD gas. They have no right to collect money from someone who drives a FORD just because it's got a bigger engine than a GM. The customer paid ford for a bigger engine, why should AT&T collect more money because of that?
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
Reichart
@comcast.net
| Its worse than that
They want to check each packet you send to decide how much to bill you. Cisco already is pushing this capability to the net providers as a revenue booster. That way they can charge more for what they think is VOIP packets (to try to recoup what they are losing from people dumping landlines). And charge a different rate for packets they identify as video, or P2P or porn or email, etc. Basically, they want to charge each packet type according to how much people want it.
Actually QoS is a good idea. I want my VOIP or MMORPG packets to get priority, but it should be ME that decides when that happens (via an option on the UI), NOT some megacorp that is violating my privacy by sniffing my personal communications.
The really sad part of all this is hearing how my friends in 'backward nations of europe' have way more bw for way less cost...
Chas. | |
|
