Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category ISPs Whine About Network Neutrality 'Paranoia'
Suddenly think lobbyists shouldn't play network engineer....
10:13AM Wednesday Aug 20 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: competition · business · cable · net-neutrality
After the FCC voted to "sanction" Comcast earlier this month for throttling P2P traffic, the network neutrality debate thankfully quieted down. Apparently unhappy with this tranquil lull in hyperbole, executives from several major ISPs met in Aspen this week at a think tank event to hint that network neutrality was both an "absurd" and "paranoid" argument. A theme throughout the event seems to be that network management is an engineering problem, best left alone by politicians, consumer groups, lobbyists and the unwashed masses:
"The issue was an engineering issue," Waz said in a panel discussion following Lynch's speech. . .Both Comcast and Verizon said that engineers, not lawyers and lobbyists, should be making network management decisions.
In fact, it was engineers (just not theirs) who discovered that Comcast, instead of specifically and intelligently targeting congestion, was using a sledgehammer to manage P2P by throttling all users regardless of consumption -- and then lying about it. It was the nation's largest ISPs who spent millions on lobbyists who don't understand technology and whom distort the issue for political effect -- who more than anyone contributed to the "paranoia." Complaining about lobbyist involvement seems a little disingenuous.

Related:
  1. Tax Incumbents for Accessing Google
  2. Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
  3. Telco Sock Puppet Wants Comcast Investigated
  4. NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
  5. What Net Neutrality? UK ISP Defends Throttling
  6. Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
  7. Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
  8. Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
Forums » ISPs Whine About Network Neutrality 'Paranoia'
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Suddenly think lobbyists shouldn't play network engineer....

Business execs shouldn't play network engineer either.
There is a happy middle ground, however, this is more like a union vs. management debate, and neither party will give an inch.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA


edit:
August 20th, @10:25AM

Engineer vs Agenda

Network Neutrality means different things to different people. It all depends on your agenda as to how you are presenting it.

In a number of much more technical engineering forums (vs BBR) there is a fair amount of consensus that traffic priority/management of interactive vs non-interactive is the right thing to do in congested situations. How this is done is a different discussion.

Here in BBR there are more end users than engineers so the conversation focuses on more entitlement aspects of broadband vs the technical merits of network management. If you debate the majority, you are called a "fanboy". Many times it is not worth the effort as a few (who I am sure will reply to this) are not worth debating.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..

join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

Re: Engineer vs Agenda

said by telcolackey See Profile :

In a number of much more technical engineering forums (vs BBR) there is a fair amount of consensus that traffic priority/management of interactive vs non-interactive is the right thing to do in congested situations. How this is done is a different discussion.
Can you post links to some of these? I'd be curious to peruse....

said by telcolackey See Profile :

Here in BBR there are more end users than engineers so the conversation focuses on more entitlement aspects of broadband vs the technical merits of network management. If you debate the majority, you are called a "fanboy". Many times it is not worth the effort as a few (who I am sure will reply to this) are not worth debating.
People are posting their opinions in a public forum. At my work, we call this Voice of the Customer. It's worth listening to if you are in business to provide service to customers.

cw

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME

Re: Engineer vs Agenda

You may find it difficult to believe, but the larger the industry, the less 'listening' that is typically performed, and more bullish the management is on promoting a generic service which will maximize revenue.

Eg. Many 'indie' ISPs as well as other institutions will listen to what their customers want, as their customer base is smaller (eg. DSL-Extreme is a good example of this - providing good service, keeping out of the traffic shaping business with a basic no-frills Internet connection).

Larger 'mega corp' tend to dictate policy and direction, as there are many customers (millions) to deal with, and a $1 saving or extra revenue per customer means lots of $$$ in general.

