1 edit | I can see both sides here... On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. If Comcast started to put it's Digital Voice service inline with data (sharing the channel with internet), consumers and regulators would cry out and start lawsuits if their line became "de-prioritized" and they tried calling 911 and as a result of their de-prioritization, their 911 call dropped due to latency or packet loss.
Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality?
I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? | |
|
 |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: I can see both sides here... said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. If Comcast started to put it's Digital Voice service inline with data (sharing the channel with internet), consumers and regulators would cry out and start lawsuits if their line became "de-prioritized" and they tried calling 911 and as a result of their de-prioritization, their 911 call dropped due to latency or packet loss. Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality? I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way. There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. | |
|
| | | | Re: I can see both sides here... Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?
If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal? | |
|
| | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... said by videoOip :
Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?
If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal?
Good point. According to another DSLR story here at »No, AT&T Is Not Throttling U-Verse, AT&T U-Verse does similar stuff. I am guessing Verizon FIOS is the same.
quote:
In order to provide a consistently high-quality video service, AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet throughput speeds may be temporarily reduced when a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth. This could occur more often with higher speed Internet access products. It may be necessary, for some AT&T High Speed Internet users, for AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance.
| |
|
| | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by videoOip :
Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?
If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal?
I think that only FiOS video on demand uses IP, not a live, "real time" channel like ESPN. Not sure what kind of preferential treatment is given to FiOS VoD content, but it may have to be investigated if it presents an anti-competitive advantage. | |
|
| | |
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by djrobx:Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles. Exactly. Internet network neutrality means you can't hinder nor help Internet traffic based on protocol, as to prioritize VoIP is to deprioritize other Internet traffic.
The core of the matter is this: CDV is not an Internet-based service. You cannot access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... Exactly. If you want to identify Vonage or other traffic you have to inspect the packets. That requires DPI, which most everyone will tell you they don't want. It is either cool to look at packets or not - it can't really be both things at the same time I don't think. | |
|
| | | | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by espaeth:said by djrobx:Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles. Exactly. Internet network neutrality means you can't hinder nor help Internet traffic based on protocol, as to prioritize VoIP is to deprioritize other Internet traffic. The core of the matter is this: CDV is not an Internet-based service. You cannot . Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service. It flows over the same Comcast LAN as other Internet Traffic until it reaches an Peering point and passes to some other ISP's network. The "Last Mile" is carried by a separate channel to the Head End but then gets commingled with all other IP traffic as it flows through the the Comcast network. | |
|
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by RARPSL:Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service. There is nothing Internet-based about CDV. It's using the DOCSIS network to terminate to media gateways on Comcast's network to do SS7 or private SIP/H323 handoffs. None of that traffic touches an Internet backbone.
Standard Internet VoIP can be used on any open Internet connection -- I can go to my neighbor's house with my ATA, or make SIP calls from a hotel room over the Internet. You cannot register to Comcast's SIP gateways over the public Internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... They do not run 2 separate physical networks for this AND that would be the only true way to separate the traffic.
No matter how you dress up the pig, it is still a pig. The traffic flows around the world on the same pipes. At one point or another it all comes together regardless of channel, signal, or protocol. | |
|
| | | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | VoIP = Voice over Internet Protocol
Just because its using a protocol used by the Internet does not mean that it makes use of the Internet. Making use of an Internet protocol does not make it an Internet based service.
Calling it VoIP allows it to get past those +$15/month of government taxes/fees/unfees. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | said by djrobx:There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service.
Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles. There seems to be a lot of definitions of network neutrality. I am of the type that net neutrality is not allowing bribes or holding certain networks hostage or at a degraded speed (yes, you can down mod me... that's just my definition of what appears to be a lot of differing definitions/opinions out there on net neutrality, though mine is probably closer to the original intention of net neutrality). Because of the fact that VoIP and IPTV are extremely latency and packet loss sensitive, I don't have a problem with prioritizing it over data services which are mostly for bulk and do not require even latency or packet loss. As long as everyone's VoIP and IPTV are prioritized evenly (not one provider over another), of course, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure some may use a proprietary solution which may not get prioritized... inviting more problems.
This makes theory sense otherwise everything would have to be extremely overbuilt, because as peak hour comes around, your (maybe very important 911) call or video may stutter or drop completely (in the case of VoIP) as a link approaches capacity.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| And is said 3rd party company going to pay Comcast to use that CDV channel? Then again we'd have people on here calling for Net Neutrality.
You can't please everyone.
But if the Free Press was really Free and could think they'd see and say that the U-Verse and FiOS networks are anti-competitive as it removes the previous ISPs from offering services that were once doing it.
But NOPE! They don't see it that way. | |
|
| |
1 edit | said by RARPSL:There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. Even such a system would likely require hardware or (maybe) firmware upgrades, probably on the CPE side (mind you, I am no expert of DOCSIS, but that makes practical sense). And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service? There is always the possibility of an oversight with DPI especially if one VoIP provider a custom proprietary solution, in which case I'm sure some sue-happy consumer or company would take advantage of. Say there was a directory of VoIP services, that could work, but that's more administrative overhead and likely even more chance of someone crying anti-competitive/net neutrality.
I kinda like another poster's idea that since CDV doesn't travel the public net, it shouldn't be expected to be treated the same as VoIP that runs over the public net. Then again we're back to square one when the FCC requires it be regulated as a telco service since it's on a different channel because of their definition.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? | |
|
| | | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: I can see both sides here... said by bzmeteorite:And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service? How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. As I stated in my comment, the IPN that the connection is going to is that of the VoIP's Server so an attempt to connect there is a GOOD indication of an VoIP session (especially in conjunction with the VoIP Port at the Server side). | |
|
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by RARPSL:How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. There is no designated VoIP port -- UDP ports for RTP sessions are assigned dynamically by the session border controllers during each call setup. That's why VoIP providers have you open up massive firewall ranges like UDP ports 10,000 - 20,000. | |
|
| | | | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I can see both sides here... said by espaeth:said by RARPSL:How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. There is no designated VoIP port -- UDP ports for RTP sessions are assigned dynamically by the session border controllers during each call setup. That's why VoIP providers have you open up massive firewall ranges like UDP ports 10,000 - 20,000. There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060. | |
|
| | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by Matt:There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060. Which is all but useless to identify at a port-level. Giving priority to your SIP signaling for call setup/tear-down and not the voice-carrying RTP streams gains you nothing from an end-user perspective. | |
|
| | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I can see both sides here... said by espaeth:said by Matt:There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060. Which is all but useless to identify at a port-level. Giving priority to your SIP signaling for call setup/tear-down and not the voice-carrying RTP streams gains you nothing from an end-user perspective. There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway. | |
|
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by Matt:There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway. Not quite -- there's a few problem here.
1) There is no way to configure that type of operation in standard Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS devices.
2) The session border controller doesn't need to be same point of termination as the RTP streams. If you use Viatalk, for instance, your device talks SIP to their call managers but the calls hand off to directly to Level(3) gateways -- the destination IP of the RTP stream is delivered in the SIP INVITE.
3) This scheme is easy to exploit. Take the new uTP UDP-based bit torrent protocol -- under this scheme all the client would have to do is send a port 5060 packet to look like a SIP setup and then the UDP-based P2P flow that follows could be classified as protected VoIP traffic. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I can see both sides here... said by espaeth:said by Matt:There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway. Not quite -- there's a few problem here. 1) There is no way to configure that type of operation in standard Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS devices. 2) The session border controller doesn't need to be same point of termination as the RTP streams. If you use Viatalk, for instance, your device talks SIP to their call managers but the calls hand off to directly to Level(3) gateways -- the destination IP of the RTP stream is delivered in the SIP INVITE. 3) This scheme is easy to exploit. Take the new uTP UDP-based bit torrent protocol -- under this scheme all the client would have to do is send a port 5060 packet to look like a SIP setup and then the UDP-based P2P flow that follows could be classified as protected VoIP traffic. 1) It could be added.
2) Then Viatalk may be the exception -- or perhaps my Nuvio service is since the SIP destination is the same as the RTP destination. VoIP providers could simply add an RTP proxy.
3) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my torrent session limited to a hundred kbps or so. And before you say that's per session, it's pretty easy to identify 100+ simultaneous "VoIP" sessions.
FWIW, I'm not holding this up an the ultimate answer, I'm just using it to illustrate there are ways to identify and prioritize 3rd party VoIP sessions. | |
|
| | mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
1 edit | said by RARPSL:There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. Ditto, if Comcast gave other voip companies the same network reliability it offers for its DV service, i'm thinking the FCC wouldn't even have asked the question.
