Why is "Net Neutrality" a good thing?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:18 pm    Post subject:

NickF wrote:
Some of this may only be resolved with Anti-Trust legislation as we don't have a competitive marketplace, unless the FCC does something like make ISP's common carriers.


Yes. That's why I'm in favor of local loop unbundling and no net neutrality. The only way to achieve true neutrality is through regulation by the government to enforce neutrality. We shouldn't want that.

A non-neutral, competitive marketplace (with one way being via local loop unbundling) solves everything.

The big myth is that people think they want neutrality. They don't (or shouldn't anyway). Because you can have your neutrality but it might come with poor performance. No one is going to be cheering when that day comes just because everything is neutral.

To your point, a competitive marketplace will force ISPs to ensure the delivery of content meets the QoS their customers demand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:08 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
NickF wrote:
Some of this may only be resolved with Anti-Trust legislation as we don't have a competitive marketplace, unless the FCC does something like make ISP's common carriers.


Yes. That's why I'm in favor of local loop unbundling and no net neutrality. The only way to achieve true neutrality is through regulation by the government to enforce neutrality. We shouldn't want that.

A non-neutral, competitive marketplace (with one way being via local loop unbundling) solves everything.

The big myth is that people think they want neutrality. They don't (or shouldn't anyway). Because you can have your neutrality but it might come with poor performance. No one is going to be cheering when that day comes just because everything is neutral.

To your point, a competitive marketplace will force ISPs to ensure the delivery of content meets the QoS their customers demand.


It's hard to take you seriously because this whole time you've been thinking Net Neutrality is something that it isn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:09 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


Net Neutrality has nothing to do with guaranteeing QoS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revgen
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 10220

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:30 pm    Post subject:

While I don't like the idea of TWC or Comcast throttling my Netflix stream, I'm not in favor of turning the internet into a regulated utility.
_________________
I Recommend VLC Player: http://www.videolan.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:37 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


If you're paying you're ISP for a certain level of service as people are now then it shouldn't matter. If you are paying for 10 Mbps, then you should be getting 10 Mbps, the source is irrelevant. Of course the problem is some sources use a more bandwidth than others and the ISP's realize they can make more money by reneging on the prior agreements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:41 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
NickF wrote:
Some of this may only be resolved with Anti-Trust legislation as we don't have a competitive marketplace, unless the FCC does something like make ISP's common carriers.


Yes. That's why I'm in favor of local loop unbundling and no net neutrality. The only way to achieve true neutrality is through regulation by the government to enforce neutrality. We shouldn't want that.

A non-neutral, competitive marketplace (with one way being via local loop unbundling) solves everything.

The big myth is that people think they want neutrality. They don't (or shouldn't anyway). Because you can have your neutrality but it might come with poor performance. No one is going to be cheering when that day comes just because everything is neutral.

To your point, a competitive marketplace will force ISPs to ensure the delivery of content meets the QoS their customers demand.


Yes well the problem is such a thing is unlikely to ever exist here in the USA, the populace has decided they don't want to take money out of elections, or our political system, so the government isn't going to stop monopolies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:47 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


I'd love to have Equality of Service, I'm paying for a certain level of service, and for what I use, this would be perfectly acceptable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3982
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:15 pm    Post subject:

NickF wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
dvdrdiscs wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Just curious for those in favor of net neutrality -- are you opposed to the use of CDNs by content providers? A CDN is a Content Delivery Network.

Sites that produce content, such as NBA.com, leverage a CDN (by paying for it) in order to deliver its video and other content to you faster and at a higher quality.

Not all websites use a CDN because it costs money to do so. Thus, since not all companies use a CDN to deliver their content, then that is a non-neutral scenario in which not all data is treated the same.



Unless CDNs are delivering the content to you directly, then it's not a fair comparison. It's like saying NBA.com pays X company with faster servers to host their content, while Hoopshype.com can only afford a cheaper company so NBA.com has leverage, therefore this isn't net neutrality.


So then we have to oppose the peering agreements between Netflix (and other content providers) and the ISPs, right?

Because what that is doing is allowing the ISP to essentially act as the CDN (which, as you said, should be off the hook).


No. Offering a CDN is fine.

Forcing it by purposely making the access point slow is not fine.


But you could do that and still be supporting net neutrality right? Because you're just slowing every down.


If you're paying for 10 Mbps then you should be getting 10 Mbps. And how am I slowing anyone down? if the ISP wasn't capable of delivering this level of service they shouldn't be offering it. They want to skimp on building infrastructure to support the service levels they have already agreed to.


