Net Neutrality in Danger?

[JonA]

Huh?

How is that related to anything I asked you?

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

I see. So you have no intention of linking your pitiful rambling about phone call pricing to the topic of 'net neutrality', eh?

Just more wasting of my time I guess. At least it's getting easier to see who belongs on the Ignore List around here.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

Yeah... Ignore List for sure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

I see. So you have no intention of linking your pitiful rambling about phone call pricing to the topic of 'net neutrality', eh?

Just more wasting of my time I guess. At least it's getting easier to see who belongs on the Ignore List around here.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

Yeah... Ignore List for sure.

Toodles.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh?

How is that related to anything I asked you?

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

Price congestion? So you seem to be cool with fraud then. IE the whole IP companies advertise speed and bandwidth they can't provide.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

Price congestion? So you seem to be cool with fraud then. IE the whole IP companies advertise speed and bandwidth they can't provide.

You aren't guaranteed a speed to any site on the Internet.

 

[LordKiran]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

Price congestion? So you seem to be cool with fraud then. IE the whole IP companies advertise speed and bandwidth they can't provide.

You aren't guaranteed a speed to any site on the Internet.

While I wont go so far as to call it fraud, you have to admit there's a problem when ISPs all collectively advertise speeds well beyond what anyone not providing their own internet access can actually get. While not legally wrong, it's that sort of McDonalds dishonesty where the food never looks like the picture.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

Price congestion? So you seem to be cool with fraud then. IE the whole IP companies advertise speed and bandwidth they can't provide.

You aren't guaranteed a speed to any site on the Internet.

Still fraud to advertise access to streaming if your infrastructure can't handle it.

 

[Juma]

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

TCP? TCP is session based thus very similar to a telephone call.

UDP on the other hand, and other non session protocols is more like sending a letter.

 

[Juma]

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."

No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.

Price congestion? So you seem to be cool with fraud then. IE the whole IP companies advertise speed and bandwidth they can't provide.

You aren't guaranteed a speed to any site on the Internet.

You could be, but that costs extra.

 

[Juma]

Neutrality with respect to the specific content, using only the quantity and rate passed through the machine to determine service billing, and only applying rate insofar as it affects the universal availability of the service.

"Universal availability" is just a sub-fantasy of the larger fantasy of "net neutrality". If ISPs ensured "universal availability", the Internet wouldn't work.

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

 

[JonA]

"Universal availability" is just a sub-fantasy of the larger fantasy of "net neutrality". If ISPs ensured "universal availability", the Internet wouldn't work.

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

LOL. Apparently someone has forgotten the meaning of the word "universal" and what it all entails.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

LOL. Apparently someone has forgotten the meaning of the word "universal" and what it all entails.

Apparently someone is too old to understand that language changes and has changed, and at any rate changes with context. Universal access means anyone can access anything nowadays. The only limitation, the one we talked about and we're careful to include. Was that of the cost of the gross data rate.

 

[Juma]

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

LOL. Apparently someone has forgotten the meaning of the word "universal" and what it all entails.

No. I have not. Instead of makeing idiotic remarks you maybe could muster a minimal amount of energy and formulate actual arguments?

 

[coloradoatheist]

"Universal availability" is just a sub-fantasy of the larger fantasy of "net neutrality". If ISPs ensured "universal availability", the Internet wouldn't work.

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

No, the throughput of the TCP is dependent on the distance between the sender and receiver. If you are trying to go to a server on the opposite of the world, the throughput will be less than if the server is across the street.

The other difference with TCP over a phone call, is that TCP doesn't have a fixed bandwidth like a phone call, it starts with less and tries and grabs more as it goes along. It's not a big issue when you access a web page once in a while, but a bigger problem for other users if it's a constent attempt.

 

[Juma]

Of course it would. It is only a question of max allowed throughput. If you, as an IP provider, sell more than you can produce then its your problem.

No, the throughput of the TCP is dependent on the distance between the sender and receiver. If you are trying to go to a server on the opposite of the world, the throughput will be less than if the server is across the street.

That is a net topology issue. Not an TCP/ip issue.

You will have a greater lag due to more interviening hardware and in the end the limit of the speed of light, but there is no absolute reason in for having lower throughput.

The other difference with TCP over a phone call, is that TCP doesn't have a fixed bandwidth like a phone call, it starts with less and tries and grabs more as it goes along. It's not a big issue when you access a web page once in a while, but a bigger problem for other users if it's a constent attempt.

These are QoS issues. Not TCP/IP issues.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, the throughput of the TCP is dependent on the distance between the sender and receiver. If you are trying to go to a server on the opposite of the world, the throughput will be less than if the server is across the street.

That is a net topology issue. Not an TCP/ip issue.

You will have a greater lag due to more interviening hardware and in the end the limit of the speed of light, but there is no absolute reason in for having lower throughput.

The other difference with TCP over a phone call, is that TCP doesn't have a fixed bandwidth like a phone call, it starts with less and tries and grabs more as it goes along. It's not a big issue when you access a web page once in a while, but a bigger problem for other users if it's a constent attempt.

These are QoS issues. Not TCP/IP issues.

Latency has a big affect on the throughput. As distance or other delay increases, the throughput goes way down. So applications that care about latency need to be as close to the receiver as possible. That's why they use CDNs located geographically across to try and limit the latency to as many customers as they can. But when companies have to do that, it's considered a normal business decision.

Not sure what you are saying about the QoS there. QoS is implemented to make sure that your applications that suffer most from packet loss and latency get special treatment. But an "Internet" packet doesn't get QoS.

 

[JonA]

LOL. Apparently someone has forgotten the meaning of the word "universal" and what it all entails.

No. I have not. Instead of makeing idiotic remarks you maybe could muster a minimal amount of energy and formulate actual arguments?

As no one has yet offered a definition of "net neutrality" that, if followed through on, doesn't involve bringing the entire Internet to a crippling halt, there is little required of me in terms of counter argument.

Your position, and that of those agreeing with you, is ridiculous on its face. It needs no further investigation, rebuttal, or counter argument to be tossed aside as unreasonable and unworkable.

No one who knows anything about how networks work would enact your version of "net neutrality" as it would fuck the whole Internet. It's really just that simple.

But if you're confused or unsure of how your concept of "net neutrality" is incompatible with a functioning and useful Internet, then I'd be more than willing to explain that all to you.

Is this what you would like? Just let me know.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

I'm also curious what he has to say. But content providers do have to pay to bring their stuff online and what type of performance they want depends on who their customers are.

 

[Juma]

Latency has a big affect on the throughput.
.

Only if you have a lot of interaction. Streamed data (netflix etc) is not affected by latency: viewing a film 2s later is not an issue.