I don't think there shouldn't be any prioritizing to the net, I think that it should be in question when the prioritizing is used as some benefit to them.
said by bzmeteorite:Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Implementation of this should start with the need to standardize what type of flag would be set to tell Comcast, this is voip info and to route it accordingly. | |
|
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | I am just still upset that the FCC only gets involved if there is something to be lost or gained by AT&T, instead of getting involved for the sake of the citizens, freedom of information and for the SAKE OF THEIR DAM JOB! | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about.
But there seems to be a larger question being asked by the FCC here, and we tech geeks and NN-backers are overlooking it because we're steeped in the technical details. That larger question is Is Comcast a phone company? subject to the regulations that phone companies endure.
Comcast has had it both ways -- generally telling the states (like Missouri, for example) that CDV is a VOIP service not subject to certain state regulations and taxes.
They had to see this coming -- even if it wasn't cuddled in a Net Neutrality question, after being lauded as the "third largest telephone company" by Wired in its new issue (17.02 pg 56).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| Re: I can see both sides here... said by funchords:said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse? | |
|
| | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... So if you had NYNEX / Verizon to choose from for landline. Then I had VoIP choices like Callvantage and Vonage and Sun Rocket. Then you get ccable companies offering choices too. Isn't that what is supposed to happen and shouldn't that kind oif competition be encourages? Any of these alternatives have more features for less money that my old landline 10 years ago. And when they came on the market, the landline services started to have better prices and bundles of minutes and stuff like that. | |
|
| | | | | said by devnuller:So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Moving phone to a separate channel on the cable has other, more technically sound reasons going for it. CLI and ingress mitigation come to mind. With the old TDM based system with NIUs, you could move the phone channels around if you had interference.
But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
1 edit | Re: I can see both sides here... said by NetAdmin1:But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason. Bingo! One technology step forward and two steps back. Thanks FCC and everyone pushing for "stick it to the man" regulation!
Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... said by devnuller:Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers. I don't know if the current model of putting voice and data in the same DOCSIS channel was the best idea to start with in this case. If regulation like what is being discusses pushed voice back to a dedicated channel, I don't see that as a "bad thing" necessarily, but I agree that it isn't the best way to get there (being forced by the FCC).
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by devnuller:So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse? Probably not, but the already too-thin pool of Internet access bandwidth ought not be eroded by those other services -- particularly in the midst of using a nasty thing like Sandvine's RST attacks reclaim some of the customer's requested bandwidth so you can sell it again. That's just wrong on its face.
U-Verse is an interesting thing -- bandwidth is sloshing around between Internet Access or TV (VOD?) on a per-household basis. It's another trend I don't like but with current laws, can anything be done?
We definitely don't want to be the country that invented the net and somehow mismanaged our way such that we have only ghetto-style access: That everything else gets prioritized except for the thing that provides the maximum consumer choice!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP. Comcast offers Phone using IP. Why doesn't U-Verse have to go to each city? They claim they're not a cable TV service but yet they offer cable tv. it works over a coax in the home. hmmmm.. sounds like a cable company to me.
Also if you talk to Comcast actually to someone that knows what they're doing they will tell you that the DV actually does NOT touch the Internet. It stays off the Internet and stays on its private network. The Internet is not a private network. Thus why it does not count toward anything on the network. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I can see both sides here... said by hottboiinnc:So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP. First of all, at least in NJ, Verizon is regulated like a cable company, through a statewide franchise agreement.
Secondly, FiOS TV is not an IP based service. In fact the equipment and protocols are virtually identical to HFC cable. Think of it as an 860MHz cable system with the fiber node in your house. | |
|
| | | | said by funchords:It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. So what? My buddy just switched to FIOS due to a great price offer and his phone service shares the same fiber wavelength as his Internet connection. | |
|
| | | | said by funchords:It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS.
Non-cable VOIP provider's services use the "data side connection" not the "voice side connection" of the eMTA/modem and because the traffic originates from the "data side" it is classified "best effort" not "priority". | |
|
| | |
See 7 replies to this post |
| | | said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. That was the old-style of digital telephone before CDV that had its own channel. There was confusion on the other story about which product they were talking about, hence the reason the separate voice channel was mentioned.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
hottboiinnc
thumbs down from:
hottboiinnc
| It's real simple folks..... ...if you want a seat in first class, buy a first class ticket.
Otherwise, park your cheap a$$ in the back of the plane with the rest of the riff-raff. | |
|
|
See 47 replies to this post |
|
 gar187erI do this for a living
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
kudos:1 | positive=negative fact is CDV does not hit the net....thats the main difference as to why its not affected...and the main reason why alot of people like it....
its a no win situation... | |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| I don't like this at all... I realize that IP stands for Internet Protocol, but just because it's an IP based service does not mean it should be treated the same way as broadband internet service
This is no different than AT&T offering IP based television services. You can get U-verse TV or Comcast Digital Voice with no broadband service at all, and it still works.
Third party VOIP services like Vonage rely on the public Internet, and that's well known by anyone who purchases Vonage. The Vonage phone service requires broadband service. That means Vonage becomes a "client" of the Comcast HSI service you purchased, and therefore is subject to Comcast HSI's limitations.
Comcast Digital Voice is not a Comcast HSI client. It is a separate product and something that operates on a network outside of the public internet. So you may pay a bit more for CDV vs. Vonage, but you're getting a potentially more robust product.
If the FCC feels the need to force Comcast to open their voice network up to competition (as we have forced cable MSOs to open their data network to other ISPs), so be it, but it has nothing to do with Comcast HSI's network management techniques.
As long as Comcast is not singling out VOIP traffic and intentionally deprioritizing it, they're not doing anything wrong here. If VOIP services are no longer working well on Comcast since the traffic management changeover, that's certainly a problem that needs addressing. But leave CDV out of it.
-- Rob
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: I don't like this at all... Time Warner only agreed to open their network as part of the AOL merger. That didnt last very long at all. Comcast offers Earthlink as an ISP in very limited area. Maybe a hand full of cities.
Cox doesnt offer anyone else, Charter doesnt offer anyone else, CableOne doesn't, CableVision doesn't.
You'd have to open those networks up as well to offer the same playing field for voice as well, as well as require FiOS to open, and AT$T as well.
That wouldn't go over very well. Even with the new FCC Chairperson coming in. He will be hated right off the start if he decided to do something like that. And the Obama Admin. is stupid enough to do that.
the so called Free Press and everyone else is going to have to learn if you want a First Class Service/product then you'll pay the price for it. If you want the 3rd party service and the price it comes with then you'll take what comes of it. The same thing applies with brand-name foods over generic. Sometimes there is a difference but we don't see the Gov't making General Mills open up their factories to Malto Meal for the same product but at a cheaper price.
While we're at it opening things up we need to get some ISPs on FiOS and on U-Verse too as those should be open too. And I think I deserve to have Cablevision be my cable provider so Buckeye should be forced to open up their cable lines to them. Even though Buckeye built the company out here. But meh. I want CV. | |
|
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: I don't like this at all... said by hottboiinnc:We could go back to- Did Comcast build their own network? Yes. Does Comcast support their own network? Yes. Does Hulu/Netflix build their own network? No. Do they piggy back on someone else? Yes. Does Vonage piggy back on someone else? Yes. Okay see all these yeses of course. So we can go back to Ol' Ed's comments and make the Content Providers and others PAY to be on the network. Ummm -- they pay to be on the network. I pay to be on the network. We're both paying to exchange data with one another. The ISPs ought not be trying to collect both ways.
The Internet would have never happened under that model.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: I don't like this at all... Do you pay for a residential connection. Right? you get residential services. You're services should not be given First Class service just because YOU choose not to use DV and decide to use Skype. You knew going in that.
Comcast should NOT give you nor them the First Class ticket for free.
And I don't see Netflix paying Comcast anything. I don't see them Paying AT$T, I don't see them paying anyone the right to access their network. IF that was the case we wouldn't be talking about this. It would be a moot topic.
if you want your first class ticket buy a first class product and not some cheap ass economy product that depends on QOS. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
1 edit | said by funchords:[The ISPs ought not be trying to collect both ways. The Internet would have never happened under that model. Not sure your history of the Internet, but network cost models is what makes it work. Traffic is paid for on both sides and if you carry it from source to destination (the entire distance) you should be paid both ways.
•If one entity carriers it 1/2 way, they get 1/2.
•If one entity hops it in 1 router and expects the other entity to carry it 99% of the way, then they are just cheating. This is called bad peering ratios done by questionable ISPs, some CDNs, etc
•If one entity sits in a peering point and expects everyone to peer with them so they can carry it 3 meters vs 500 miles, than that is cheating too.
If one entity wants/gets it for free... the other had to pay the other 1/2. I think we all want the consumer to pay the least amount. | |
|
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: I don't like this at all... said by devnuller:Not sure your history of the Internet, but network cost models is what makes it work. Traffic is paid for on both sides and if you carry it from source to destination (the entire distance) you should be paid both ways. Agreed, I'm totally fine with that exception.
That's not what's being proposed, however.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| Kevin Martin got one thing right Aside from his favoritism, Kevin Martin grew a conscience on his way out the door with this statement.
»www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-m···91.story
quote:
"There could be a more regulatory environment," he said. "If you come in with too much of an interventionist approach, you could . . . deter people from investing in the infrastructure."
The economic uncertainty facing companies "makes it even more important you don't reimpose an interventionist approach on infrastructure investment."
Which conflicts with the position here around the opposite of convergence (new way) vs. separation of physical infrastructure (old way)
IP and convergence brings many things... this new FCC regulation may have good intentions on the surface, but bad technology underneath.
Be careful of what you wish for... You just may get it | |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Kevin Martin got one thing right Meh. the people on here doesnt see it that way. They wanted a solid cap number from Comcast they got one; 250gigs. but they're still not happy. They wanted a set way to throttled; well they got one; they're still not happy.
But they still use Comcast. | |
|
| | | | Re: Kevin Martin got one thing right said by hottboiinnc:Meh. the people on here doesnt see it that way. They wanted a solid cap number from Comcast they got one; 250gigs. but they're still not happy. They wanted a set way to throttled; well they got one; they're still not happy. But they still use Comcast. Heh-heh... Sad but true. I used 8GB last month, and that included a full off site backup of all my movies and music and pictures, so I'm not worried. 250GB seems reasonable. If I used more than that I guess I'd have to be home 24x7 and never speak to anyone and my family would report me dead.  | |
|
| | | | | Re: Kevin Martin got one thing right lol. very true. | |
|
| | Consumer Advocates I think you mean Free Press and Public Knowledge. Those were the ones that submitted this complaint to the FCC according to the FCC announcement over the weekend, right? It says Free Press and Public Knowledge at the top of the acrobat file you link to - so it seems by logical extension that those groups are happy. | |
|
| | | Re: Consumer Advocates These are the same groups that are always crying about something. They're never happy. Especially when it comes to Cable Companies.
It starts to make ya wonder where they get their money from. | |
|
| | Dial tone This i bigger than just access to networks. By Comcast doing this it will interfere with thier status as an internet service and more in line as a POTS line. Guess what taxes and fees. Lets face it Dial tone is Dial tone thiwjust shows that cable companies and telco's service are like in the case of network management with the expection of an analog/copper last mile. | |
|
| | | Re: Dial tone I agree. If Comcast wants to treat its phone service as a phone service, then regulate and tax them as such.
If they want to be treated as a VoIP service then they should be on a level playing field. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
1 edit | Re: Dial tone Then it goes back to Who built the network. And then you also can take that back and say that if Phone companies want to get into the CableTV business they have to be treated like a cable company to have a level playing field. Okay then. All State wide agreements would be void then. Any provider- including att and VZ would have their agreements null and void and have to go to the cities to get permission to launch TV. No grand fathering in of any provider.
See how a level playing field on anything could be a problem.
also have you read the phone bill for those "other taxes and fees" they don't tell you what they are except "we can charge you this by law and will to recover what we spend. even if its not in your area." | |
|
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Comcast could open it's CDV VOIP network to third parties No cause then people would call for NN. and say they're paying twice for the same product. And it's not fair. Blah blah blah. And we'd see everything drug through court again. and If you do it to one you have to do it it to the other as well. And you can bet the cable companies would not stand for this. | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| This is made up crap is all I can say, and that's making it more polite than I was thinking.
Two things:
1) the digital phone service does not operate over the same channels as the Internet service. Different thing. Not competing.
2) VoIP services use way less than 100 kbits/sec. This is far below anything that would trigger any capping actions.
This is simply made up red meat to anger tha anti-cable and anti-private-carrier people. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| So simple... Definition of communication:
Communication is the process to impart information from a sender to a receiver with the use of a medium. Communication requires that all parties have an area of communicative commonality. There are auditory means, such as speaking, singing and sometimes tone of voice, and nonverbal, physical means, such as body language, sign language, paralanguage, touch, eye contact, or the use of writing.
Your either communicating or not. It shouldn't matter how.
--
Would you like your ISP to govern how much you can use the web in a month? Well it might happen if we don't do something NOW! »www.ipetitions.com/petition/PMDBI/ | |
|
| mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
4 edits | Re.. updated
cannot delete so body of post removed | |
|
|
|
An open Internet cannot tolerate arbitrary interference from Internet service providers.
Comcast could open it's CDV VOIP network to third parties