Neither really care about you personally... just that with a smaller company, your voice can be heard. There are a few exceptions to the rule (e.g. current iPhone 3G issues on mega corp AT&T). This comes down to something more like a special interest group.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net

said by wentlanc See Profile :

said by telcolackey See Profile :

In a number of much more technical engineering forums (vs BBR) there is a fair amount of consensus that traffic priority/management of interactive vs non-interactive is the right thing to do in congested situations. How this is done is a different discussion.
Can you post links to some of these? I'd be curious to peruse....
Do a search for QOS (for example »A word on QOS and prioritization )

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

said by telcolackey See Profile :

Network Neutrality means different things to different people. It all depends on your agenda as to how you are presenting it.
You're right, but so does the idea of Free Speech. Free Speech means different things to different people, but the concept has a solid well-understood root.

Network Neutrality is rooted in the traditional behavior of the network, which did not treat a packet any differently based on its source, destination, or contents to determine precedence over other packets.

Expand that thought and you get the more famous Network Neutrality principles that one person cannot pay to delay, degrade, or deny the service of someone else.

said by telcolackey See Profile :

In a number of much more technical engineering forums (vs BBR) there is a fair amount of consensus that traffic priority/management of interactive vs non-interactive is the right thing to do in congested situations. How this is done is a different discussion.
It's an important discussion, and it's been had dozens of times, and it comes up often. The IETF keeps coming up with the same answer: the end user (through his applications) can choose the priority however he likes. The ISP has the choice of whether and how much to respect those choices or not, but does not have the choice of imposing its own choices, instead.

RFC 2474 et. al. (covering DSCP) is an example.

The reason is clear -- we can't have 100 different versions of how the Internet works and expect applications to interoperate in that environment.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

DownTheShore
Save The US Auto Industry
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:

said by telcolackey See Profile :

.
Here in BBR there are more end users than engineers so the conversation focuses on more entitlement aspects of broadband vs the technical merits of network management. If you debate the majority, you are called a "fanboy". Many times it is not worth the effort as a few (who I am sure will reply to this) are not worth debating.
Interesting that you dismiss any possible responses to your remarks-out-of hand. I suppose, though, that if the people you dismiss as "fanboys" turn out to be right, then that jeopardizes those engineering jobs, so I understand your dilemma.

Isn't the end-user, though, the ultimate arbiter? If it wasn't for us, there'd be no need to worry about the traffic at all. It's well and good to try to figure out a way to manage the system, but if the public perception is that their constitutional rights are being abrogated for the sake of the providers' convenience or to meet some political agenda, then it doesn't matter how pure the "engineers" motives may be - it is the perception of the providers' motives that is going to drive the public's response.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

Re: Engineer vs Agenda

Perception is reality. Facts don't really mean much.

There are more rights than wrongs on both sides of the debate. Net Neutrality has turned so religious and agenda based that engineering, facts and data mean very little. It is all how the message is spun and which multi-billion dollar business (content companies, ISPs, broadband etc) gets ahead of the cost curve.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

Re: Engineer vs Agenda

So far today, your inputs have been rather fact free yet I'm the one with the "agenda" naming RFCs and explaining why things are the way that they are and specifically how to move forward.

I'm also offering the fact that it isn't easy and perhaps isn't even practical, but that the right thing to do is to fix it at the standards level before arbitrarily unleashing it on the Internet.

You can call Network Neutrality a religion, but it is no more a religion than Freedom of the Press, is it?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
cybercrimes

join:2003-12-24
Phoenixville, PA

control

its all about control

ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI

ISPs can't win!

This situation reminds me of the old joke:

If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

If they don't throttle the p2p thieves, the 3rd party VoIP crowd won't be happy.

OTOH, why cater to a bunch of p2p thieves?
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten!

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

Re: ISPs can't win!

said by ib50MbSoon See Profile :

If they don't throttle the p2p thieves, the 3rd party VoIP crowd won't be happy.
Most members of the "3rd-party VOIP crowd" supports Network Neutrality. In fact, Comcast has announced a special collaboration with Vonage to ensure that its "protocol agnostic" solution doesn't affect Vonage. Comcast wouldn't have to do that if it behaved according to Internet Standards.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable

Re: ISPs can't win!

What internet standards? I didnt know there was a document that stated what every company had to follow. The rule is if you don't like what a company is doing or how you're treated you don't do business with them.

Simple as that. The same applies with Comcast- if you don't like the way they manage their network don't use it.
bbenso1

join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD

Re: ISPs can't win!

said by hottboiinnc See Profile :

The same applies with Comcast- if you don't like the way they manage their network don't use it.
But it's not always that easy. What if your choices are Comcast's network or no broadband? This is exactly the case in many places.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH

Re: ISPs can't win!

I would use Comcast. I see no problem what they're doing. It's their network. follow the rules and be done with it. If you go over 350 or 400 gigs a month then you should have you account slowed or canceled.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: ISPs can't win!

Hottboiinnc

Why? If all of an individual's downloads were done between say midnight and 8am, how is that hurting anyone else's service? This(effecting other people service) is not an issue of the amount that is downloaded or how it is being downloaded(for instance p2p) it is about when it is being downloaded(and of course greed). Downloading during those off hours also does not effect the ISPs capacity, so there is no extra capital expense for these downloads. The easiest way around this is to implement an open speed cap during off hours(to be automatically determined node by node on every X time frequency). Assuming that each node normally handles 30K users(without issue), when the traffic drops below 50% of capacity drop the speed caps. Let those that are downloading a lot (or anybody up at those hours) download as fast as the system can handle (say up to 90% load capacity of the system). That will keep the heavy users off the system during high load times (6pm to 11pm). If you could download after midnight at 50MB/s why waste your time downloading at 8MB/s during prime hours? Doing this would avoid caps (bad PR), throttling(more bad PR), and would cost very little to implement (always a good thing). The only thing preventing this model is greed. The ISPs see the HUGE markup for charging overages ($1.50 /GB that costs sub $0.12 /GB). But there is also a matter of the greed of users. Users have to learn that doing large downloads during prime time is inconsiderate to their fellow users (ie greedy).

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

Re: ISPs can't win!

+100 points for Lazlow See Profile!

In fact, I think ISPs ought to take the top 5 most popular high-bandwidth background-transfer applications (4 or 5 of these will be P2P applications) and make specific voluntary recommendations for scheduling limits for upload and download windows. And as usage patterns change, they ought to revise them. Doing this would help both user and ISP.

For example, it might look something like this:

M-F 3:30 pm - 8:00 pm local ... 300 KB/s download limit, 11 KB/s upload limit

All other hours ... 500 MB/s download limit, 24 KB/s upload limit
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: ISPs can't win!

I think in order for it to work that it would have to be dynamic (load based). Now how frequently the load would have to be checked and what percentage of total load capacity would be allowed is something that would have to be tested. As a first guess I would think every fifteen minutes would be sufficient with a 90% percent of capacity load cap. The load cap would insure that if somebody gets up at 2am to check the weather (or whatever) they would still see "normal" web speed.

Why such a low upload cap(24 KB/s)? Even Docsis 1.x has 9 Mbit/s usable (shared) bandwidth. The 90% (or whatever final number worked out) should take care of making certain there was sufficient bandwidth to insure "normal" web response.

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR

Re: ISPs can't win!

I think I once figured out that 24 KB/s would not max out the system until 45-50 people were doing it -- it seems conservative, I know, but 25 people doing uploads would take up 4.8 Mbps of the available bandwidth.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: ISPs can't win!

That is why my method is better. Assuming Docsis 1.x which has a shared usable bandwidth of 9Mbps. If you hold the cap at a level of 90% of 9Mbps(rough 8Mbps) then everyone can hold at a maximum upload rate with enough left over for people to still browse "normally". So if there was only one guy uploading he could have the entire 8Mbps, if two then 4Mbps, and so on. If you go up to Docsis 2.0 then the usable upstream goes to 27Mbps, 3.0 and it goes to 108. If the cap floats in this manner (assuming maintaining current tier floors) the maximum amount of downloading could occur while incurring virtually no additional expense to the ISP. The system would of course independently also handle downstream in the same manner with the downstream usable limits being 38 for both Docsis 1/x and 2.x, while 3.0 would be 152(4channel) and 304(8channel). Docsis 3.0 would also be limited in that most current home routers(internet side) and modems are only 100mbit. I still find it strange that a GigE router usually only has a 100mbit input.

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

Re: ISPs can't win!

First off, I think that the ISPs ought to convey this information as advice for users to voluntarily follow, not only for the best experience for all users but also to be good enough for users who just want to "set it and forget it." It's just the right and smart thing to do. And if an ISP gets a speed-demon in its ranks, rather than reading him the riot act, maybe they can call and explain the problem, ask for his cooperation, and point to some ready-made pages that help him understand the problem and configure his system in a better way.

Secondly, I don't know that 90% of (anything) would leave a lot of room for "bursty" responses. At 90%, I think that most commercial gear are dropping packets preemptively anyway, trying to get the speedier senders to slow down (lookup Random Early Drop).

And finally, there is a reality that Cable wasn't built for uploading -- not in DOCSIS 1, 2, OR 3. Although the numbers have gone up through time, the asymmetry really hasn't changed all that much and its Cable's asymmetry -- a conscience design decision wholly within their control -- that is underlying their bandwidth "crisis."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: ISPs can't win!

The problem with set it and forget it, is that life does not work that way. Take weekdays from 9am-3pm during the school year, most systems are under a fairly light load. Now throw in a snow storm or any other event that closes school. Now suddenly the system is flooded at a time that it would normally be idling along. College usage is the same way. The week of and before exams everyone is hammering the books, the week after everyone is hammering the net. Life just does not follow a schedule.

The 90% was just a first guess. You would need a number that would always allow the stray individual checking the weather radar to be able to do so at a reasonable response time. But that "reserved overhead" (for lack of a better name), should be relatively small. Lets assume Docsis 1.0. If it is set at the 90% level then there would still be 4Mbs (38*.10) of bandwidth left over for our insomniac to check the weather. If he stays up longer (uses more bandwidth) the float would be cranked down (I think I suggested that it would be reevaluated every 15minutes). The 90% and 15 minute numbers would need to be dialed in to determine what fit the best.

I do not think that asymmetry is the source of the bandwidth crisis (I do not think there is a bandwidth crisis to start with). Most (certainly not all) people are more concerned with download speed anyway. While having no upload capacity to ask for the next whatever can be an issue it is a relatively rare thing.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
yah but then again you would have to resue Comcast and sue everyone else because they're telling you how you can use your connection.

espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq

said by funchords See Profile :

Most members of the "3rd-party VOIP crowd" supports Network Neutrality. In fact, Comcast has announced a special collaboration with Vonage to ensure that its "protocol agnostic" solution doesn't affect Vonage. Comcast wouldn't have to do that if it behaved according to Internet Standards.
There are no standards that define the policies and criteria for how traffic must be differentially queued, only descriptions of the mechanics and theories about how such goals can be achieved.

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast

Re: ISPs can't win!

said by espaeth See Profile :

There are no standards that define the policies and criteria for how traffic must be differentially queued, only descriptions of the mechanics and theories about how such goals can be achieved.
That's right, and that's on purpose. The IETF seems to have structured this so that the end host should have the purview to set the handling instructions and that the network operator has the purview to decide whether and how to follow them.

That solves a number of problems, but it also creates a few in the application to Internet users that are increasingly non-technical in nature and many, many network programs that don't use DSCP since nobody has really done this on a residential network before.

I personally don't mind using opt-in DPI as a substitute for this gap. The DPI device could then mark the DSCPs according to signature, but do so acting on behalf of the end-user. I think that would solve a lot of problems that users are currently struggling with and it would help the ISP, too. Having it opt-in would hopefully drive the ISPs to act more honestly about what it does and it would require the user to actually be informed (versus some buried text in a TOS somewhere). Most users would want to turn this on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
jaminus

join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA

Re: ISPs can't win!

What's wrong with delaying non time-sensitive packets so time-sensitive packets can get to the next hop on a a timely basis during times of network congestion? Most people, myself included, aren't likely to notice an extra 100ms on an HTTP session. But that sort of jitter can severely degrade VoIP or online gaming. Inspecting each packet and classifying it by application type is one method ISPs can use to configure their systems to reduce the likelihood that time sensitive packets will suffer on account of network congestion. Application layer QoS really does make a lot of sense, even if existing standards don't spell out the details of a DPI-based traffic prioritization regime on the ISP level.

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast


edit:
August 20th, @05:56PM

Re: ISPs can't win!

said by jaminus See Profile :

What's wrong with delaying non time-sensitive packets so time-sensitive packets can get to the next hop on a a timely basis during times of network congestion?
Nothing.

said by jaminus See Profile :

Inspecting each packet and classifying it by application type is one method ISPs can use to configure their systems to reduce the likelihood that time sensitive packets will suffer on account of network congestion.
Except they can't always know whether a use is real-time or not. Identical algorithms in BitTorrent not only supports background file transfers, but it also supports real-time streaming. DPI equipment can only guess as to what it is.

said by jaminus See Profile :

Application layer QoS really does make a lot of sense, even if existing standards don't spell out the details of a DPI-based traffic prioritization regime on the ISP level.
It seems to be "the new black" but none of these many network vendor companies have made their case to the satisfaction of the IETF.

That said, I'm not against it myself -- but until it's Internet Standard, it needs to be done on an opt-in basis.

Secondly, it can't be an alternative to growing your network capacity as fast as you normally ought to -- and that's really what's behind this. For every dollar spent on DPI, ISPs are told that they'll save $10 on network upgrades. Now don't step in the marketing, but if that's even partially true, it's a Pandora's box leading to death by congestion.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast


edit:
August 20th, @10:31AM

Who is responsible for making DPI "horrible"

From the linked article...
said by Verizon CTO Richard Lynch :

"I do get very, very concerned that the people who are taking things like deep packet inspection and making it a horrible thing need to look at it from an engineer's viewpoint."
Question: Who made DPI "horrible"?

a. Network Neutrality supporters such as Free Press and Public Knowledge
b. The appliance vendors who created a variety of DPI solutions and sold them to whomever would buy them
c. The ISPs who bought them and installed them into their systems?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

Re: Who is responsible for making DPI "horrible"

d. all of the above
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH

Verizon

Hmmmm. It's interesting that the CTO of VZ was there and giving a speech about network neutrality.

Who wants to be that VZ will be next ISP preforming Network Management.
EPS

join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

Re: Verizon

Trying to look at this in the best possible light, perhaps Verizon doesn't want legislation requiring all ISPs to have network neutrality because they want to be able to use it as a competitive advantage against cablecos?
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH

Re: Verizon

no such thing as Net Neutrality. It's not an issue.

But you can most bet that VZ will start their own pratice of something. Maybe a cap at 350gigs?

AD7BK

join:2000-03-23
Port Orchard, WA

AYBABTU

All Your Bandwidth Are Belong To Us!
'Nuff Said!

AD7BK

join:2000-03-23
Port Orchard, WA

Re: AYBABTU

Ok it seemed Finally the All Your Base joke FINALLY died
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..

join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

Why all of the lying?

This is the crux of network neutrality. You do NOT have to degrade traffic at all. Merely give priority for certain applications. Notice I did not say certain companies applications???

What's most important, and where Comcast screwed up, is no to lie about what you are doing. I don't believe that corporations have rights to privacy when they are providing services. They should be transparent in what they do.

cw

See 19 replies to this post

NOZIREV

join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA
·Comcast

Cablecos should be

able to do whatever they want to do with there traffic. If they say that they need to throttle hsi services for network management reasons who's to say they cant. Is there a law that says they cant do it? No there isnt so instead of complaining might as well deal with it...

See 14 replies to this post
russotto

join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA

As an engineer...

...I know that anyone who thinks engineers make decisions like this is dreaming. It's not engineers, it's management, marketing, and bean-counters.

meh37

@verizon.net

Just because you're paranoid...

doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

So, who planted the seed of this "paranoia"? Was it a telco CEO saying that he thought Google should pay his company due to all of its customers who were using its network to get to YouTube? (as if the ISP has the right to dictate where its customers may go on the Internet using the access that they purchase from the ISP)

Don't I remember reading that even the Comcast engineers who were tasked with implementing the 24/7 forging of packets thought it was a stupid idea but that management told them to do it anyway? Maybe "managers" should stay out of network "management" too.

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY

Re: Just because you're paranoid...

That would be Ed Whitacre. He thought that Google should have to pay him so they could access his users or else they were getting a free ride.

Of course, he was ignoring some basic facts:

1. Google pays for their bandwidth. Their ISP pays for their upstream bandwidth and so on up the pipe until you get to the peering arrangements with the largest ISPs. So Google wasn't getting a free ride at all.

2. Users request files from Google before Google sends it to them. Google wasn't just sending large video files to users at random. The users would first request the files and then Google would send them. If anything, Google was offering a service that increased the value of the Internet and made it possible to sell high speed access to users. So perhaps Whitacre should have been paying Google to allow his users to access Google's website. (Just kidding, of course, but Whitacre's "logic" could easily be flipped around.)

I often used the analogy of a pizza restaurant that has phone service with Verizon. AT&T notices that their customers are calling the pizza place to order pizza. AT&T then accuses the pizza place of profiting off of AT&T's phone lines without paying AT&T, and demanding a cut of the profits. AT&T, in this example, is ignoring that the pizza place pays for their own phone service through Verizon just as Whitacre was ignoring that Google paid for their own bandwidth through their own ISP.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com

Millenniumle

join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY

...

If the internet is going to not just survive, but blossom, ISPs are going to need to provide unfettered internet access and consumption. If the government doesn't step in and require it we will lose it to corporate ISP profit.

It's just that simple.

telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

Re: ...

Da Comrade!

bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Longmont, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..

Re: ...

said by telcolackey See Profile :

Da Comrade!
Because mon- or duopolys are soo free market.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget

"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau

sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by telcolackey See Profile :

Da Comrade!
Ti znaeshi pa Russkiy, tovarisch ? Pryecrasno.
--
Treason is a matter of dates

asdfdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

The key problem...

... is that a small number of for profit companies control the last mile infrastructure. Decisions are not made, at these companies, by engineers. They are made by managers to maximize profit. Because of this it becomes extremely difficult to untangle how network management is driven by the technical needs of network operations and how it is driven by ulterior motives to extract revenue and undermine competition. Companies will constantly use network management for political and economic purposes.
These companies are driven by political and economic realities, not engineering, and therefore the response has to be political and economic. It can not be simply an engineering response. If these companies want to turn decision making over to the engineers then we can have a discussion based on that new reality. As it is now, it is absurd to make a plea to leave it to the engineers.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard

join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Re: The key problem...

long haul carriers are no angels either, they have no real competition unless your needs are near multiple fiber hubs.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..

join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
Absolutely, we have a winner!

If the engineers were in charge, we would have symmetrical gigabit fiber at home. I know that I over engineer most of my projects, which then get slashed back by finance.

cw

maartena
Nice'n Round.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable

All I want....

Is a friggin' connection and an IP address. Nothing more. No special services, no forced software, no "free" anti-virus or anti-spam, not even e-mail or usenet, I will provide those myself.

Connection. IP address. Bare bones. Please.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father.

Bellundo

@bell.ca

In Canada they speed throttle you to 30/30 Kilobytes

In Canada you get speed throttled down to 30 kilobytes per second download and 30 kilobytes per second upload speed. Some people pay 100 dollars a month for a 16 meg connection but never ever see that speed. Why? They work a day job like most normal people and sleep at night and work during the day. Sympatico which is now Bell internet speed throttles from 4:30pm to 2:00am every day of the week including the weekend. 7 days a week 365 days a year. 366 days a year in a leap year.
Forums » ISPs Whine About Network Neutrality 'Paranoia'


Friday, 09-Jan 06:05:32 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole