Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Should be able to doesn't mean it is in their best interest to.
It's clearly not, because none of them work that way.

You would think so but when their owners talk about it in the open it's pretty obvious that they don't share your assessment.

resedit wrote:

They do however like to change the default search engine etc. in browser search bars and other crap when you install their "connection" software, but the reality is that doing something like causing lag on a search engine results in costs because customers end up calling in trouble tickets. They know this, which is why they look for other ways to push certain browsers (such as changing default search engine).

Tech support is under no obligation to submit a trouble ticket, it's far more likely the user would get a canned we don't support y use x instead rather then anything meaninful.

http://www.ietf.org/download/rfc-index.txt

Original intent. Clearly indicates 'packets are packets'.

Don't EVER think otherwise.

But "packets are packets" entitles consumer users to do stuff like run servers, and I have no problems with ISP's requiring a business account for that.

Ooh! A Server! How exotic!

Last edited by jerwin (2009-11-02 4:43 pm)

resedit is pro-net neutrality.  The telcos want to discriminate on port 80 traffic.

RatFink wrote:

resedit wrote:

I did.
Care to point out where they demonstrate a current problem as opposed to paranoia?

No ISP is going to invest the time and money to buy the equiptment and set up the deals when the whole thing can be shut down in a heartbeat.  Paranoia is unfounded fear, when ISPs talk openenly about their intentions, it is prudence not paranoia.

What kind of equipment do you think it is that they need that they do not have?

Hint - they could do it now if they wanted to.

Many of them use deep packet inspection now to throttle P2P.

But if fear of having the rug pulled out from under them keeps them from doing it, then we don't need legislation that will have unintended consequences.

It seems to me the rationale behind the net neutrality is the same as the zero tolerance laws. Intentions are good, but the laws are bad.

With broadband wireless, the "monopoly over lines to house" argument pretty much falls apart. You don't have to run a line to the houses in order to provide them with broadband.

As Kev pointed out, freeing up analog broadcast opens up even more wireless broadband.

The problem doesn't exist now, increased free market competition from wireless broadband will keep it that way.

-=-=-

Now - if you are talking about rights to access backbone, yes - that does need to be accessible, and packets are packets.
That's not what net neutrality addresses though.

resedit wrote:

Many of them use deep packet inspection now to throttle P2P.

By many you mean very few place in which trials of the technology are in place and only within the last couple years.  The equiptment is still extremely expensive.

resedit wrote:

But if fear of having the rug pulled out from under them keeps them from doing it, then we don't need legislation that will have unintended consequences.

That only works until there is no immediate threat of passage.  You may not be able to find drugs just before and a few weeks after a major drug bust but it doesn't mean that once things cool off that dealers won't be back up to their old game.

resedit wrote:

It seems to me the rationale behind the net neutrality is the same as the zero tolerance laws. Intentions are good, but the laws are bad.

Speaking of paranoia what specifically about these bills before congress is bad?  Specifics not paranoia.  I really doubt you have even read the bills.

resedit wrote:

With broadband wireless, the "monopoly over lines to house" argument pretty much falls apart. You don't have to run a line to the houses in order to provide them with broadband.

Unless you factor in that wireless at any power (including ISM bands over a watt) able to provide any distance to be profitable requires a governemnt issued licence, and to get a licence you basically need to prove that you will not interfere with exsisting licence holders.  Basically if you are lucky you can have 2 players using ISM bands.

resedit wrote:

As Kev pointed out, freeing up analog broadcast opens up even more wireless broadband.

That band has been sold years ago.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-11-02 7:29 pm)

resedit wrote:

Many of them use deep packet inspection now to throttle P2P.

But if fear of having the rug pulled out from under them keeps them from doing it, then we don't need legislation that will have unintended consequences.

It seems to me the rationale behind the net neutrality is the same as the zero tolerance laws. Intentions are good, but the laws are bad.

With broadband wireless, the "monopoly over lines to house" argument pretty much falls apart. You don't have to run a line to the houses in order to provide them with broadband.

As Kev pointed out, freeing up analog broadcast opens up even more wireless broadband.

The problem doesn't exist now, increased free market competition from wireless broadband will keep it that way.

-=-=-

Now - if you are talking about rights to access backbone, yes - that does need to be accessible, and packets are packets.
That's not what net neutrality addresses though.

Res, it is of critical importance that we don't allow corporations or organizations have veto authority over any portion of the Internet. We laugh at China for attempting such a system, and yet we have companies in the US and Europe that would attempt it - not for political reasons, but for economic reasons.

Why is it so hard to believe that allowing equal access to all players is more important than the profit margin of a few ISP's? What are we getting in return for letting them block or degrade competitor's services to their customers?

Nothing.

Thus, we need laws that says if they do degrade competitors traffic, we are going to come down on their ass like the wrath of God. That, and that alone, is what will keep them in line.

Speaking of paranoia what specifically about these bills before congress is bad?  Specifics not paranoia

I gave specifics.
According to the bills, if example.net wants to use bt as their content distribution distribution model, then ISP's may not throttle bt unless they are able to maintain a white list of trackers, which is not realistic.

There already are businesses that use bt as a distribution model. Many of those businesses (IE CentOS, Red Hat, Ubuntu) also make their content available via http and/or ftp - but net neutrality bills do not make that a necessity, and some do not (when they really should).

Thus even though the claim is that NN laws will still allow bandwidth throttling for P2P - the reality is that they can't, because those who write the laws don't understand the tech and how it is used.

With the exception of "on demand" streaming, the burden should be on content distributors to make their content available by standard http or ftp (hence my solution of specified ports that are neutral) but the way the bills are written, that's not the case, they put the burden on the ISP to have to know the content is not legitimate legal traffic before they can use a bandwidth shaping tech.

Most ISP's currently do not allow servers as part of their agreement, and by that policy, they can outright block P2P if they wanted to.
But with P2P as a content distribution model they can't even do that under NN.

There's a good reason for them to block servers. Remember Code Red?
That largely spread as fast and furiously as it did, bringing down entire networks all over the place, because of SQL servers running on consumer broadband. MS had patched it ages before the worm but a large number of idiot home users who didn't even know they had it installed had unpatched installs and the result was routers crashing right and left.

Specify ports for standard web/email as neutral, specify a range of ports for on demand services where P2P can still be blocked, specify a range of ports for VOIP where anything not VOIP can be blocked, and let the ISP's manage all the other traffic however they see fit.

Doh - not code red,  sql slammer.

resedit wrote:

Speaking of paranoia what specifically about these bills before congress is bad?  Specifics not paranoia

I gave specifics.
According to the bills, if example.net wants to use bt as their content distribution distribution model, then ISP's may not throttle bt unless they are able to maintain a white list of trackers, which is not realistic.

The bill allows network managment so long as it's done in a non-discrimiatory manner.  How about chasing another windmill.

resedit wrote:

RatFink wrote:

resedit wrote:

Speaking of paranoia what specifically about these bills before congress is bad?  Specifics not paranoia

I gave specifics.
According to the bills, if example.net wants to use bt as their content distribution distribution model, then ISP's may not throttle bt unless they are able to maintain a white list of trackers, which is not realistic.

The bill allows network managment so long as it's done in a non-discrimiatory manner.  How about chasing another windmill.

Did you read a word that I wrote?

Non discriminatory manner means they can't do bandwidth blocking or shaping of P2P because some legitimate content distributors use P2P to distribute their content, and bandwidth shaping P2P thus discriminates against them.

Non-discriminatory means it doesn't discriminate.  Meaning all like traffic is treated the same.  If all bittorent traffic is treated in the same manner then it’s non-discriminatory regardless if it’s turfed to a lower priority level.  If you cannot understand that simple concept you have no business discussing this issue.

resedit wrote:

Please explain why NN has to apply to all traffic and not just specified ports?

Limiting to ports would be a best useless and at worse damaging to the internet as developers write apps out of spec using those ports so their content should be treated neutrally.