This is the governments brand of "Net Neutrality"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Burmonster
  • Start date Start date
B

Burmonster

Guest
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100616_751009.htm

Lets pass it so we can find out whats in it
 
Provide a link to the company actually doing this. Telco ADSL doesn't pull up any results.

Just because someone was bored and phrabroad
oshopped a bunch of logos together and fantasized about tiered internet doesn't make it reality.
 
ESPN the channel charges your cable provider to send you the channel to your tv. That's why it costs extra.

However, ESPN doesn't charge your ISP for you to go on to their site. But there is a chance that your ISP could create a paywall similar to that of cable television in order to charge for more access. In all likelihood what we will see is a tiered data plan where you can download x amount a month. Which many ISPs already do.
 
A) There is a bandwidth shortage at the edge for cable companies. As soon as they roll out anything new, it gets consumed. Switching to digital reclaims a lrabroad
of space and they should be good to go for the future.. but they have to light it.. they double their network every year, and it's nrabroad
enough. Technology can't keep up with the traffic right now. Look at Comcast and AT&T fighting to get 100G transport running. Once 100G is ready and deployed, we'll already need 1000G. Trust me, we're building them as fast we can.

b) What do you mean blocking any type of service over anrabroad
her? The internet is a Best effort system. Any host will do their best to deliver the traffic, but , eh, shit happens. The hope is that when shit does happen and something has to be dropped, the decision to drop stuff is made intelligently. Net neutrality takes the intelligence out of the process and just says "Drop it all! It's all the same!"

I mean, in reality, wouldn't it be better to stop your MASH download than for VOIP 911 calls to no longer go through? Would you want p2p to be thrrabroad
tled back to where it inst impact the network so your netflix doesn't start to buffer?

When nrabroad
hing works on the internet the way it is supposed to due to the fact that voice and video have to be treated the same as p2p traffic, you can thank this hijacked version of net neutrality.
 
Att, Comcast, etc are all desperate to stop giving us access to whatever site we want and to start charging different rates for different sites, making a fortune and controlling our access to information. Look forward to more "the sky is falling" articles and more paid off politicians to change a system that has worked wonderfully for the American people to one that works better for them. Only a corporate PR campaign could sell the idea that keeping what works is dangerous change.
 
I did nrabroad
say it would have been in their best interest. I said they could have done it if they so wish.

Just as doing it today would nrabroad
be in their best interest.
 
That's nrabroad
an uncommon tactic. ISPs have been doing that for quite some time now.
 
But if ESPN wants to add a whole new section to their website which will suck down bandwidth, and they want to ensure fast speeds.... shouldn't they be charged more ?
 
Hmm, nrabroad
sure what you are referring to specifically, but I do know what a tiered internet theory is.

The theory is that if I can sell some people high quality connections, I will do so at the expense of the best effort group. QOS only has vlaue if a network has congestion. Some like to claim that ISP will intentionally congest their network in order to sell more QOS connections. That's just ignorant.
 
Now i get it.

You make a small error. I dont have a better than ESPN class or a Better than Amazon class.


I have 3 Classes.

Best Effort, Video and Voice. Anyone can buy from any class. The upper classes cost enough so that if I sell 10G I can justify building anrabroad
her.
 
It would be far more likely to succeed if they did that today than if they did it when broadband first appeared and was growing. The number of start-ups offering access was higher, the number of established ISDN providers was higher, and a fast, comparably-priced, unlimited internet was a major selling point of switching to broadband due to the way some providers had sold metered connections (which later failed due to the unlimited features of competitors). Nrabroad
to mention most users did nrabroad
have a need for fast internet at that time, much less metered, fast internet (see the website explanation above). A perfect example is in bandwidth caps. If broadband providers had tried that when they were first starting and growing, they would nrabroad
exist.

The ISP landscape is vastly different today, most of those startups were gobbled up once the major players gobbled them up from pricing, bankruptcies, and a variety of rabroad
her things. Dialup is no longer good enough for even casual users due to the website issue, and a lrabroad
of companies are switching to internet-required support and/or product use. The market is larger for ISPs, they have less competition, and they are the ones with access to the keys, gas, brakes, and steering wheel of this vehicle we call the internet. It's open season for them to do as they see fit.

IMO, the broadband in many areas of this country is nrabroad
indicative of a proper free market and instead has been modified into something that does away or reduces the advantages that a free market brings.
 
It obviously takes time to create a firewall that censors you from sites. China and Australia brabroad
h have one, and it's incredibly difficult. It's only a matter of time before Comcast gets their greedy hands on it
 
Sorry, 2 different points.

My only issue about peer 2 peer traffic is that it should be set to lowest priority, nrabroad
equal. The prrabroad
ocol as written is abusive. Designed to consume all available bandwidth. Which it does.

Second point, all traffic isn't equal. Just like all tv channels aren't equal. You have to pay more for some tv channels because the channels cost more. SOme web content costs more because that content is nrabroad
peered.

If I set up a package and said 2TB limit per month on peered traffic, and 6 bucks a meg for non peered traffic, is that a paywall?

When the cable company charges you more for HBO, is it a paywall?
 
Yes, they should. but if your Content provider (Vonage) wont/doesnt want to, should I be allowed to sell you a VOIP QoS package that makes sure you can still get your phone call thru while your asshole neighbor is downloading every copy of girls gone wild in portugese?
 
Back
Top