NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to bamabrad
Re: I believe everything he says..
I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Not legislating would imply, necessarily, that current "net neutrality" will persist, contrary to what they're lobbying for. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner  :I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.[NG]Owner I am not one to like laws on the internet. There are some thing that's should naturally transfer over such as copyrights/patents, child pornography laws, etc. This is one area that I do want Uncle Sam to step and and say No. The viability of the internet as an open communication for information and ideas has to be safeguarded. Once someone else's information and ideas gets priority over others it will be a downward spiral.
There are two sides to this coin, is net-neutrality laws fixing a problem that doesn't exist, or is it nipping a problem in the bud? I see it as the latter. You don't wait for food to spoil before you decide to refrigerate it.
This is all about ISPs want to be able to charge content providers for priority on the network. The hope is to create a priority war amongst the large domains like Google, Ebay, myspace, etc. Under the current system all packets are routed equally and fairly, and we all get our content timely. Once one company gets it in their head to purchase priority then the other companies will have to follow suite or get left behind. Now they will all have to shell out money to have what they all used to have. Meanwhile the rest of us are left with our websites getting the shaft. This is why even companies like Google, the very companies this is suppose to help, are against it. They don't want to shell out big money for what everyone is getting already.
The way the companies are selling this is basically by lying. One was even saying a gaming company, like WOW, could pay to have players bandwidth uncapped. That has nothing to do with network neutrality, and there probably will be no system to having users bandwidth uncapped on demand.
They are also saying that packets will receive the same priority as they always have, and all websites will continue to load just as well. If this was true then there would be no incentive for web-site providers to purchase network priority from companies like AT&T and it would all be quite mute.
So, I see it as putting the food in the fridge before it spoils, not waiting for it to spoil and then refrigerating it.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | Sage points Maxo. As an FYI, the validity of my argument rests on the following:
As I see it as long as the data pipe is not overloaded to begin with, prioritization is useless. It doesn't make a difference which packet is prioritized as there is capacity for both FIFO-wise on the pipe. Prioritization only comes into vogue when there is contention for a single timeslice on the pipe by two packets.
Furthermore, the pipe to the home must work tomorrow as well as it does today, with appropriate improvements in throughput (similar to what we've seen over the past decade). Degradation or stagnation of what we have today is NOT factored into any of my arguments.
I still don't like the idea of proactively legislating. If it becomes an issue, undo it. Otherwise let the markets decide.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | I get your point. Though I sit far to the left I am weary of will-nilly government legislation, especially when it comes to the internet. I think this one issue is a place where I'm willing to part and say let's do it. |
|