Super high speeds for end users are just marketing. How often are you going to use your full speed to download anything other than peer to peer (bittorrent)? I can stream HD video fine on a 3.5 mb connection with a gateway that is not overbooked. You have to remember that you can only get download speeds that are as fast as your content provider is uploading. And this does not even speak to the multiple requests your computer makes to the provider due to buffering. The only time you are going to get the "high speeds you pay for" is when you do a speed test and many of the Javascript based tests are cached by the providers anyhow. If it works for you be happy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:23 pm    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
NickF wrote:
Some of this may only be resolved with Anti-Trust legislation as we don't have a competitive marketplace, unless the FCC does something like make ISP's common carriers.


Yes. That's why I'm in favor of local loop unbundling and no net neutrality. The only way to achieve true neutrality is through regulation by the government to enforce neutrality. We shouldn't want that.

A non-neutral, competitive marketplace (with one way being via local loop unbundling) solves everything.

The big myth is that people think they want neutrality. They don't (or shouldn't anyway). Because you can have your neutrality but it might come with poor performance. No one is going to be cheering when that day comes just because everything is neutral.

To your point, a competitive marketplace will force ISPs to ensure the delivery of content meets the QoS their customers demand.


It's hard to take you seriously because this whole time you've been thinking Net Neutrality is something that it isn't.


I'm operating under what I believe, is the definition that most people think of, when they demand net neutrality. I do realize, that we have other definitions. We have the FCC's definition, and we have a more technical definition, and they may not all necessarily be aligned.

When the average, non-technical person says that they are in favor of net neutrality, what is it that you think they are in favor of?

Because you can achieve neutrality without good performance. Do you think the advocates would be happy that they got what they wanted? I don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:31 pm    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


Net Neutrality has nothing to do with guaranteeing QoS.


That's why I said that "net neutrality doesn't guarantee quality of service". =)

However, the average NN advocate THINKS that achieving neutrality means they will be able to adequately consume content regardless of content type.

But NN doesn't speaks at all to quality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:32 pm    Post subject:

NickF wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
NickF wrote:
Some of this may only be resolved with Anti-Trust legislation as we don't have a competitive marketplace, unless the FCC does something like make ISP's common carriers.


Yes. That's why I'm in favor of local loop unbundling and no net neutrality. The only way to achieve true neutrality is through regulation by the government to enforce neutrality. We shouldn't want that.

A non-neutral, competitive marketplace (with one way being via local loop unbundling) solves everything.

The big myth is that people think they want neutrality. They don't (or shouldn't anyway). Because you can have your neutrality but it might come with poor performance. No one is going to be cheering when that day comes just because everything is neutral.

To your point, a competitive marketplace will force ISPs to ensure the delivery of content meets the QoS their customers demand.


Yes well the problem is such a thing is unlikely to ever exist here in the USA, the populace has decided they don't want to take money out of elections, or our political system, so the government isn't going to stop monopolies.


Didn't they do it with the phone companies?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:38 pm    Post subject:

NickF wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


I'd love to have Equality of Service, I'm paying for a certain level of service, and for what I use, this would be perfectly acceptable.


You could have that and many things could be slow. That ok? You might not notice it with things like email (because email can work just fine on a slow connection), but you would notice it with things like Netflix. But you'd be getting equality.

Alternatively, you could theoretically also have inequality of service but everything works as expected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mhan00
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32025

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:49 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
NickF wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You don't think people would be talking about net neutrality if the internet became essentially unusable while I can stream Netflix in HD?


Sure, but not in the way you think.


Ok.

Technically speaking, could I live in a net neutral world where I have a slow Xbox One multiplayer experience, but fast Netflix?


You're asking the wrong questions.


I disagree. I'm asking the question that the typical net neutrality advocate is fearful of. Now, they may be misguided, but this scenario is precisely what the growing concern with net neutrality is over. That I, as the consumer, won't get the QoS I expect from every content provider that I seek to consume content from.

The general belief is that net neutrality will solve for that. But I don't think it necessarily will. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee Quality of Service. It only guarantees Equality of Service.


I'd love to have Equality of Service, I'm paying for a certain level of service, and for what I use, this would be perfectly acceptable.


You could have that and many things could be slow. That ok? You might not notice it with things like email (because email can work just fine on a slow connection), but you would notice it with things like Netflix. But you'd be getting equality.

Alternatively, you could theoretically also have inequality of service but everything works as expected.


It's been explained to you a dozen times and you're still not understanding. Wow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:14 am    Post subject:

I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17197
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject:

I think there's confusion because there are those speaking as if they're an authority and throwing around buzzwords without understanding the underlying architecture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)


A level playing field is not the same as everything being equal.

The field is level. No traffic gets priority. Period.

You keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the actual regulation of internet traffic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:55 pm    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)


A level playing field is not the same as everything being equal.

The field is level. No traffic gets priority. Period.

You keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the actual regulation of internet traffic.


So do the creators of the Firefox browser (Mozilla) and the technology publication Mashable have it wrong about net neutrality?

If you're saying they are confused, then at least perhaps, you can see why perhaps I'm drawing the conclusions that I am?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:19 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)


A level playing field is not the same as everything being equal.

The field is level. No traffic gets priority. Period.

You keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the actual regulation of internet traffic.


So do the creators of the Firefox browser (Mozilla) and the technology publication Mashable have it wrong about net neutrality?

If you're saying they are confused, then at least perhaps, you can see why perhaps I'm drawing the conclusions that I am?


They aren't confused. You're just not really understanding what they are saying because you're nit familiar with different parts of a network.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:53 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)


A level playing field is not the same as everything being equal.

The field is level. No traffic gets priority. Period.

You keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the actual regulation of internet traffic.


So do the creators of the Firefox browser (Mozilla) and the technology publication Mashable have it wrong about net neutrality?

If you're saying they are confused, then at least perhaps, you can see why perhaps I'm drawing the conclusions that I am?


They aren't confused. You're just not really understanding what they are saying because you're nit familiar with different parts of a network.


99.5% of the people rallying for net neutrality aren't familiar with different parts of a network. It's complicated.

And how do I have it confused? The Mashable article says that net neutrality advocates are calling for the FCC to look at peering agreements. You said peering agreements have "nothing to do with net neutrality".

Somebody is wrong here. Either the Mashable article/author, the "NN advocates" it is referring to, or you. Who is wrong?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:56 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I think you guys are just missing my point (or, I'm not communicating it very well). Or maybe there is just so much darn confusion on this matter in general.

This is from Mozilla's website regarding their stance on net neutrality. (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser)

Quote:
The Web was made to be a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship — a level playing field from which we could learn, connect and create. The FCC's most recent rule proposal, which would allow large companies or others to buy faster and more direct Internet access, threatens that level playing field and the open Web as we know it.


https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

Mozilla says it is about a level playing field. Reflexx says net neutrality has NOTHING to do with leveling the playing field. (LINK)

So which is it?

Then, as it relates to peering agreements, I'm reading that they are definitely tied to net neutrality. Meanwhile, Reflexx is telling me peering agreements have NOTHING to do with NN. (LINK). But here's what I'm reading in the press.

Quote:
Those [peering] agreements do not fall under the FCC's newly proposed rules for regulating how companies control the flow of data on the Internet. Net neutrality advocates are calling for the agency to take aggressive steps to ensure that ISPs are not able to play favorites among content providers.

The FCC will begin looking at the network connection agreements between companies like Netflix and Verizon, a move that could mean more scrutiny over how data is sent to Internet users.


http://mashable.com/2014/06/13/fcc-to-review-peering-deals/

So which is it? (And why is there so much apparent confusion?)


A level playing field is not the same as everything being equal.

The field is level. No traffic gets priority. Period.

You keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the actual regulation of internet traffic.


So do the creators of the Firefox browser (Mozilla) and the technology publication Mashable have it wrong about net neutrality?

If you're saying they are confused, then at least perhaps, you can see why perhaps I'm drawing the conclusions that I am?


They aren't confused. You're just not really understanding what they are saying because you're nit familiar with different parts of a network.


99.5% of the people rallying for net neutrality aren't familiar with different parts of a network. It's complicated.

And how do I have it confused? The Mashable article says that net neutrality advocates are calling for the FCC to look at peering agreements. You said peering agreements have "nothing to do with net neutrality".

Somebody is wrong here. Either the Mashable article/author, the "NN advocates" it is referring to, or you. Who is wrong?


Peering agreements have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Some people are against them because they are another way for ISPs assert their monopoly power because they have a distinct advantage over regular CDNs due to the location of their servers.

You are taking buts and pieces without understanding the architecture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:31 pm    Post subject:

Gotcha. So that means, per the Mashable article, that net neutrality advocates have no idea what net neutrality is then!

They are concerned about something that has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K28
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 10038

PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:41 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Gotcha. So that means, per the Mashable article, that net neutrality advocates have no idea what net neutrality is then!

They are concerned about something that has nothing to do with net neutrality.




You're like one of those people who loses the argument so bad that they have no idea that they've lost the argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:38 am    Post subject:

kray28_ wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Gotcha. So that means, per the Mashable article, that net neutrality advocates have no idea what net neutrality is then!

They are concerned about something that has nothing to do with net neutrality.




You're like one of those people who loses the argument so bad that they have no idea that they've lost the argument.


Except I didn't lose an argument (maybe if you used a 4th smiley, that would have changed things, haha).

Reflexx is wrong (sorry Reflexx). Peering agreements absolutely are tied to the net neutrality debate. I read loud and clear that he doesn't agree. But he doesn't define the term. In the early definition of the term, he is right, it is restricted to the last-mile connection or, the ISP. But, times have changed. The discussion is broadening. He may not be aware of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. And I can prove that the fact the discussion is broadening, is in fact happening.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (LINK)
Quote:
Peering relationships are crucially important to the fabric of the Internet, but today they're often hidden behind a veil of trade secrecy and business strategy. And providers often butt heads in ways that interfere with and shape Internet availability in discriminatory, non-neutral ways. Simply put, peering disputes are a serious threat to the future of our open Internet.


Business Insider (LINK)
Quote:
But he [FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler] has said that net neutrality, as the commission is considering it, applies to what is known as the “last mile” connection, between an Internet service provider like Comcast or Time Warner Cable and the consumer.

Peering arrangements are not part of that universe, Mr. Wheeler has said. That stance has drawn vocal opposition from many net neutrality supporters, who believe that paid-access agreements should be banned wherever they occur.


TechCrunch (LINK)
Quote:
Netflix, therefore, pays the ISP for a direct connection to its network, ensuring that its content can find its way to its customers without delay.

While Netflix is willing to sign peering agreements with ISPs, it doesn’t want to. The company has taken a hard line in favor of what it calls strong net neutrality, a definition that it expands to include the barring of peering agreements.


Time (LINK)
Quote:
Here’s the question: Should paid peering agreements between Internet content companies, bandwidth providers and broadband service providers be covered by net neutrality rules?

Despite the fact that paid peering agreements have been a standard feature of the Internet’s behind-the-scenes architecture for many years — and were explicitly allowed by the FCC — Netflix now wants to frame such deals in terms of net neutrality. “Some big ISPs are extracting a toll because they can — they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay,” Hastings wrote. “Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience.”


Washington Post (LINK)
Quote:
It [peering agreements] would also transform the network neutrality debate. As I mentioned before, the conventional network neutrality debate implicitly assumes that residential ISPs receive Internet traffic from one big pipe. Network neutrality advocates want rules prohibiting ISPs from divvying this pipe up into fast and slow lanes based on business considerations.

But in a world where Netflix and Yahoo connect directly to residential ISPs, every Internet company will have its own separate pipe. And policing whether different pipes are equally good is a much harder problem than requiring that all of the traffic in a single pipe be treated the same. If it wanted to ensure a level playing field, the FCC would be forced to become intimately involved in interconnection disputes, overseeing who Verizon interconnects with, how fast the connections are and how much they can charge to do it.


The conversation has evolved beyond the last-mile. This isn't my opinion, it's a prevailing opinion (as you can see from the articles I listed above) that I happen to also share.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:51 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Gotcha. So that means, per the Mashable article, that net neutrality advocates have no idea what net neutrality is then!

They are concerned about something that has nothing to do with net neutrality.




You're like one of those people who loses the argument so bad that they have no idea that they've lost the argument.


Except I didn't lose an argument (maybe if you used a 4th smiley, that would have changed things, haha).

Reflexx is wrong (sorry Reflexx). Peering agreements absolutely are tied to the net neutrality debate. I read loud and clear that he doesn't agree. But he doesn't define the term. In the early definition of the term, he is right, it is restricted to the last-mile connection or, the ISP. But, times have changed. The discussion is broadening. He may not be aware of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. And I can prove that the fact the discussion is broadening, is in fact happening.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (LINK)
Quote:
Peering relationships are crucially important to the fabric of the Internet, but today they're often hidden behind a veil of trade secrecy and business strategy. And providers often butt heads in ways that interfere with and shape Internet availability in discriminatory, non-neutral ways. Simply put, peering disputes are a serious threat to the future of our open Internet.


Business Insider (LINK)
Quote:
But he [FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler] has said that net neutrality, as the commission is considering it, applies to what is known as the “last mile” connection, between an Internet service provider like Comcast or Time Warner Cable and the consumer.

Peering arrangements are not part of that universe, Mr. Wheeler has said. That stance has drawn vocal opposition from many net neutrality supporters, who believe that paid-access agreements should be banned wherever they occur.


TechCrunch (LINK)
Quote:
Netflix, therefore, pays the ISP for a direct connection to its network, ensuring that its content can find its way to its customers without delay.

While Netflix is willing to sign peering agreements with ISPs, it doesn’t want to. The company has taken a hard line in favor of what it calls strong net neutrality, a definition that it expands to include the barring of peering agreements.


Time (LINK)
Quote:
Here’s the question: Should paid peering agreements between Internet content companies, bandwidth providers and broadband service providers be covered by net neutrality rules?

Despite the fact that paid peering agreements have been a standard feature of the Internet’s behind-the-scenes architecture for many years — and were explicitly allowed by the FCC — Netflix now wants to frame such deals in terms of net neutrality. “Some big ISPs are extracting a toll because they can — they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay,” Hastings wrote. “Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience.”


Washington Post (LINK)
Quote:
It [peering agreements] would also transform the network neutrality debate. As I mentioned before, the conventional network neutrality debate implicitly assumes that residential ISPs receive Internet traffic from one big pipe. Network neutrality advocates want rules prohibiting ISPs from divvying this pipe up into fast and slow lanes based on business considerations.

But in a world where Netflix and Yahoo connect directly to residential ISPs, every Internet company will have its own separate pipe. And policing whether different pipes are equally good is a much harder problem than requiring that all of the traffic in a single pipe be treated the same. If it wanted to ensure a level playing field, the FCC would be forced to become intimately involved in interconnection disputes, overseeing who Verizon interconnects with, how fast the connections are and how much they can charge to do it.


The conversation has evolved beyond the last-mile. This isn't my opinion, it's a prevailing opinion (as you can see from the articles I listed above) that I happen to also share.


Thanks for the links.

I see the congestion has expanded because ISPs finding back for solutions that leverage their monopoly power needs to be looked at. Send more like an ad-on conversation related to net-neutrality. "Take care of this too because ISPs are already finding loopholes."

This still doesn't really make much of what you've been saying that clear though because you come from the position that the goal of net neutrality is equal results as opposed to a level playing field. Fair treatment without artificial benefits or limitations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:49 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
Thanks for the links.

I see the congestion has expanded because ISPs finding back for solutions that leverage their monopoly power needs to be looked at. Send more like an ad-on conversation related to net-neutrality. "Take care of this too because ISPs are already finding loopholes."

This still doesn't really make much of what you've been saying that clear though because you come from the position that the goal of net neutrality is equal results as opposed to a level playing field. Fair treatment without artificial benefits or limitations.


Yeah. So limiting the conversation to the ISP's network, is what is now being considered "weak net neutrality" -- broadening the conversation include peering agreements is considered a "strong net neutrality" stance.

Here is Netflix's official opinion on the stance: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html

Quote:
The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don't restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.

This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.


I'm not necessarily saying the goal of net neutrality is to offer equal results per se. I'm posing the question because I'm trying to understand what it is that people who think they are NN advocates ultimately want. Do they want "weak net neutrality" or "strong net neutrality"? Netflix clearly wants strong, you sound like you want weak. Two different things (which is why I said, there are varying definitions of the term).

If one's goal of NN is to ensure a truly level playing field on the back-end, that MAY mean I'm not getting the quality of service I want, from certain content providers in particular, on the front-end. (For instance, if demand grows and the ISP doesn't upgrade their network because they don't want to or cannot incur the cost and know their customers can't leave them).

But I think the casual NN advocate is thinking, if I want to watch Netflix, I should be able to watch Netflix in HD, just as I am able to check email, watch YouTube, read a blog, etc. And the thing is, we could get there, without strong NN enforced.

If Netflix gets their way, and ISPs are forced to incur the cost to ensure delivery of ALL content to customers at a "sufficient" degree, who determines sufficient I wonder? What happens if they truly can't afford to? Will the FCC mandate that they have to upgrade to a certain point by a certain time? It's hairy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB