Molish wrote:
1) You support ISP's being able to restrict certain data from reaching the end user if it's not from one of "their" paying business partners.
*cough*. "Restrict"? Funny how you make it sound like they wont make it or something (as implied by the comedy skit). The issues I'm talking about have *nothing* to do with ISPs preventing specific types of data from reaching their destination. I'm opposed to that.
That's not what network neutrality is about though. That's the tag line folks use to convince the uninformed though, but that's *not* the actual legistlation they're pushing for. They're trying to make it illegal for companies to prioritize packet transfers based on criteria like source/destination and type. And by "type" I don't mean distinguishing between downloading **** and the latest issue of an engineering journal. I mean "type" as in "is this a time sensitive protocol?". Sheesh.
Quote:
2) VoIP is ALREADY A @#%^ING REALITY, and it works fine for decent connections. Hell, it works fine on a 900mhz polling wireless network at 512kdown/256k up. Their packet information does not need "special" rights. IPTV is also doing ifne on the current tech. They just need to refine it, which takes time. KINDA LIKE STREAMING RADIO AND VoIP.
Do you own a hardline VoIP running through a private PBX? I do. Guess what? It sucks. Bad. You know why? Because right now, unless you buy it as a service from an ISP (and are connecting to another VoIP on the same or affiliated service), the packets are treated the same as any other. Get it? The "all packets are treated the same" methodology is currently applied internet wide. The push being made by the "evil" corporations is to establish protocols internet wide that will allow packets like VoIP, that need higher transmission rates, to be delivered at higher speed *everywhere*. Not just within a single company's network.
Network Neutrality is what's trying to prevent that. Not make it happen. It will end up doing exactly the opposite of what the proponents claim. It will make products like VoIP and IPTV only work well within affiliated networks (or not at all, depending on who's legistlation proposals you look at). You *really* need to read more on the topic then what the screaming crazy web sites say.
Quote:
3) T-1 (and above) class trunks are the only way service is graded. If my T-1 is down\not functioning properly, I get a credit. Period. You talk like they can downgrade service on the actual trunks. They come with very specific GOS.
I have no clue what you think you are proving with this statement. I'm talking about T-1 and higher trunks. You know. The ones that large corporations buy? I've been directly involved in the setup of corporate remote-site networks. I know very well how it works. I can also tell you it's *very* expensive.
Her'es what's going on. Currently, if a large corporation want's to run a site to site network at high speed, they contact the provider(s) that own the physical lines between the two sites. They pay them for dedicated high speed lines. The relevant switches are configured to only allow packets from point A to point B to pass. They add sufficient physical connections "softwired" in this manner to provide the bandwidth requested. They then trunk those in any of a number of manners depending on the customer's specifications.
This section of backbone is effectively removed from the rest of the internet as far as anyone else is concerned. What started all of this was an idea by the backbone providers to utilize newer/faster switches that exist today to allow for a "shared bandwidth" solution. The idea being that as long as the utilization of that segment (or set of segments) is below a certain threshold, other packets will be allowed across the links. This requires a bit of reprogramming, and requires that many different backbone providers all agree to abide by the same standards of service, but it effectively allows *you* and everyone else to use bandwidth that's currently potentially sitting idle because a large corporation has bought it.
This is the "evil" that network neutrality seeks to combat. Yes. It's so evil that we're trying to reconfigure the internet so that people can freely use bandwidth paid for by other people when they're not using it. Yup. That's a crazy idea, and is clearly aimed at ******** over the little guy. Wait... It's not! In fact, it's designed to provide more bandwidth for "free" to "the people". Hmmm... Be careful which side you're on here, cause it's not looking good for you.
Quote:
4) You support big brother by having ISPs check and grade EACH AND EVERY PACKET. What will they do with that info? I don't know, but I sure as @#%^ don't want them to have it anyway.
You're kidding, right? The IP protocol already contains the flags used for everything being done. There's no more inspection of the data then is already done. Do you have *any* idea how IP works? Every packet is already inspected. The headers are read, which contain source, destination, size, type, etc, flags. These are used to allow the network switches and routers to send the packet to the correct destination along the best path possible.
The implication of some kind of invasion of privacy is ludicrous. I'm serious here. Do you know *anything* about this subject?
Quote:
5) Companies will still be able to provide different levels of service LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN, even if NN is passed. It's based on the package speed itself, and what perks you would like with it (battery backup, software, ect). Not by what data you receive.
What the hell do battery backup and software have to do with this? We're talking about how packets are routed across a network. Nothing else. You say it's based on package speed, but you seem to have no clue how that's obtained. You are aware that electrical current travels down a wire at some function of the speed of light, right? They don't go "faster". "Faster" is achieved across a network by increasing bandwidth. The packets don't actually arrive faster. You're able to send more of them at the same time, allowing for more data to arrive at the other end in the same amount of time.
Maybe you should take a newbie course in networking before you start trying to debate this, because you seem to have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Quote:
Right now, companies have been pushing for ISP to give them "special" grades of service. Special, as in I (as a big Co) will have my packets fire in like mad, every time all the time. But the poor ******* at www.aolsucks.com, his ....well...bad things happen to good packets some times.
Yes. How dare folks that pay a thousand times more for their internet service actually get more for their money. Yeah. That's just silly...
Do you even understand what you're saying? If an ISP does not give a company that pays them more for "special" grades of service that allow their packets to "fire like mad", then there's no reason for any company to pay them any more for their network then you do for yours at home. Stop and think about what that means. If we assume that the physical size of the internet stays the same, we can assume that the cost to operate it stays the same. But if you remove any benefit for paying greater amounts (because you don't get greater/faster service), then where's the difference in money going to be made up?
Do you have any idea how much large corporations pay per month for their internet access?
Quote:
NN is already a reality. The Net has been for anyone and everyone who wants to use it. If you want more speed, then fine! Buy a bigger trunk.
You're speaking of it from the perspective of a home user though. Buying a bigger trunk does you no good if 50 feet after your trunk hits the backbone, you're sharing a connection with 50,000 other people who've all paid $20/month for their service. To a home user, "buying a bigger trunk" will improve access rates, because for a home user, the bottleneck is nearly always at the local ISP end (his physical connection into his ISP's network). Once you get into the "we've got 50 offices worldwide with 100,000 users" range, the entire equation changes. You have absolutely no idea how much bandwidth is required by those types of networks, nor how critically important it is that they be able to obtain that bandwidth. Network neutrality threatens to destroy that, which will in turn threaten the largest source of revenue that ISPs gain, which will in turn force them to obtain that revenue from other sources (you!).
Quote:
If you want more reliability, great! Get a better ISP. While I agree alittle bit that this bill might have language that pushes restrictions abit aggressively, the main point of the bill is to stop big Co's from having better service then the poor guy over at www.aolsucks.com
Which is exactly the problem. I just don't know how many more times and ways I can say this. If you stop big companies from having better service then the poor guy over at www.aolsucks.com, then the big companies will no longer pay larger amounts for that service.
Isn't that obvious? What do you think will happen? Sheesh!
Quote:
Go back to the cell phone shop and leave the internets alone.
You're right. What the hell does a senior unix engineer know about computer networks and the internet? Clearly I must be less informed then some crazy with a web site...