How are the 'fatcats' intending to implement their supposed schemes for superhighways for the rich?

If this is just allowing QOS over the network, and actually using it on congested links....then whats wrong with that?

I think I'd agree if their weren't so many conflicts of interest. For instance, suppose Netflix signs a contract with Comcast for x gigachips per month service. Now suppose Comcast QOSes the shit out of Netflix traffic in favor of Comcast content delivery. The connection should be regulated similarly to voice data.

>> ^bmacs27:

The connection should be regulated similarly to voice data.


See, now that I can get behind. These net-neutrality pundits seem to be making out that the big companies want to abuse the way that QOS is assigned....ie. identifying streams from providers that pay a premium and giving them a higher priority, irrespective of the traffic class.

Is this whats actually happening? If thats the case, then the only regulation that needs to be passed is one that enforces the correct application of QOS categorization...ensuring that Voice gets Voice level QOS tagging, video gets video tagging, generic content gets no real priority, and network management protocols get highest (routing / switching protocols).

I dont see how they could make that political at all....present it to congress in that way, and enforce correct prioritization as law. No problem.

>> ^charliem:


These net-neutrality pundits seem to be making out that the big companies want to abuse the way that QOS is assigned....ie. identifying streams from providers that pay a premium and giving them a higher priority, irrespective of the traffic class.
Is this whats actually happening?

No, but that's because the internet has always had Net Neutrality regulation up to this point, through FCC fiat.

Net Neutrality advocates want new legislation that enshrines the de facto FCC policy in law, so that it's not subject to the whims of whoever is FCC chair (or put another way, so that Internet regulation isn't dependent on the honesty of the occupant of the White House).

As for whether the companies would do the things the Net Neutrality activists say they would, the telecom companies are openly saying they need to do things like bandwidth metering, and selling prioritized traffic rights because otherwise they simply won't be able to afford expanding their networks to meet demand.

>> ^charliem:


If thats the case, then the only regulation that needs to be passed is one that enforces the correct application of QOS categorization...ensuring that Voice gets Voice level QOS tagging, video gets video tagging, generic content gets no real priority, and network management protocols get highest (routing / switching protocols).
I dont see how they could make that political at all....present it to congress in that way, and enforce correct prioritization as law. No problem.


Thinking as a technical guy, I agree, that would be ideal. The problem is, who decides what "correct" application of QoS is? The FCC? A standards board dominated by representatives of the telecommunications committees? The network providers themselves?

There's also a problem with enforcement. That doesn't go away under pure neutrality, but at least then you're just testing to see if the service providers are doing any traffic shaping, rather than having to get into the nitty gritty of the specific shaping logic, and then trying to discern whether the intent of each rule was noble (traffic optimization) or criminal (anti-competitive business practice, or an attempt to limit free speech).

Smart companies could and would easily muddy the waters in the second system. (e.g. We're not limiting bandwidth to Netflix because we have a business agreement with Hulu, it's because Netflix is a huge resource hog that's causing slowdowns for our other customers...).

*quality

Goddamnit this shit pisses me off. Data is data. It's all a bunch of 1's and 0's moving through the backbones and pipelines of the Internet.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

We need enhanced home wifi relay system so that the internet is not in the hands of the evil ones.

Something in a 1k to 2k price range perhaps?

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

quality
Goddamnit this shit pisses me off. Data is data. It's all a bunch of 1's and 0's moving through the backbones and pipelines of the Internet.


I disagree with this to some extent, and that is why I'm sympathetic to charliem. Some data needs to pass with minimal interruption to provide a satisfactory user experience. Which is why it is correct to say that some level of traffic shaping is acceptable. For instance, there is an obvious advantage to prioritizing streaming video data over downloaded video data, or text data. Still I think it's important that they legislate those switching priorities so that it only cares about the type of data, not the source of the data.

Dont mistake shaping with prioritization.

One purposefully identifies traffic flows for restricting the available bandwidth (whether necessary or not) , the other ensures priority on delivery in the absence of available bandwidth.

They are two entirely separate beasts.

@charliem, I don't know about two entirely separate beasts. Prioritization is otherwise known as class-based traffic shaping. You're right to say I shouldn't ignore that technical distinction, but the whole discussion with Net Neutrality is about intent.

If you're using traffic shaping to sell a capped amount of bandwidth from a larger pipe, I think we all agree that's okay, so long as the provider is upfront with their customer about what they're purchasing. Net Neutrality hasn't, won't, and shouldn't stop that use of traffic shaping.

I also think that if you use traffic shaping to enhance the overall end-user experience (by prioritizing throughput for video, latency for games, and prioritizing neither for bulk data transfers), that we agree that's ethically kosher.

My point is that it's easy for someone to pretend they're "enhancing the user experience", when their intent is really to limit free speech, or engage in anti-competitive business practices.

We also have the network providers saying they want to implement QoS tiering based on subscription fees as well as implement metered bandwidth services (i.e. you don't pay a subscription fee for a piece of a pipe, you pay per MB or GB of bandwidth used). Only they don't express it as a desire so much as saying that if they don't, their profit margins will be smaller the internet as we know it is doomed.

FCC has done a bang-up job with everything else they've rubbed their grubby paws on, how can we lose?

"BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!"

Yea, it's not like statements are ever taken out of context to successfully demonize anyone in the media these days.

Maybe I'm alone on this, but as long as the details of proposed legislation/regulations are publicly available then I'm really not concerned with every minute conversation associated with it being public record. Conspiracy theories aside, I'd rather they have an honest conversation than a public one as long as any implementation of their conversation is available for scrutiny.